Get documents about "November 10_ 2009 CITY OF BRENTWOOD CITY COUNCIL
Document Sample
November 10, 2009
CITY OF BRENTWOOD
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA
City Council Chamber, 101B Sand Creek Road, Brentwood, CA 94513
A complete packet of information is available for public review at City Hall or on our website at
www.ci.brentwood.ca.us
Any disclosable public records related to an agenda item for the open session of this meeting distributed
to all or a majority of the City Council less than 72 hours before this meeting is available for inspection at
City Hall, located at 708 Third Street during normal business hours .These writings will also be available
for review at the City Council meeting in the public access binder in the entrance of the City Council
Chambers.
CLOSED SESSION
5:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER CITY COUNCIL
Roll Call
PUBLIC COMMENTS
At this time the public is permitted to address the City Council on items that are on the Closed Session Agenda, or items not on the
agenda. Persons addressing the City Council are required to limit their remarks to five (5) minutes unless an extension of time is
granted by the Mayor subject to approval of the Council. Please file your name with the Mayor on the form provided at the podium.
Speakers desiring answers to questions should direct it to the Council and, if relevant, the Council may direct it to the appropriate
staff member.
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION – 101B Sand Creek Road, Presentation Room
1. City Council Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9: CONFERENCE
WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Case Name: One Potential Case.
2. City Council Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9: CONFERENCE
WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant exposure to litigation. Case
Name: One Potential Case.
WORKSHOP
6:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER CITY COUNCIL
Roll Call
A Council Workshop for review and direction to staff for Downtown Fountain at Oak and First Streets (C.
McCann/G. Rozenski/SDG Architects)
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
7:00 P.M.
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/CALL TO ORDER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY – 101B Sand
Creek Road, City Council Chamber
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION (If any)
PRESENTATIONS
A. A presentation on the launch of the Brentwood Grown website. (H. Wetherford)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
At this time the public is permitted to address the City Council/Redevelopment Agency on items that are on the Consent Calendar,
Requests for Future Agenda Items, or items not on the agenda. Persons addressing the City Council/Redevelopment Agency are
required to limit their remarks to five (5) minutes unless an extension of time is granted by the Mayor subject to approval of the City
Council/Redevelopment Agency. Please file your name with the Mayor on the form provided at the podium. Speakers desiring
answers to questions should direct it to the City Council/Redevelopment Agency and, if relevant, the City Council/Redevelopment
Agency may direct it to the appropriate staff member.
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed on the consent calendar are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by one motion. If discussion is
required, that particular item will be removed from the consent calendar and will be considered separately.
1. Approve minutes of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting of October 27, 2009. (M.
Wimberly)
2. Accept the Arts Commission recommendation to put the Brentwood Library Photography project
on hold until the second phase of the Library construction occurs. (C. Bronzan/P. Scherff)
3. Receive and file the Friendship Request Form for youth sports programs. (C. Bronzan/P.
Scherff/B. Gary)
4. Receive and file the revised Refund Policy for recreation programs and activities. (C. Bronzan/P.
Scherff)
5. Receive and file the 2009 CornFest Evaluation Report. (C. McCann/H. Wetherford)
6. Establish an ad hoc Solid Waste Transfer Station Subcommittee; appoint Vice Mayor
Stonebarger and Council Member Becnel as Subcommittee members; request that the
Subcommittee carry out Council direction of October 27, 2009 related to the proposed solid waste
transfer station. (D. Landeros/D. Brower/B. Grewal)
7. Adopt a Resolution approving the purchase of three (3) Ford F250 Super Duty Pick-ups and one
(1) Ford Fusion from Bill Brandt Ford in Brentwood, California and authorizing the City Manager
or designee to execute a purchase order and necessary documents in an amount not to exceed
$77,579. (B. Grewal/C. Ehlers/S. Dempsey)
8. Adopt a Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute a change
order and necessary documents to increase the Downtown Ford Sales purchase order by $1,095
for a total amount not to exceed $126,848 for the purchase of five (5) 2010 Ford Crown Victoria
Police Interceptors with extended warranties due to an increase in state sales tax. (B. Grewal/C.
Ehlers/S. Dempsey)
9. Adopt a Resolution accepting all off-site public improvements for maintenance; accepting the
Maintenance Bond; releasing the Improvement Securities; and directing the City Clerk to file this
Resolution with the Recorder of Contra Costa County, for Design Review No. 01-43, developed
by Mercy Housing, located at the northeast corner of Shady Willow Lane and Sand Creek Road.
(B. Grewal/H. Silfies)
10. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Engineer or designee to execute and submit a grant
application and all other related documents to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for
the 2009/10 Transportation Development Act, Article 3 Program for funding in the amount of
$277,200, for the Sunset Road in-pavement crosswalk system, Kirkman Road curb ramp, and
Balfour Road sidewalk projects. (B. Grewal/S. Kersevan)
11. Adopt a Resolution approving Temporary Use Permit No. 09-17, allowing the Chamber of
Commerce to close several downtown streets and temporarily establishing no parking restrictions
and tow away zones, as part of allowing the use of City-owned property for the 27th Annual
Holiday Parade and the Brentwood Advisory Neighborhood Committee’s (BANC) annual
Christmas tree lighting ceremony, for one day, Saturday, November 21st, between the hours of
1:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., located within the downtown. (C. McCann/J. Zilm)
12. Adopt a Resolution approving, and authorizing the City Manager to execute, an agreement with
CalPERS to allow the City to pre-fund other post employment benefits through the CalPERS
California Employer’s Retiree Benefit Trust Program and delegating authority to the City Manager
and City Treasurer/Director of Finance and Information Systems to request and certify the
purpose of disbursements from the trust. (P. Ehler/K. Breen)
13. Adopt a Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute a third
amendment to the lease agreement with the Contra Costa Community College District pertaining
to Los Medanos College located at the Brentwood Education and Technology Center. (P.
Ehler/D. Davies/M. Huber)
14. Adopt three Resolutions that approve and authorize the City Manager to execute amendments to
the following 457 Deferred Compensation Plans (“Plans”) to permit employee loans: International
City/County Management Association Retirement Corporation (“ICMA-RC”), California Public
Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”), and VALIC Retirement Services Company
(“VALIC”). (K. Chew/P. Standley)
15. Adopt a Resolution approving an agricultural conservation easement for Preston Ranch
Assessor’s Parcel Number 011-140-013 as originally proposed in accordance with the
recommendation from the Agricultural Enterprise Committee. (C. McCann/B. Mason)
16. Adopt a Resolution to increase, by $75,000, the amount authorized to be spent during Fiscal Year
2009/2010 for litigation services provided by Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver and Wilson for a total
not to exceed amount of $150,000. (D. Brower)
17. Waive the second reading and adopt Ordinance 876 approving a rezone (RZ 08-07) for the
Brentwood Business Park project, located on approximately 43 acres west of Sellers Avenue,
north of the ECCID Main Canal and east of Guthrie Lane (APN 010-160-037, 038, 039, 041, 042
and 043). (C. McCann/E. Nolthenius)
PUBLIC HEARING
Persons addressing the Council/Redevelopment Agency are asked to file their name with the Mayor on the form provided at the
podium. The Council may adopt reasonable regulations at the onset of the public hearing to facilitate public testimony. These
regulations may include time limits. In the absence of such regulations, the public hearing shall follow the protocol for Public
Comments.
18. Consideration of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No.
2000122013) and an amendment to Chapter 17.730 (Agricultural Land Conservation) of the
Brentwood Municipal Code, as recommended by the Planning Commission of the City of
Brentwood. (C. McCann/B. Mason)
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS, SUBCOMMITTEES AND
LIAISONS: This portion of the agenda is to provide an opportunity for Council Members to report on
attendance at events, subcommittee meetings, and entities on which the Council Member has been
appointed as a liaison.
REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
I NEW REQUESTS (Council Members wishing to have an agenda item placed on a future agenda
shall make a request under this section of the agenda. These items will be included on the
agenda for the next Council meeting).
ADJOURNMENT
NOTICE
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the meeting room is wheelchair accessible and disabled
parking is available at the City Hall Parking lot. If you are a person with a disability and you need disability-related
modifications or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (925) 516-
5440 or fax (925) 516-5441. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. {28 CFR 35.102-35, 104 ADA Title II}
POSTING STATEMENT
On November 5, 2009, a true and correct copy of this agenda was posted on the City Hall Bulletin Board, outside City
Hall, 708 Third Street, Brentwood, CA 94513 and at our website www.ci.brentwood.ca.us
Closed Session 1
Closed Session 2
Minutes for CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Page 1 of 10
CITY OF BRENTWOOD
CITY COUNCIL AND
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, 7:00 P.M.
OCTOBER 27, 2009
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Chris Becnel Robert Taylor, Mayor Brandon Richey
Robert A. Brockman Erick Stonebarger
CALL TO ORDER (6:00 PM) - 101B Sand Creek Road, Presentation Room, Brentwood, CA 94513
Roll Call
Present: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor
PUBLIC COMMENTS - None (6:00 PM)
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION - 101B Sand Creek Road, Presentation Room (6:01 PM)
Motion: Enter Closed Session - 101B Sand Creek Road, Presentation Room
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Stonebarger.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor
1. City Council Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a): CONFERENCE
WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION. Name of case: City of Brentwood v. Peter C.
Landgraf, et al.
RECESS CITY COUNCIL (6:44 PM)
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/CALL TO ORDER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 101B Sand
Creek Road, City Council Chamber (07:01 PM)
Pledge of Allegiance (07:03 PM)
Roll Call (07:03 PM)
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION (If any) - None (07:03 PM)
PRESENTATIONS (07:03 PM)
A. Presentation from the John Marsh Historic Trust to the City Council
Gene Metz, John Marsh Historic Trust, expressed appreciation on behalf of the Board of Directors
for providing funds for the general plan for the State historic park, and the stabilization. He
introduced Bill Wasson who presented hats to the Council.
http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=1096&doc_id=09a21... 11/5/2009
Minutes for CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Page 2 of 10
PUBLIC COMMENTS (07:08 PM)
Kathy Fredenberg spoke in opposition of building the Civic Center over City Park and presented
notices of intent to recall Council Members Brockman, Becnel, and Mayor Taylor.
Blythe Lind spoke asked Council to consider funding a water feature back into the City Park plan and
felt it was an important element for the City Park.
Sandra Meyers spoke about City Park and asked Council to consider adding the water feature back
into the Park, since the Civic Center project bids had come in under budget.
Harry York, Chamber of Commerce, expressed support on moving forward with the Civic Center
project, spoke about a successful and safe Hometown Halloween, said he supported the letter to
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), suggested asking why UPRR was parked by residential area
and expressed concern about the UPRR bridge near the area where the railroad cars were parked.
CONSENT CALENDAR (07:21 PM)
1. Approved minutes of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting of October 13, 2009. (M.
Wimberly)
2. Received and filed informational report on Final Map approval by the City Manager of Subdivision
No. 9152, Sciortino Ranch, developed by New Urban Communities. (M. Wimberly/B. Grewal/J.
Dhaliwal)
3. PULLED FOR DISCUSSION - Authorize the City Council or designee to sign a letter to Union
Pacific Railroad (UPRR) regarding UPRR’s Mococo line. (D. Landeros/P. Eldredge)
4. Adopted Resolution 2009-205 approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute
a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Brentwood and the Agricultural - Natural
Resources Trust of Contra Costa County for transaction-based conservation easement services. (C.
McCann/B. Mason)
5. Adopted Resolution 2009-206 approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute
a Reimbursement Agreement with Signature Properties, Inc., Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8534,
consisting of 177 units, located south of Jennifer Street, immediately west of the current City limits,
north of Sycamore Avenue, for costs associated with Master Plan Facility Improvements. (B.
Grewal/P. Eldredge)
6. Adopted Resolution 2009-207 accepting all off-site public improvements; accepting the
Maintenance Bond; releasing the Improvement Securities; and directing the City Clerk to file this
Resolution with the Recorder of Contra Costa County, for Subdivision No. 8808, St. Martin’s Place,
developed by Mark Taylor, located south of Grant Street and east of Fairview Avenue. (B. Grewal/H.
Silfies)
7. Adopted Resolution 2009-208 approving the form of and authorizing the execution and delivery of
a purchase and sale agreement and related documents with respect to the sale of the seller’s
Proposition 1A receivable from the State; and directing and authorizing certain other actions in
connection therewith. (P. Ehler/K. Breen)
8. PULLED FOR DISUCSSION - Adopt a Resolution authorizing a budget amendment and related
expenditure from the City’s Agricultural Land Trust Fund 263 in an amount up to $1,852,002 to fund
the purchase price of a 140.56 acre agricultural conservation easement for Preston Ranch
Assessor’s Parcel Number 011-140-013 to be held by the Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust (BALT)
in accordance with the recommendation of the Agricultural Enterprise Committee. (C. McCann/B.
Mason)
http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=1096&doc_id=09a21... 11/5/2009
Minutes for CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Page 3 of 10
9. Approved warrants from warrant lists dated September 30th, 2009 and October 7th, 2009. (P.
Ehler/L. Schelbert)
CONSENT CALENDAR ACTIONS: (07:21 PM)
Motion: Approve Consent Calendar Items 1 - 9, excluding Items 3 and 8.
Moved by Stonebarger, seconded by Brockman.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor
3. Authorize the City Council or designee to sign a letter to Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) regarding
UPRR’s Mococo line. (D. Landeros/P. Eldredge)
Per Mayor Taylor’s request, City Clerk, Margaret Wimberly, read the letter addressed to Union
Pacific Railroad, which advocated the move of the railroad cars from residential areas.
Motion: Authorize the City Council or designee to sign a letter to Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)
regarding UPRR’s Mococo line.
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Stonebarger.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor
8. Adopt a Resolution authorizing a budget amendment and related expenditure from the City’s
Agricultural Land Trust Fund 263 in an amount up to $1,852,002 to fund the purchase price of a
140.56 acre agricultural conservation easement for Preston Ranch Assessor’s Parcel Number 011-
140-013 to be held by the Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust (BALT) in accordance with the
recommendation of the Agricultural Enterprise Committee. (C. McCann/B. Mason)
Council Member Becnel requested a change in the easement regarding attorney’s fees in the section
regarding the court having discretion to award the prevailing party. The land owner will be
responsible for the attorney’s fees, except in the situation where the Brentwood Agricultural Land
Trust acts with gross negligence or misconduct. He asked if the item could be approved subject to
the change.
Vice Mayor Stonebarger asked about language for covering attorney’s fees in developer contracts.
City Attorney, Damien Brower, said the language was sometimes included depending on the issue
and it varied from contract to contract.
Vice Mayor Stonebarger said he was concerned about the language change due to the time
constraint and said BALT and the land owner had not been presented with the change yet.
Council Member Becnel said if there was a violation of the conservation easement, it would be done
by the property owner or occupant subject to the property owner’s granting. He felt the property
owner should bear the cost to enforce the conservation easement, and he did not want to leave it to
a judge’s discretion and felt the property owner was responsible.
Council Member Brockman said he did not want to place the easement in jeopardy and wanted to
see the wording change. He referred to an email and asked what position the City was in since he
believed the change would need to go back to the land owner and BALT for review before
agreement to the terms.
City Attorney, Damien Brower, read the following proposed language which would replace the
second to the last sentence in Section 6A of the Easement and would need to be agreed to by BALT
and the property owner before it would be put in the agreement: "In any action filed pursuant to
http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=1096&doc_id=09a21... 11/5/2009
Minutes for CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Page 4 of 10
Section 6A, the property owner shall pay all parties attorney’s fees except in the event the court
determines the Land Trust has acted with gross negligence or willful misconduct".
Council Member Brockman said he was in support of moving forward if there was a consensus.
Vice Mayor Stonebarger asked about closing costs and if the closing transaction would be in
jeopardy by the end of the year if the item was delayed by two weeks.
Kathryn Lyddan, Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust (BALT), said BALT would need to move forward
with the transaction since time was limited and costs were approximately $3,000. It was a matter of
the third party and the property owner that would be bearing the attorney’s fee cost.
Council Member Brockman said he was in support of moving forward.
Mayor Taylor asked about approving the agreement with the new language.
City Attorney, Damien Brower, said the change to the document was small, and if Council approved
the document subject to the change, the parties could sign off and it would not come back to the
Council for approval of the change. If there were concerns, Council could have the item
return or send the document to the Agricultural Subcommittee for discussion and suggestions first.
Motion: Approve Item 8 with the wording change to the last sentence in Section 6A of the Easement
and adopt Resolution 2009-209 authorizing a budget amendment and related expenditure from the
City’s Agricultural Land Trust Fund 263 in an amount up to $1,852,002 to fund the purchase price of
a 140.56 acre agricultural conservation easement for Preston Ranch Assessor’s Parcel Number 011-
140-013 to be held by the Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust (BALT) in accordance with the
recommendation of the Agricultural Enterprise Committee. (C. McCann/B. Mason)
Moved by Becnel, seconded by Brockman.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor
PUBLIC HEARINGS (07:35 PM)
10. Staff recommends continuance to the meeting of November 10, 2009 - Consideration of an
amendment to Chapter 17.730 (Agricultural Land Conservation) of the Brentwood Municipal Code
and certification of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No.
2000122013) analyzing the project, as recommended by the Planning Commission of the City of
Brentwood. (C. McCann/B. Mason)
Director of Community Development, Casey McCann, recommended continuance to the meeting of
November 10, 2009.
Motion: Continue to the meeting of November 10, 2009 - Consideration of an amendment to Chapter
17.730 (Agricultural Land Conservation) of the Brentwood Municipal Code and certification of the
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2000122013) analyzing
the project, as recommended by the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood.
Moved by Stonebarger, seconded by Becnel.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor
11. Consideration of a Resolution adopting a mitigated negative declaration and an ordinance
approving a rezone (RZ 08-07) for the Brentwood Business Park project, located on approximately
43 acres west of Sellers Avenue, north of the ECCID Main Canal and east of Guthrie Lane (APN
010-160-037,038, 039, 041, 042 and 043). (C. McCann/E. Nolthenius)
http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=1096&doc_id=09a21... 11/5/2009
Minutes for CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Page 5 of 10
Vice Mayor Stonebarger recused himself due to financial conflict, said he was related to and worked
with some of the parties, and left the Council Chamber.
Principal Planner, Erick Nolthenius, presented a staff report, said the site was within the PD-24 zone,
included a total of six parcels, and no specific plans had been submitted. The General Plan
designated the site as mixed use business park development and the bulk of the site would be able
to accommodate a variety of services, including retail office and light industrial uses. Impacts
relating to the single-family homes would be minimized and the Land Use and Development
Committee reviewed the project and did not note any significant concerns. The Planning
Commission considered the project on October 6, 2009, and recommended approval of the
environmental document and the Rezone.
Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing.
Brent Aasen said the item was to set up more detailed zoning under the shell Planned Development
and would eventually bring jobs and strengthen the foundation of the community.
Motion: Close the public hearing.
Moved by Brockman, seconded by Becnel.
Vote: Motion carried 4-0.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Taylor
Absent: Stonebarger
Motion: Adopt Resolution 2009-210 adopting a mitigated negative declaration; and
waive first reading and introduce Ordinance 876 approving a rezone (RZ 08-07) for the Brentwood
Business Park project, located on approximately 43 acres west of Sellers Avenue, north of the
ECCID Main Canal and east of Guthrie Lane (APN 010-160-037,038, 039, 041, 042 and 043).
The City Clerk read the title of proposed Ordinance 876.
Moved by Becnel, seconded by Brockman.
Vote: Motion carried 4-0.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Taylor
Absent: Stonebarger
OLD BUSINESS (07:43 PM)
At 7:44 PM, Vice Mayor, Erick Stonebarger, returned to the Council Chamber.
12. Adopt a Resolution consenting to the creation of a new district governing board for the East
Contra Costa Fire Protection District based on proportional representations of unincorporated
portions of the County of Contra Costa, the City of Brentwood and the City of Oakley populations;
requesting that the existing district governing board adopt the necessary resolutions to effectuate
the governing board changes to provide for proportional population representations, method of
appointment, director qualifications vacancies and elections of officers. (D. Landeros/P. Eldredge/D.
Galey) (07:43 PM)
City Manager, Donna Landeros, presented a staff report and said the City would have four
representatives on the appointed board and the City of Oakley would have three representatives and
there would be two representatives from the unincorporated area. The item was passed by the
County Board of Supervisors unanimously, and was before the City of Oakley on October 27, 2009.
Should both the cities of Brentwood and Oakley approve the resolution, the item would go back to
Board of Supervisors, acting as the Board of the Directors for the Fire Protection District, at
their meeting of November 10, 2009, for their final approval, and the transition period would
commence in February.
Mayor Taylor opened public comments.
http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=1096&doc_id=09a21... 11/5/2009
Minutes for CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Page 6 of 10
Stephen Smith thanked Council and staff for the work on the resolution and said he felt this was the
necessary next step for resources to protect the City population and first responders.
Vince Wells, President of Local Firefighters 1230, thanked Council for taking the lead on the issue
and said he appreciated support received from the County Board of Supervisors. The Firefighters
believed a local governance would be more beneficial due to the issues faced in East Contra Costa
County and the Firefighters were in support of the resolution.
Mayor Taylor closed public comments.
Vice Mayor Stonebarger expressed thanks and said he felt the creation of the governing board was
an opportunity to make a difference.
Council Member Richey felt the plan for the fire board did not address the funding issues, how
many paramedics would be on every engine, or firefighter safety based on staffing, pay, and equity
for the firefighters.
Council Member Becnel said the resolution did not solve all the problems and to solve funding
issues, Council would have to ask the people of the fire district to take responsibility, and he did not
want to ask the people of far east Contra Costa County if there was not the ability to control how the
funds were spent.
Council Member Richey felt the creation of a new district governing board would not provide a long
term resolution.
Council Member Brockman said he felt there was a chance to move forward and he was in support
of the new district governing board.
Mayor Taylor said this was good for east Contra Costa County and provided a say in the jurisdiction.
Motion: Adopt Resolution 2009-211 consenting to the creation of a new district governing board for
the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District based on proportional representations of
unincorporated portions of the County of Contra Costa, the City of Brentwood and the City of Oakley
populations; requesting that the existing district governing board adopt the necessary resolutions to
effectuate the governing board changes to provide for proportional population representations,
method of appointment, director qualifications vacancies and elections of officers.
Moved by Stonebarger, seconded by Becnel.
Vote: Motion carried 4-1.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Stonebarger; Taylor
No: Richey
13. Adopt a Resolution authorizing staff to proceed with the design and bidding of the Solid Waste
Transfer Station Expansion, CIP Project No. 542-54020. (B. Grewal/P. Eldredge)
Assistant Director of Public Works/Assistant City Engineer, Paul Eldredge, presented a staff report
and background on the proposed Solid Waste Transfer Station Expansion project. The proposed
transfer station had been sized to accommodate build-out needs of the City based upon the current
General Plan and there were no plans to accept waste materials from any outside jurisdiction or
agency. This would require additional transfer station expansion and Council action to do so in the
future. The proposed facility is not sized to accommodate anything other than the needs of the City
and its customer base. The City is in a position to finance a portion of the project using a
combination of existing cash reserves and debt financing.
A period of questions by Council and responses by staff followed.
Mayor Taylor opened public comments.
http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=1096&doc_id=09a21... 11/5/2009
Minutes for CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Page 7 of 10
Austin Weaver, representing Pittsburg Transfer Station and Recycling Center, referred to
correspondence submitted informing Council that Pittsburg Transfer Station wanted to conduct
business with and save money for the City. He said the City was proposing to spend between $7
million and $10 million on an expanded and relocated facility and he felt the current analysis was
inadequate. He offered to provide exceptional service with reduced price to the ratepayers and City.
He offered to conduct a study for the City, felt he could provide the cheapest and best service, and
said the facility allowed the City to meet diversion rates. He requested continuation of the matter
and offered an independent study as to the cost and cost savings of the alternative analysis.
Council Member Richey asked about the alternative analysis in the staff report.
Assistant Director of Public Works/Assistant City Engineer, Paul Eldredge, said the alternative
analysis was for exploring options if the City did not have its own transfer station and there could
either be transferring or direct hauling of material to Vasco Road Landfill or Pittsburg Transfer
Station, which were the closest facilities. The staff report showed the cost if the City was hauling
material to Vasco Road Landfill or Pittsburg Transfer Station. There was currently an agreement for
transfer and disposal of solid waste material and processing of recyclables and green waste, which
would have to factor into an alternative analysis.
Council Member Richey said he believed it would cost $400,000 to direct haul the waste and the City
would make approximately $1 million per year in the Enterprise Fund from garbage.
Director of Finance and Information Systems, Pam Ehler, said staff expected a substantial reduction
in that amount over the next few years.
Council Member Richey asked about taking recyclables to a facility with the technology to divert.
Assistant Director of Public Works/Assistant City Engineer, Paul Eldredge, said the City took on
material to a facility that handled the diversion and separation and as facilities were built, newer and
more efficient technologies were utilized.
Council Member Richey said the lower the residual and the better the technology, the more
money that was made back from the separator.
Assistant Director of Public Works/Assistant City Engineer, Paul Eldredge, said the residual number
was based more on the material received by customers than the technology.
Council Member Richey asked if the City’s residual rates compared to other cities since he felt the
rates were high.
Assistant Director of Public Works/Assistant City Engineer, Paul Eldredge, said the City had
averaged approximately 13.5 percent, and was within industry standards.
Mayor Taylor closed public comments.
Council Member Becnel said there had been a Solid Waste and Enterprise Management and
Operation Review prepared by Hilton Frankoff and Hilton (HFH) in 2007. He felt rather than doing a
whole new study, the City should allow Pittsburg Transfer Station to go through the HFH report and
update it at their own cost.
Council Member Richey agreed that the City should have Pittsburg Transfer Station review the 2007
study although he still had concerns about the transfer station.
Council Member Becnel suggested the item go to the Sewer, Water, & Solid Waste Rate Study Ad
Hoc Committee for review.
Council Member Brockman said the facility was substandard and he did not have a problem with
doing a study. The City had budgeted for years to build the Solid Waste Transfer Station and he
asked about the City’s rates.
http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=1096&doc_id=09a21... 11/5/2009
Minutes for CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Page 8 of 10
Assistant Director of Public Works/Assistant City Engineer, Paul Eldredge, said the rates were one of
the lower and most competitive rates in Contra Costa County.
Council Member Brockman said the current process was unenclosed and the substandard facility
would need to move. If the City decided to haul out to another facility, other than the City’s own
transfer facility, costs to haul to other facilities would need to be explored, as well as costs to
maintain vehicles and equipment.
Council Member Richey said he would rather rent a dump in another city and not buy one here.
Vice Mayor Stonebarger expressed concerns about capacity, and asked to incorporate language
prohibiting outside garbage coming into the City, asked about costs to rent or own, and asked for
preparation of an independent fiscal analysis.
Council Member Richey suggested the item be continued to a future meeting after the Sewer, Water,
& Solid Waste Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee had worked on the details of an agreement between
the City and Mr. Weaver’s firm.
Mayor Taylor said he agreed about using the previous report and having Mr. Weaver’s firm pay for
the study. He did not want any outside waste coming into the City and having to ship it out.
City Manager, Donna Landeros, said should the City allow Pittsburg Transfer Station the opportunity
to review the 2007 study, and appear before the Sewer, Water, & Solid Waste Rate Study Ad Hoc
Committee with a recommendation, the item would return to Council.
Assistant Director of Public Works/Assistant City Engineer, Paul Eldredge, said he believed the
proposal could have potential impacts on current agreements and requested authorization to begin
discussions with the current service provider, which would be presented to the Subcommittee.
Council Member Becnel said if the City was locked into a long term commitment, cancelling would be
an additional cost and would need to be identified.
Motion: Continue Item 13 and refer to the Sewer, Water, & Solid Waste Rate Study Ad Hoc
Committee for a recommendation to Council - Adopt a Resolution authorizing staff to proceed with
the design and bidding of the Solid Waste Transfer Station Expansion, CIP Project No. 542-54020.
Moved by Richey, seconded by Stonebarger.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor
NEW BUSINESS (08:48 PM)
14. Consider including the Parking Structure in Phase 1 of the construction of the Civic Center
Project and if the decision is to move forward: 1) direct staff to prepare and negotiate a professional
services agreement with Lathrop Construction Associates, Inc. (Lathrop) for management of the
Parking Structure construction; 2) authorize funding in an amount not to exceed $126,285 and
authorize the City Manager or designee to prepare and execute amendments to consultant service
agreements to include this component into the project; and 3) authorize staff to negotiate a change
order with Lathrop to delete the surface parking lot from the project and begin preparatory work for
the Parking Structure. (D. Landeros/K. Chew)
City Manager, Donna Landeros, said the Parking Structure had been a part of the Civic Center
design and site plan until November 2008, when the decision was made to defer the structure to a
later phase due to economics and the funding. Favorable bids received on the Civic Center allowed
capacity for the Parking Structure to be funded and constructed. If Council chose to proceed with
the Parking Structure, staff recommended using Lathrop Construction Associates for management of
the construction of the project, and bidding out a separate trades packages. Staff requested
direction if proceeding with the Parking Structure in order to advise Lathrop on how to proceed with
http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=1096&doc_id=09a21... 11/5/2009
Minutes for CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Page 9 of 10
the project and coordinate construction impacts and Streetscape Improvements and access issues
on Maple Street. She spoke about the water feature element, which had been taken out of
the original budget and could be built back into the budget, and said the bids and staff would return
to Council at a future meeting.
Council Member Richey asked about the funding mechanism for the parking garage.
Director of Finance and Information Systems, Pam Ehler, said the City had saved $16.5 million
through the bidding process and the General fund would be able to fund the Parking Structure.
Council Member Richey asked if the $11 million saved from the General Fund would be used for
facilities other than the Civic Center.
Director of Finance and Information Systems, Pam Ehler, said she believed Council Member Richey
may be referring to the savings for the Redevelopment Agency that was discussed at the last
meeting and staff had bonded for the full amount, and those funds in the amount of $5 million could
be used for other projects.
Council Member Stonebarger asked what the current needs for parking were with relation to the
Civic Center and Downtown, and if the City was short spaces for parking.
City Manager, Donna Landeros, said staff had looked for parking based on the project and explored
having another parking structure on Second and Oak Streets, and it depended on if the downtown
had a robust dining district.
Mayor Taylor requested public comments.
Steve Torgesen said taxes go for such good uses and he felt the bond issue had been well done,
and there was not a better time to execute a transaction like this.
Steve Barr spoke about Lathrop Construction, the amount of the award and said he hoped the
project would be on budget. He was concerned that the project was moving forward without a
parking structure and said there was adequate parking for the short term. He asked to see parking
options and was in support of a parking structure on the site next to Kendall Automotive,
which would serve downtown businesses and the Civic Center.
Mayor Taylor closed public comments.
Council Member Brockman said the Parking Structure had been included in Phase II due to cost
concerns. He was in support of the Parking Structure, said the money was budgeted and was not
used, and believed now was the time. If a surface lot was installed, the City would not be prepared
for the infrastructure and the structure would need to be torn down later or moved to a different
location.
Council Member Becnel said the City was mindful that Liberty Union High School District was next
door and would minimize disruptions. Bonding costs were down, a good rate was obtained and
money was saved. The market was favorable, the whole project was able to be completed, and this
was an opportunity for reduced construction costs. He felt the Parking Structure was an integral part
of the project for the Community Center, Library, and City Hall and he was in support of moving
forward.
Vice Mayor Stonebarger expressed concerns about funding and the location of the Parking
Structure, and how it integrated with, and mitigated the effects on the entrance to Liberty Union High
School. He felt placing the Parking Structure in the back corner was inappropriate, whether
Redevelopment or General Fund money, and a parking structure at Second and Oak Streets, could
be used by everyone.
Mayor Taylor spoke in support of the Parking Structure and said the pricing was right, and he felt
bids would come in lower than anticipated.
http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=1096&doc_id=09a21... 11/5/2009
Minutes for CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Page 10 of 10
Motion: Adopt Resolution 2009-212 to include the Parking Structure in Phase 1 of the construction of
the Civic Center Project and: 1) direct staff to prepare and negotiate a professional services
agreement with Lathrop Construction Associates, Inc. (Lathrop) for management of the Parking
Structure construction; 2) authorize funding in an amount not to exceed $126,285 and authorize the
City Manager or designee to prepare and execute amendments to consultant service agreements to
include this component into the project; and 3) authorize staff to negotiate a change order with
Lathrop to delete the surface parking lot from the project and begin preparatory work for the Parking
Structure.
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Becnel.
Vote: Motion carried 3-2.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Taylor
No: Richey; Stonebarger
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS, SUBCOMMITTEES AND LIAISONS
(09:12 PM)
Council Member Brockman spoke about the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission and
the proposed Mariposa Power Plant.
Mayor Taylor spoke about the East Bay Regional Communication System, thanked the Police
Department for a safe Hometown Halloween, and submitted a memo on the subject of parking
reimbursement.
REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (09:14 PM)
Council Member Brockman suggested a follow up letter to Union Pacific Railroad regarding the
trestle.
ADJOURNMENT (09:15 PM)
Motion: Adjourn
Moved by Becnel, seconded by Stonebarger.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Garcia, CMC
Assistant City Clerk
http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=1096&doc_id=09a21... 11/5/2009
Minutes for CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Page 1 of 10
CITY OF BRENTWOOD
CITY COUNCIL AND
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, 7:00 P.M.
OCTOBER 27, 2009
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Chris Becnel Robert Taylor, Mayor Brandon Richey
Robert A. Brockman Erick Stonebarger
CALL TO ORDER (6:00 PM) - 101B Sand Creek Road, Presentation Room, Brentwood, CA 94513
Roll Call
Present: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor
PUBLIC COMMENTS - None (6:00 PM)
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION - 101B Sand Creek Road, Presentation Room (6:01 PM)
Motion: Enter Closed Session - 101B Sand Creek Road, Presentation Room
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Stonebarger.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor
1. City Council Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a): CONFERENCE
WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION. Name of case: City of Brentwood v. Peter C.
Landgraf, et al.
RECESS CITY COUNCIL (6:44 PM)
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/CALL TO ORDER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 101B Sand
Creek Road, City Council Chamber (07:01 PM)
Pledge of Allegiance (07:03 PM)
Roll Call (07:03 PM)
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION (If any) - None (07:03 PM)
PRESENTATIONS (07:03 PM)
A. Presentation from the John Marsh Historic Trust to the City Council
Gene Metz, John Marsh Historic Trust, expressed appreciation on behalf of the Board of Directors
for providing funds for the general plan for the State historic park, and the stabilization. He
introduced Bill Wasson who presented hats to the Council.
http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=1096&doc_id=09a21... 11/5/2009
Minutes for CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Page 2 of 10
PUBLIC COMMENTS (07:08 PM)
Kathy Fredenberg spoke in opposition of building the Civic Center over City Park and presented
notices of intent to recall Council Members Brockman, Becnel, and Mayor Taylor.
Blythe Lind spoke asked Council to consider funding a water feature back into the City Park plan and
felt it was an important element for the City Park.
Sandra Meyers spoke about City Park and asked Council to consider adding the water feature back
into the Park, since the Civic Center project bids had come in under budget.
Harry York, Chamber of Commerce, expressed support on moving forward with the Civic Center
project, spoke about a successful and safe Hometown Halloween, said he supported the letter to
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), suggested asking why UPRR was parked by residential area
and expressed concern about the UPRR bridge near the area where the railroad cars were parked.
CONSENT CALENDAR (07:21 PM)
1. Approved minutes of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting of October 13, 2009. (M.
Wimberly)
2. Received and filed informational report on Final Map approval by the City Manager of Subdivision
No. 9152, Sciortino Ranch, developed by New Urban Communities. (M. Wimberly/B. Grewal/J.
Dhaliwal)
3. PULLED FOR DISCUSSION - Authorize the City Council or designee to sign a letter to Union
Pacific Railroad (UPRR) regarding UPRR’s Mococo line. (D. Landeros/P. Eldredge)
4. Adopted Resolution 2009-205 approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute
a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Brentwood and the Agricultural - Natural
Resources Trust of Contra Costa County for transaction-based conservation easement services. (C.
McCann/B. Mason)
5. Adopted Resolution 2009-206 approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute
a Reimbursement Agreement with Signature Properties, Inc., Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8534,
consisting of 177 units, located south of Jennifer Street, immediately west of the current City limits,
north of Sycamore Avenue, for costs associated with Master Plan Facility Improvements. (B.
Grewal/P. Eldredge)
6. Adopted Resolution 2009-207 accepting all off-site public improvements; accepting the
Maintenance Bond; releasing the Improvement Securities; and directing the City Clerk to file this
Resolution with the Recorder of Contra Costa County, for Subdivision No. 8808, St. Martin’s Place,
developed by Mark Taylor, located south of Grant Street and east of Fairview Avenue. (B. Grewal/H.
Silfies)
7. Adopted Resolution 2009-208 approving the form of and authorizing the execution and delivery of
a purchase and sale agreement and related documents with respect to the sale of the seller’s
Proposition 1A receivable from the State; and directing and authorizing certain other actions in
connection therewith. (P. Ehler/K. Breen)
8. PULLED FOR DISUCSSION - Adopt a Resolution authorizing a budget amendment and related
expenditure from the City’s Agricultural Land Trust Fund 263 in an amount up to $1,852,002 to fund
the purchase price of a 140.56 acre agricultural conservation easement for Preston Ranch
Assessor’s Parcel Number 011-140-013 to be held by the Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust (BALT)
in accordance with the recommendation of the Agricultural Enterprise Committee. (C. McCann/B.
Mason)
http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=1096&doc_id=09a21... 11/5/2009
Minutes for CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Page 3 of 10
9. Approved warrants from warrant lists dated September 30th, 2009 and October 7th, 2009. (P.
Ehler/L. Schelbert)
CONSENT CALENDAR ACTIONS: (07:21 PM)
Motion: Approve Consent Calendar Items 1 - 9, excluding Items 3 and 8.
Moved by Stonebarger, seconded by Brockman.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor
3. Authorize the City Council or designee to sign a letter to Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) regarding
UPRR’s Mococo line. (D. Landeros/P. Eldredge)
Per Mayor Taylor’s request, City Clerk, Margaret Wimberly, read the letter addressed to Union
Pacific Railroad, which advocated the move of the railroad cars from residential areas.
Motion: Authorize the City Council or designee to sign a letter to Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)
regarding UPRR’s Mococo line.
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Stonebarger.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor
8. Adopt a Resolution authorizing a budget amendment and related expenditure from the City’s
Agricultural Land Trust Fund 263 in an amount up to $1,852,002 to fund the purchase price of a
140.56 acre agricultural conservation easement for Preston Ranch Assessor’s Parcel Number 011-
140-013 to be held by the Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust (BALT) in accordance with the
recommendation of the Agricultural Enterprise Committee. (C. McCann/B. Mason)
Council Member Becnel requested a change in the easement regarding attorney’s fees in the section
regarding the court having discretion to award the prevailing party. The land owner will be
responsible for the attorney’s fees, except in the situation where the Brentwood Agricultural Land
Trust acts with gross negligence or misconduct. He asked if the item could be approved subject to
the change.
Vice Mayor Stonebarger asked about language for covering attorney’s fees in developer contracts.
City Attorney, Damien Brower, said the language was sometimes included depending on the issue
and it varied from contract to contract.
Vice Mayor Stonebarger said he was concerned about the language change due to the time
constraint and said BALT and the land owner had not been presented with the change yet.
Council Member Becnel said if there was a violation of the conservation easement, it would be done
by the property owner or occupant subject to the property owner’s granting. He felt the property
owner should bear the cost to enforce the conservation easement, and he did not want to leave it to
a judge’s discretion and felt the property owner was responsible.
Council Member Brockman said he did not want to place the easement in jeopardy and wanted to
see the wording change. He referred to an email and asked what position the City was in since he
believed the change would need to go back to the land owner and BALT for review before
agreement to the terms.
City Attorney, Damien Brower, read the following proposed language which would replace the
second to the last sentence in Section 6A of the Easement and would need to be agreed to by BALT
and the property owner before it would be put in the agreement: "In any action filed pursuant to
http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=1096&doc_id=09a21... 11/5/2009
Minutes for CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Page 4 of 10
Section 6A, the property owner shall pay all parties attorney’s fees except in the event the court
determines the Land Trust has acted with gross negligence or willful misconduct".
Council Member Brockman said he was in support of moving forward if there was a consensus.
Vice Mayor Stonebarger asked about closing costs and if the closing transaction would be in
jeopardy by the end of the year if the item was delayed by two weeks.
Kathryn Lyddan, Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust (BALT), said BALT would need to move forward
with the transaction since time was limited and costs were approximately $3,000. It was a matter of
the third party and the property owner that would be bearing the attorney’s fee cost.
Council Member Brockman said he was in support of moving forward.
Mayor Taylor asked about approving the agreement with the new language.
City Attorney, Damien Brower, said the change to the document was small, and if Council approved
the document subject to the change, the parties could sign off and it would not come back to the
Council for approval of the change. If there were concerns, Council could have the item
return or send the document to the Agricultural Subcommittee for discussion and suggestions first.
Motion: Approve Item 8 with the wording change to the last sentence in Section 6A of the Easement
and adopt Resolution 2009-209 authorizing a budget amendment and related expenditure from the
City’s Agricultural Land Trust Fund 263 in an amount up to $1,852,002 to fund the purchase price of
a 140.56 acre agricultural conservation easement for Preston Ranch Assessor’s Parcel Number 011-
140-013 to be held by the Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust (BALT) in accordance with the
recommendation of the Agricultural Enterprise Committee. (C. McCann/B. Mason)
Moved by Becnel, seconded by Brockman.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor
PUBLIC HEARINGS (07:35 PM)
10. Staff recommends continuance to the meeting of November 10, 2009 - Consideration of an
amendment to Chapter 17.730 (Agricultural Land Conservation) of the Brentwood Municipal Code
and certification of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No.
2000122013) analyzing the project, as recommended by the Planning Commission of the City of
Brentwood. (C. McCann/B. Mason)
Director of Community Development, Casey McCann, recommended continuance to the meeting of
November 10, 2009.
Motion: Continue to the meeting of November 10, 2009 - Consideration of an amendment to Chapter
17.730 (Agricultural Land Conservation) of the Brentwood Municipal Code and certification of the
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2000122013) analyzing
the project, as recommended by the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood.
Moved by Stonebarger, seconded by Becnel.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor
11. Consideration of a Resolution adopting a mitigated negative declaration and an ordinance
approving a rezone (RZ 08-07) for the Brentwood Business Park project, located on approximately
43 acres west of Sellers Avenue, north of the ECCID Main Canal and east of Guthrie Lane (APN
010-160-037,038, 039, 041, 042 and 043). (C. McCann/E. Nolthenius)
http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=1096&doc_id=09a21... 11/5/2009
Minutes for CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Page 5 of 10
Vice Mayor Stonebarger recused himself due to financial conflict, said he was related to and worked
with some of the parties, and left the Council Chamber.
Principal Planner, Erick Nolthenius, presented a staff report, said the site was within the PD-24 zone,
included a total of six parcels, and no specific plans had been submitted. The General Plan
designated the site as mixed use business park development and the bulk of the site would be able
to accommodate a variety of services, including retail office and light industrial uses. Impacts
relating to the single-family homes would be minimized and the Land Use and Development
Committee reviewed the project and did not note any significant concerns. The Planning
Commission considered the project on October 6, 2009, and recommended approval of the
environmental document and the Rezone.
Mayor Taylor opened the public hearing.
Brent Aasen said the item was to set up more detailed zoning under the shell Planned Development
and would eventually bring jobs and strengthen the foundation of the community.
Motion: Close the public hearing.
Moved by Brockman, seconded by Becnel.
Vote: Motion carried 4-0.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Taylor
Absent: Stonebarger
Motion: Adopt Resolution 2009-210 adopting a mitigated negative declaration; and
waive first reading and introduce Ordinance 876 approving a rezone (RZ 08-07) for the Brentwood
Business Park project, located on approximately 43 acres west of Sellers Avenue, north of the
ECCID Main Canal and east of Guthrie Lane (APN 010-160-037,038, 039, 041, 042 and 043).
The City Clerk read the title of proposed Ordinance 876.
Moved by Becnel, seconded by Brockman.
Vote: Motion carried 4-0.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Taylor
Absent: Stonebarger
OLD BUSINESS (07:43 PM)
At 7:44 PM, Vice Mayor, Erick Stonebarger, returned to the Council Chamber.
12. Adopt a Resolution consenting to the creation of a new district governing board for the East
Contra Costa Fire Protection District based on proportional representations of unincorporated
portions of the County of Contra Costa, the City of Brentwood and the City of Oakley populations;
requesting that the existing district governing board adopt the necessary resolutions to effectuate
the governing board changes to provide for proportional population representations, method of
appointment, director qualifications vacancies and elections of officers. (D. Landeros/P. Eldredge/D.
Galey) (07:43 PM)
City Manager, Donna Landeros, presented a staff report and said the City would have four
representatives on the appointed board and the City of Oakley would have three representatives and
there would be two representatives from the unincorporated area. The item was passed by the
County Board of Supervisors unanimously, and was before the City of Oakley on October 27, 2009.
Should both the cities of Brentwood and Oakley approve the resolution, the item would go back to
Board of Supervisors, acting as the Board of the Directors for the Fire Protection District, at
their meeting of November 10, 2009, for their final approval, and the transition period would
commence in February.
Mayor Taylor opened public comments.
http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=1096&doc_id=09a21... 11/5/2009
Minutes for CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Page 6 of 10
Stephen Smith thanked Council and staff for the work on the resolution and said he felt this was the
necessary next step for resources to protect the City population and first responders.
Vince Wells, President of Local Firefighters 1230, thanked Council for taking the lead on the issue
and said he appreciated support received from the County Board of Supervisors. The Firefighters
believed a local governance would be more beneficial due to the issues faced in East Contra Costa
County and the Firefighters were in support of the resolution.
Mayor Taylor closed public comments.
Vice Mayor Stonebarger expressed thanks and said he felt the creation of the governing board was
an opportunity to make a difference.
Council Member Richey felt the plan for the fire board did not address the funding issues, how
many paramedics would be on every engine, or firefighter safety based on staffing, pay, and equity
for the firefighters.
Council Member Becnel said the resolution did not solve all the problems and to solve funding
issues, Council would have to ask the people of the fire district to take responsibility, and he did not
want to ask the people of far east Contra Costa County if there was not the ability to control how the
funds were spent.
Council Member Richey felt the creation of a new district governing board would not provide a long
term resolution.
Council Member Brockman said he felt there was a chance to move forward and he was in support
of the new district governing board.
Mayor Taylor said this was good for east Contra Costa County and provided a say in the jurisdiction.
Motion: Adopt Resolution 2009-211 consenting to the creation of a new district governing board for
the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District based on proportional representations of
unincorporated portions of the County of Contra Costa, the City of Brentwood and the City of Oakley
populations; requesting that the existing district governing board adopt the necessary resolutions to
effectuate the governing board changes to provide for proportional population representations,
method of appointment, director qualifications vacancies and elections of officers.
Moved by Stonebarger, seconded by Becnel.
Vote: Motion carried 4-1.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Stonebarger; Taylor
No: Richey
13. Adopt a Resolution authorizing staff to proceed with the design and bidding of the Solid Waste
Transfer Station Expansion, CIP Project No. 542-54020. (B. Grewal/P. Eldredge)
Assistant Director of Public Works/Assistant City Engineer, Paul Eldredge, presented a staff report
and background on the proposed Solid Waste Transfer Station Expansion project. The proposed
transfer station had been sized to accommodate build-out needs of the City based upon the current
General Plan and there were no plans to accept waste materials from any outside jurisdiction or
agency. This would require additional transfer station expansion and Council action to do so in the
future. The proposed facility is not sized to accommodate anything other than the needs of the City
and its customer base. The City is in a position to finance a portion of the project using a
combination of existing cash reserves and debt financing.
A period of questions by Council and responses by staff followed.
Mayor Taylor opened public comments.
http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=1096&doc_id=09a21... 11/5/2009
Minutes for CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Page 7 of 10
Austin Weaver, representing Pittsburg Transfer Station and Recycling Center, referred to
correspondence submitted informing Council that Pittsburg Transfer Station wanted to conduct
business with and save money for the City. He said the City was proposing to spend between $7
million and $10 million on an expanded and relocated facility and he felt the current analysis was
inadequate. He offered to provide exceptional service with reduced price to the ratepayers and City.
He offered to conduct a study for the City, felt he could provide the cheapest and best service, and
said the facility allowed the City to meet diversion rates. He requested continuation of the matter
and offered an independent study as to the cost and cost savings of the alternative analysis.
Council Member Richey asked about the alternative analysis in the staff report.
Assistant Director of Public Works/Assistant City Engineer, Paul Eldredge, said the alternative
analysis was for exploring options if the City did not have its own transfer station and there could
either be transferring or direct hauling of material to Vasco Road Landfill or Pittsburg Transfer
Station, which were the closest facilities. The staff report showed the cost if the City was hauling
material to Vasco Road Landfill or Pittsburg Transfer Station. There was currently an agreement for
transfer and disposal of solid waste material and processing of recyclables and green waste, which
would have to factor into an alternative analysis.
Council Member Richey said he believed it would cost $400,000 to direct haul the waste and the City
would make approximately $1 million per year in the Enterprise Fund from garbage.
Director of Finance and Information Systems, Pam Ehler, said staff expected a substantial reduction
in that amount over the next few years.
Council Member Richey asked about taking recyclables to a facility with the technology to divert.
Assistant Director of Public Works/Assistant City Engineer, Paul Eldredge, said the City took on
material to a facility that handled the diversion and separation and as facilities were built, newer and
more efficient technologies were utilized.
Council Member Richey said the lower the residual and the better the technology, the more
money that was made back from the separator.
Assistant Director of Public Works/Assistant City Engineer, Paul Eldredge, said the residual number
was based more on the material received by customers than the technology.
Council Member Richey asked if the City’s residual rates compared to other cities since he felt the
rates were high.
Assistant Director of Public Works/Assistant City Engineer, Paul Eldredge, said the City had
averaged approximately 13.5 percent, and was within industry standards.
Mayor Taylor closed public comments.
Council Member Becnel said there had been a Solid Waste and Enterprise Management and
Operation Review prepared by Hilton Frankoff and Hilton (HFH) in 2007. He felt rather than doing a
whole new study, the City should allow Pittsburg Transfer Station to go through the HFH report and
update it at their own cost.
Council Member Richey agreed that the City should have Pittsburg Transfer Station review the 2007
study although he still had concerns about the transfer station.
Council Member Becnel suggested the item go to the Sewer, Water, & Solid Waste Rate Study Ad
Hoc Committee for review.
Council Member Brockman said the facility was substandard and he did not have a problem with
doing a study. The City had budgeted for years to build the Solid Waste Transfer Station and he
asked about the City’s rates.
http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=1096&doc_id=09a21... 11/5/2009
Minutes for CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Page 8 of 10
Assistant Director of Public Works/Assistant City Engineer, Paul Eldredge, said the rates were one of
the lower and most competitive rates in Contra Costa County.
Council Member Brockman said the current process was unenclosed and the substandard facility
would need to move. If the City decided to haul out to another facility, other than the City’s own
transfer facility, costs to haul to other facilities would need to be explored, as well as costs to
maintain vehicles and equipment.
Council Member Richey said he would rather rent a dump in another city and not buy one here.
Vice Mayor Stonebarger expressed concerns about capacity, and asked to incorporate language
prohibiting outside garbage coming into the City, asked about costs to rent or own, and asked for
preparation of an independent fiscal analysis.
Council Member Richey suggested the item be continued to a future meeting after the Sewer, Water,
& Solid Waste Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee had worked on the details of an agreement between
the City and Mr. Weaver’s firm.
Mayor Taylor said he agreed about using the previous report and having Mr. Weaver’s firm pay for
the study. He did not want any outside waste coming into the City and having to ship it out.
City Manager, Donna Landeros, said should the City allow Pittsburg Transfer Station the opportunity
to review the 2007 study, and appear before the Sewer, Water, & Solid Waste Rate Study Ad Hoc
Committee with a recommendation, the item would return to Council.
Assistant Director of Public Works/Assistant City Engineer, Paul Eldredge, said he believed the
proposal could have potential impacts on current agreements and requested authorization to begin
discussions with the current service provider, which would be presented to the Subcommittee.
Council Member Becnel said if the City was locked into a long term commitment, cancelling would be
an additional cost and would need to be identified.
Motion: Continue Item 13 and refer to the Sewer, Water, & Solid Waste Rate Study Ad Hoc
Committee for a recommendation to Council - Adopt a Resolution authorizing staff to proceed with
the design and bidding of the Solid Waste Transfer Station Expansion, CIP Project No. 542-54020.
Moved by Richey, seconded by Stonebarger.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor
NEW BUSINESS (08:48 PM)
14. Consider including the Parking Structure in Phase 1 of the construction of the Civic Center
Project and if the decision is to move forward: 1) direct staff to prepare and negotiate a professional
services agreement with Lathrop Construction Associates, Inc. (Lathrop) for management of the
Parking Structure construction; 2) authorize funding in an amount not to exceed $126,285 and
authorize the City Manager or designee to prepare and execute amendments to consultant service
agreements to include this component into the project; and 3) authorize staff to negotiate a change
order with Lathrop to delete the surface parking lot from the project and begin preparatory work for
the Parking Structure. (D. Landeros/K. Chew)
City Manager, Donna Landeros, said the Parking Structure had been a part of the Civic Center
design and site plan until November 2008, when the decision was made to defer the structure to a
later phase due to economics and the funding. Favorable bids received on the Civic Center allowed
capacity for the Parking Structure to be funded and constructed. If Council chose to proceed with
the Parking Structure, staff recommended using Lathrop Construction Associates for management of
the construction of the project, and bidding out a separate trades packages. Staff requested
direction if proceeding with the Parking Structure in order to advise Lathrop on how to proceed with
http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=1096&doc_id=09a21... 11/5/2009
Minutes for CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Page 9 of 10
the project and coordinate construction impacts and Streetscape Improvements and access issues
on Maple Street. She spoke about the water feature element, which had been taken out of
the original budget and could be built back into the budget, and said the bids and staff would return
to Council at a future meeting.
Council Member Richey asked about the funding mechanism for the parking garage.
Director of Finance and Information Systems, Pam Ehler, said the City had saved $16.5 million
through the bidding process and the General fund would be able to fund the Parking Structure.
Council Member Richey asked if the $11 million saved from the General Fund would be used for
facilities other than the Civic Center.
Director of Finance and Information Systems, Pam Ehler, said she believed Council Member Richey
may be referring to the savings for the Redevelopment Agency that was discussed at the last
meeting and staff had bonded for the full amount, and those funds in the amount of $5 million could
be used for other projects.
Council Member Stonebarger asked what the current needs for parking were with relation to the
Civic Center and Downtown, and if the City was short spaces for parking.
City Manager, Donna Landeros, said staff had looked for parking based on the project and explored
having another parking structure on Second and Oak Streets, and it depended on if the downtown
had a robust dining district.
Mayor Taylor requested public comments.
Steve Torgesen said taxes go for such good uses and he felt the bond issue had been well done,
and there was not a better time to execute a transaction like this.
Steve Barr spoke about Lathrop Construction, the amount of the award and said he hoped the
project would be on budget. He was concerned that the project was moving forward without a
parking structure and said there was adequate parking for the short term. He asked to see parking
options and was in support of a parking structure on the site next to Kendall Automotive,
which would serve downtown businesses and the Civic Center.
Mayor Taylor closed public comments.
Council Member Brockman said the Parking Structure had been included in Phase II due to cost
concerns. He was in support of the Parking Structure, said the money was budgeted and was not
used, and believed now was the time. If a surface lot was installed, the City would not be prepared
for the infrastructure and the structure would need to be torn down later or moved to a different
location.
Council Member Becnel said the City was mindful that Liberty Union High School District was next
door and would minimize disruptions. Bonding costs were down, a good rate was obtained and
money was saved. The market was favorable, the whole project was able to be completed, and this
was an opportunity for reduced construction costs. He felt the Parking Structure was an integral part
of the project for the Community Center, Library, and City Hall and he was in support of moving
forward.
Vice Mayor Stonebarger expressed concerns about funding and the location of the Parking
Structure, and how it integrated with, and mitigated the effects on the entrance to Liberty Union High
School. He felt placing the Parking Structure in the back corner was inappropriate, whether
Redevelopment or General Fund money, and a parking structure at Second and Oak Streets, could
be used by everyone.
Mayor Taylor spoke in support of the Parking Structure and said the pricing was right, and he felt
bids would come in lower than anticipated.
http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=1096&doc_id=09a21... 11/5/2009
Minutes for CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Page 10 of 10
Motion: Adopt Resolution 2009-212 to include the Parking Structure in Phase 1 of the construction of
the Civic Center Project and: 1) direct staff to prepare and negotiate a professional services
agreement with Lathrop Construction Associates, Inc. (Lathrop) for management of the Parking
Structure construction; 2) authorize funding in an amount not to exceed $126,285 and authorize the
City Manager or designee to prepare and execute amendments to consultant service agreements to
include this component into the project; and 3) authorize staff to negotiate a change order with
Lathrop to delete the surface parking lot from the project and begin preparatory work for the Parking
Structure.
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Becnel.
Vote: Motion carried 3-2.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Taylor
No: Richey; Stonebarger
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS, SUBCOMMITTEES AND LIAISONS
(09:12 PM)
Council Member Brockman spoke about the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission and
the proposed Mariposa Power Plant.
Mayor Taylor spoke about the East Bay Regional Communication System, thanked the Police
Department for a safe Hometown Halloween, and submitted a memo on the subject of parking
reimbursement.
REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (09:14 PM)
Council Member Brockman suggested a follow up letter to Union Pacific Railroad regarding the
trestle.
ADJOURNMENT (09:15 PM)
Motion: Adjourn
Moved by Becnel, seconded by Stonebarger.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Garcia, CMC
Assistant City Clerk
http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=1096&doc_id=09a21... 11/5/2009
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 2
Meeting Date: November 10, 2009
Subject/Title: Accept the Arts Commission recommendation to put the Brentwood Library
Photography project on hold until the second phase of the Library construction
occurs
Prepared by: Poldina Scherff, Recreation Manager
Submitted by: Craig Bronzan, Director Parks and Recreation
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the Arts Commission recommendation to put the Brentwood Library Photography project
on hold until the second phase of the Library construction occurs.
PREVIOUS ACTION
On May 13, 2008, City Council continued the issue of consideration of a Resolution directing
staff to Prepare Temporary Space for the Interim Library and Council Chambers at the
Brentwood Education and Technology Center and directed staff to bring back a budget analysis
for the costs associated with moving the library.
On May 27, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-136, the City Council adopted the 2008/09-2012/13
Capital Improvement Program.
On June 10, 2008, City Council directed staff to pursue the temporary space for the interim
library at the annex building.
On August 26, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-219, City Council authorized the City Manager to
execute an agreement with Devcon Construction Incorporated for construction management
services related to the construction of the interim library at the Oak Street Annex.
On October 14, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-249, City Council approved the contract
documents, awarded the bid and authorized the City Manager to execute a construction
contract and necessary documents with Enterprise Roofing Service, Inc. for Bid Package #1,
Re-roofing work associated with the Library Relocation project, CIP No. 337-37194, and
adopted Resolution 2008-251 amending the CIP Budget Sheet for the Library Relocation
project.
On November 18, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-268 City Council rejected the Bid of R.W.
Painting for Bid Package No. 3 (Tackable Panels and Painting) as non-responsive and
approved the contract documents, awarding the bids and authorizing the City Manager or
Designee to execute construction contracts and necessary documents for the Library Relocation
Project, CIP No. 337-37194, for Bid Packages #2 - #9 for $387,268, plus a 10% contingency of
$38,726.80, for a total amount of $425,994.80 and Authorize the Director of Finance and
Information Systems to facilitate internal loans for the Library Relocation Package.
On November 18, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-269 City Council approved and authorized the
City Manager or designee to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with Devcon
Construction Incorporated, in the amount of $18,348.00, plus a 10% contingency of $1,834.80
for a total contract amount of $255,830.80 for the Library Relocation project, CIP No. 337-37194
and authorizing the Director of Finance and Information Systems to facilitate internal loans for
the Library Relocation Package.
On May 26, 2009, City Council approved the Arts Commission public art project to include the
selection of photographers and photographs for the new Brentwood Library.
BACKGROUND
As directed by City Council on May 13, 2008, staff began the design work for the Interim Library
at the Oak Street Annex. LPA completed the design of this interim library and construction
started in mid-October. The first major elements of the project were the re-roofing work over
104 Oak Street and the early work construction package in 118 Oak Street that were approved
by City Council on October 14, 2008, and began on October 29, 2008.
Construction of the new library at 104 Oak Street is complete. The public art piece of the
project is the only remaining tasks. The new library has three large areas on which to display
photographs of various sizes and themes.
No specific theme for the wall art has been selected. Staff met with the Arts Commission at
their May 20, 2009 Arts Commission meeting to present the idea and for the Arts Commission
under the Public Arts Program, to head up this project and work with the library on the selection
of photographers and photographs to use for this purpose. The idea was to commission local
photographers to take photos that are representative of Brentwood and that may reflect the
tagline of Heritage, Vision and Opportunity. The photos selected would then be mounted and
affixed to the walls.
Depending on which photographs were selected, there may be one large photo, or several
photos of varying sizes. The final images could be enlarged to a very large size, so overall
image resolution and clarity will be criteria for the selection of the images. The City would
require a minimum 6.0 megapixel SLR camera, set to maximum resolution, to produce the
image. All lens and filter types are allowed. LPA, Inc., the Civic Center architects, would have
contracted with a vendor for the production and installation of the photographs. Artists were to
submit their selected photographs on a CD-ROM for Arts Commission review.
At the July 3, 2009 staff sent out the Proposal Request for Brentwood Library Photography to
twenty-six (26) photographers from the approved artists list. Staff also sent out a news release
to the local papers that the packet was made available for qualified photographers. The
deadline for the proposals was August 7, 2009. No proposals were submitted to the City on the
Brentwood Library Photography project.
At the August 19, 2009 Arts Commission meeting the commission discussed whether they
would like to continue this project and brainstorm what they may want to consider doing next.
The commission requested that staff research the possibility of offering a contest to the local
elementary, middle high school or college students and report back at the next meeting.
At the Arts Commission meeting on September 16, 2009, after further discussion and with the
new Civic Center and Community Center moving forward, this would mean that the remodel of
the additional library space would be forthcoming. The Arts Commission is recommending to
City Council to put the Brentwood Library Photography project on hold until the library
expansion is completed and then do both of the projects at one time.
FISCAL IMPACT
The percent for art requirement on Public/Residential Development for remodeling, repair or
reconstruction projects is 4/10s of 1% of the project valuation which for this project equates to
$2,265.00 of which, 80% of that goes to fund the artwork, 20% funds administration of the public
art program. The project budget allows for the option to spend more than the minimum, based
on the Arts Commission recommendations for the project. The funds for this project will be
transferred from Phase I of the Library Relocation project to Phase 2.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3
Meeting Date: November 10, 2009
Subject/Title: Receive and file the Friendship Request Form for youth sports programs
Prepared by: Barbie Gary, Recreation Supervisor
Poldina Scherff, Recreation Manager
Submitted by: Craig D. Bronzan, Director of Parks & Recreation
____________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the Friendship Request Form for youth sports programs.
PREVIOUS ACTION
On September 24, 2009, the Park and Recreation Commission accepted the Parks and
Recreation Department’s Friendship Request Form for youth sports programs and approved
recommending to City Council to receive and file the document.
BACKGROUND
Staff has determined that the current policy that is in place for “friendship requests” needs
revision to help accommodate the large amount of requests that are received at the beginning of
every program. The current policy is published in every issue of the Activities Guide and says
the following:
“Special “buddy” requests are not available. Siblings are placed together when
applicable.”
Staff made a recommendation to the Park and Recreation Commission that the participant must
fill out the Friendship Request Form and follow the prescribed guidelines in order to obtain the
request. The guidelines are as follows:
One friendship request is allowed per child (that friend MUST request you also or the
request will not be granted).
Additional forms are available at the Parks and Recreation Office or on our website at
http://www.ci.brentwood.ca.us
Players must be in the same division.
Siblings in the same division are allowed but only one request between them.
Coaches and assistant coaches are NOT allowed to request specific participants
(besides their own child).
All requests must be turned in prior to the registration end date.
Submitting this form does not GUARANTEE the approval of a friendship request.
Maintaining a fair league is of the utmost importance and will be taken into account prior
to approval.
The intent of the Friendship Request Form (“Form”) is to:
Encourage participation for a child who might not otherwise play without a friend
Limits the number of requests per person to one per player (which will help to eliminate
team stacking)
Helps to create a more enjoyable sports experience for the participants
As the intent of the Form is to encourage participation and balance in youth sports and it is not
necessarily hardship driven. Staff is confident that they will be able to maintain a fair and
balanced league with this Form. The stipulation that a child may only request one friend to be on
the same team, and that one friend must request them too, will help to eliminate team stacking
where people would request more than one person to be placed on a team at a time.
The Park and Recreation Commission accepted the Parks and Recreation Department’s
Friendship Request Form for immediate implementation for activities taking place in the Fall
2009/Winter 2010 Activities Guide and approved recommending to City Council to receive and
file the document.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
Attachments:
Friendship Request Form
Friendship Request
The purpose of the Friendship Request Form is to enable a participant to request a
“friend” to play on the same team in a specific sport.
Friendship Request Guidelines:
• One friendship request is allowed per child (that friend MUST request you also or the
request will not be granted).
• Additional forms are available at the Parks and Recreation Office or on our website at
www.ci.brentwood.ca.us
• Players must be in the same division.
• Siblings in the same division are allowed only one request between them.
• Coaches and assistant coaches are NOT allowed to request specific participants (besides
their own child).
• All requests must be turned in prior to the registration end date.
• Submitting this form does not GUARANTEE the approval of a friendship request.
• Maintaining a fair league is of the utmost importance and will be taken into account prior to
approval.
Program Name: CLASS#
Name of Participant: Age:
Phone: Email address:
Name of Friend: Age:
(one friend only)
Phone: Email address:
I have read and understand the Friendship Request Guidelines listed above:
Parent/Guardian Signature:
For Office Use Only Please describe why request was made if
other than friendship or carpool (optional):
Date Received:
Initials:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 4
Meeting Date: November 10, 2009
Subject/Title: Receive and file the revised Refund Policy for recreation programs and
activities
Prepared by: Poldina Scherff, Recreation Manager
Submitted by: Craig D. Bronzan, Director of Parks & Recreation
____________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the revised Refund Policy for recreation programs and activities.
PREVIOUS ACTION
On September 24, 2009, the Park and Recreation Commission accepted the Parks and
Recreation Department’s revised Refund Policy for recreation programs and activities.
BACKGROUND
Staff has determined that the current Refund Policy for participants in our activities and
programs needs revision to provide more defined language regarding the function of the refund.
Currently the issues that arise are: 1) the activity reached its minimum attendance requirement
and a withdrawal occurs during the session, which results in the attendance dropping below the
required minimum, 2) not having the minimum required participants due to a refund results in
the Department not reaching its cost recovery goal, and, 3) a refund is requested after an
instructor/contractor has already been paid.
The policy is currently printed in the department’s Activities Guide and reads as follows:
Our department strives to provide you with the highest quality. Should you be
dissatisfied, contact us and staff will work with you to the best of our ability. If we
are unable to resolve your concerns, we may transfer you to another program,
credit your account for future use, or issue a refund within a maximum of 30 working
days. Please contact us within ten (10) days of the completion of the activity.
Some of our programs, for example, Adult Leagues, Aquatics, Senior Trips and
Facility Permits have different specific policies.
Staff recommended to the Park and Recreation Commission the revised Refund Policy to read
as follows:
Refund Policy:
Our department strives to provide you with high quality programs. Some situations that occur
are beyond our control. Withdrawals/refunds could cause the class/activity/program to drop
below the minimum required attendance, which could cause the class/activity/program to be
cancelled. City reserves the right to cancel a program and refund under extenuating
circumstances. Should you be dissatisfied, contact us and staff will work with you to the best of
our ability.
Refunds will be considered upon request to the Park & Recreation
Department.
Refund requests made no later than half way through a
class/activity/session may be subject to a partial refund.
If applicable, a uniform fee will be deducted from the refund.
Refund requests made after the last class/activity/session will be considered
on a case-by-case basis.
Refunds are processed within 30 days.
Refund policies may vary for Adult Leagues, Aquatics, Senior Trips and
Facility Permits.
The Park and Recreation Commission accepted the Parks and Recreation Department’s revised
Refund Policy for immediate implementation for activities taking place in the Winter/Spring 2010
Activities Guide and approved recommending to City Council to receive and file the document.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 5
Meeting Date: November 10, 2009
Subject/Title: Receive and file the 2009 CornFest Evaluation Report
Prepared by: Hazel Wetherford, Administrative Assistant II
Submitted by: Casey McCann, Community Development Director
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the 2009 CornFest Evaluation Report.
PREVIOUS ACTION
In May 2006, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the Brentwood
Chamber of Commerce regarding the 2006 CornFest event. The MOU required that a post-
event evaluation be provided to the Council. On January 23, 2007, staff provided the 2006
CornFest evaluation report.
On April 10, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2007-61 approving the
Memorandum of Understanding between the Chamber of Commerce and the City of Brentwood
for the 2007 CornFest.
On May 13, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-111 approving the
Memorandum of Understanding between the Chamber of Commerce and the City of Brentwood
for the 2008 CornFest.
On May 26, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009-118 approving the
Memorandum of Understanding between the Chamber of Commerce and the City of Brentwood
for the 2009 CornFest.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of the three-day, annual CornFest event remains community-based as a major
funding source for local service organizations (Rotary, Soroptomists, Kiwanis, etc.) and local
non-profits (Delta Resource Center, school organizations, cancer society, etc). It also provides
significant revenue for the Chamber to continue its annual programs and projects that support
Brentwood’s business community, and provides a unique opportunity to showcase the
Downtown.
Attached to this report is a post evaluation letter from the Chamber of Commerce regarding the
2009 CornFest event. By all accounts, including feedback from the Chamber, City staff and the
Police Department, the event was again a success. In terms of the cost of City services, the
City provided an estimated budget of approximately $42,996 in the MOU, while the actual cost
for these services was billed to the Chamber at $35,039.88 in August 2009, resulting in a
savings of approximately $7,956 for the Chamber of Commerce.
Staff is already working with the Chamber to plan for the 2010 CornFest. The location of next
year’s event will be affected by the construction of the Civic Center. Staff will continue to brief
the Council as more information is available about the 2010 CornFest event.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this informational report. An invoice in the amount of
$35,039.88 was paid by the Chamber of Commerce for City services provided for and outlined
in the MOU. In addition, the City contributed $21,500 from the City’s Business License Grant
Program to the Chamber of Commerce towards the cost of fireworks, as well as waived
$3,698.34 of parks and recreation fees associated with the use of City facilities.
Attachment:
Brentwood Chamber of Commerce’s 2009 CornFest Post Evaluation Report
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 6
Meeting Date: November 10, 2009
Subject/Title: Establish an ad hoc Solid Waste Transfer Station Subcommittee; appoint
Vice Mayor Stonebarger and Council Member Becnel as Subcommittee
members; request that the Subcommittee carry out Council direction of
October 27, 2009 related to the proposed solid waste transfer station.
Prepared by: Damien Brower, City Attorney
Bailey Grewal, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Submitted by: Donna Landeros, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION
By motion, establish an ad hoc Solid Waste Transfer Station Subcommittee; appoint Vice Mayor
Stonebarger and Council Member Becnel as Committee Members; and request that the
Subcommittee carry out Council direction of October 27, 2009 related to the proposed solid
waste transfer station.
PREVIOUS ACTION
On October 27, 2009, the City Council directed the ad hoc Sewer, Water & Solid Waste Rate
Study Subcommittee to analyze and further evaluate alternative transfer station services and
options.
BACKGROUND
Following the City Council meeting of October 27, 2009, staff reviewed the purview of the
existing ad hoc Sewer, Water & Solid Waste Rate Study Subcommittee. The Subcommittee,
consisting of Vice Mayor Stonebarger and Council Member Becnel, generally provides oversight
and direction on matters that could directly or indirectly affect the rates of the three enterprises.
It is staff’s opinion that the broader discussion of the solid waste transfer station is more
appropriately discussed by a new ad hoc committee focused solely on the transfer station.
Therefore, it is staff’s recommendation that the City Council establish an ad hoc Solid Waste
Transfer Station Subcommittee and authorize the Subcommittee to carry out Council direction
provided on October 27, 2009 related to the proposed solid waste transfer station. It is staff’s
further recommendation that the Council appoint Vice Mayor Stonebarger and Council Member
Becnel to the new Subcommittee.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 7
Meeting Date: November 10, 2009
Subject/Title: Adopt a Resolution approving the purchase of three (3) Ford F250 Super
Duty Pick-ups and one (1) Ford Fusion from Bill Brandt Ford in Brentwood,
California and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute a
purchase order and necessary documents in an amount not to exceed
$77,579.
Prepared by: Scott Dempsey, Fleet Manager
Chris Ehlers, Deputy Director of Public Works
Submitted by: Bailey Grewal, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the purchase of three (3) Ford F250 Super Duty Pick-ups and one
(1) Ford Fusion from Bill Brandt Ford in Brentwood, California and authorizing the City Manager
or designee to execute a purchase order and necessary documents in an amount not to exceed
$77,579.
PREVIOUS ACTION
On June 9, 2009, by Resolution No. 2009-132, City Council adopted the 2009/10 Operating
Budget, which includes the Vehicle/Equipment Replacement Fund for the City of Brentwood.
On July 28, 2009, by Resolution No. 2009-164, City Council approved the amended Purchasing
Policy 10-7.
BACKGROUND
The City’s Use of Vehicles and Related Equipment Policy 10-9 (“policy”) contains guidelines for
replacement of City vehicles. This policy establishes the useful life of both Police/staff cars and
compact/standard pickup trucks at five (5) years or 85,000 miles.
Each vehicle scheduled for replacement has been thoroughly inspected and evaluated by Fleet
Maintenance Division staff using set criteria to determine if it is prudent to extend its life cycle.
Components of each vehicle are individually assessed to determine the condition of the engine,
transmission, special equipment, and interior and exterior which, when combined and averaged,
provide a total overall rating. After careful review of the maintenance records and based upon
the overall rating of these vehicles, staff recommends they be replaced this fiscal year.
The three (3) replacement trucks for the Parks and Recreation Department and the replacement
vehicle for the Police Department were budgeted in the City Council adopted vehicle
replacement portion of the 2009/10 Operating Budget.
Bid specifications were prepared and distributed to three (3) vendors for Ford vehicles and the
City received the following three (3) bids:
Livermore Ford $76,483
Bill Brandt Ford $77,579
Stan Morri Ford $78,562
Per Purchasing Policy 10-7, 4.5 Local Preference, preference shall be given to a local vendor
providing their bid is within 3% of the lowest quote. Therefore, staff recommends approving the
purchase of these vehicles from Bill Brandt Ford in the amount of $77,579.
FISCAL IMPACT
A total of $77,579 will be expended through the Vehicle/Equipment Replacement Fund, which is
included in the City Council adopted 2009/10 Operating Budget. The Vehicle/Equipment
Replacement Fund has sufficient funds for this purchase.
Attachment:
• Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF THREE (3) FORD F250 SUPER DUTY PICKUPS
AND ONE (1) FORD FUSION FROM BILL BRANDT FORD IN BRENTWOOD,
CALIFORNIA AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO
EXECUTE A PURCHASE ORDER AND NECESSARY DOCUMENTS IN AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $77,579.
WHEREAS, after careful review of the maintenance records and condition of City
vehicles, staff recommends replacement of three (3) Ford F250 Super Duty Pickups and one (1)
Ford Fusion; and
WHEREAS, these vehicles were budgeted in the Vehicle/Equipment Replacement Fund
in the 2009/10 Operating Budget in order to maintain the quality of the City’s fleet; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2009, by Resolution No. 2009-132, City Council adopted the
2009/10 Operating Budget, which includes the Vehicle/Equipment Replacement Fund for the
City of Brentwood; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2009, by Resolution No. 2009-164, City Council approved the
amended Purchasing Policy 10-7; and
WHEREAS, this purchase is in compliance with the Purchasing Policy; and
WHEREAS, per Purchasing Policy 10-7, 4.5 Local Preference, preference shall be given
to a local vendor providing their bid is within 3% of the lowest quote; and
WHEREAS, the bid from Bill Brandt Ford qualifies for local preference as they operate
within the planning area as defined in the City’s General Plan and are within 3% of the lowest
quote; and
WHEREAS, this purchase is in compliance with the Use of Vehicles and Related
Equipment Policy 10-9 as it relates to the replacement schedule; and
WHEREAS, this purchase will be expended through the Vehicle/Equipment
Replacement Fund, which is included in the City Council adopted 2009/10 Operating Budget.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood
does hereby approve the purchase of three (3) Ford F250 Super Duty Pick-ups and one (1)
Ford Fusion from Bill Brandt Ford in Brentwood, California and authorize the City Manager or
designee to execute a purchase order and necessary documents in an amount not to exceed
$77,579.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on the 10th day of November 2009 by the following vote:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 8
Meeting Date: November 10, 2009
Subject/Title: Adopt a Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee
to execute a change order and necessary documents to increase the
Downtown Ford Sales purchase order by $1,095 for a total amount not to
exceed $126,848 for the purchase of five (5) 2010 Ford Crown Victoria Police
Interceptors with extended warranties due to an increase in state sales tax.
Prepared by: Scott Dempsey, Fleet Manager
Chris Ehlers, Deputy Director of Public Works
Submitted by: Bailey Grewal, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute a
change order and necessary documents to increase the Downtown Ford Sales purchase order
by $1,095 for a total amount not to exceed $126,848 for the purchase of five (5) 2010 Ford
Crown Victoria Police Interceptors with extended warranties due to an increase in state sales
tax.
PREVIOUS ACTION
On January 27, 2009 by Resolution No. 2009-012, City Council approved the
purchase/replacement of five 2009 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptors with extended
warranties from Downtown Ford Sales in Sacramento, California in an amount not to exceed
$125,753.
On June 9, 2009 by Resolution No. 2009-132, City Council adopted the 2009/10 Operating
Budget, which includes the Vehicle/Equipment Replacement Fund for the City of Brentwood.
On July 28, 2009 by Resolution No. 2009-164, City Council replaced in its entirety
Council/Administrative Policy No. 10-7, Purchasing Policy and making the necessary findings to
establish a local preference for purchasing.
BACKGROUND
In January 2009 City Council accepted the bid of Downtown Ford Sales in Sacramento,
California for the purchase of five (5) Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptors with extended
warranties. In February 2009, City staff generated a purchase order for an amount not to
exceed $125,753 and the order for five (5) 2009 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptors was
placed. City staff was then notified by Downtown Ford Sales that the manufacturer would not
build the vehicles until the 2010 model year began production. On April 1, 2009 the State of
California increased sales tax by 1% which increased the purchase price of the vehicles by
$1,095 totaling $126,848.
FISCAL IMPACT
A total of $126,848, which includes the increased sales tax of $1,095, will be expended through
the City Council adopted Vehicle/Equipment Replacement Fund. The Vehicle/Equipment
Replacement Fund has sufficient funds for this purchase and no budget amendment is
necessary.
Attachment:
• Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO
EXECUTE A CHANGE ORDER AND NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO INCREASE
THE DOWNTOWN FORD SALES PURCHASE ORDER BY $1,095 FOR A TOTAL
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $126,848 FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIVE (5) 2010 FORD
CROWN VICTORIA POLICE INTERCEPTORS WITH EXTENDED WARRANTIES DUE
TO AN INCREASE IN STATE SALES TAX.
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2009, by Resolution No. 2009-012, City Council approved
the purchase/replacement of five (5) Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptors with extended
warranties from Downtown Ford Sales in Sacramento, California for an amount not to exceed
$125,753; and
WHEREAS, City staff was then notified by Downtown Ford Sales that the manufacturer
would not build the vehicles until the 2010 model year began production; and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2009, the State of California increased sales tax by 1%,
increasing the amount of this purchase by $1,095 for a total not to exceed amount of $126,848;
and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2009, by Resolution No. 2009-132, City Council adopted the
2009/10 Operating Budget, which includes the Vehicle/Equipment Replacement Fund for the
City of Brentwood; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2009 by Resolution No. 2009-164, City Council replaced in its
entirety Council/Administrative Policy No. 10-7, Purchasing Policy and making the necessary
findings to establish a local preference for purchasing; and
WHEREAS, this purchase is in compliance with the Purchasing Policy; and
WHEREAS, this purchase is in compliance with the Use of Vehicles and Related
Equipment Policy 10-9, as it relates to the replacement schedule; and
WHEREAS, the Vehicle/Equipment Replacement Fund has sufficient funds for this
purchase and no budget amendment is necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood
does hereby approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute a change order
and necessary documents to increase the Downtown Ford Sales purchase order by $1,095 for a
total amount not to exceed $126,848 for the purchase of five (5) 2010 Ford Crown Victoria
Police Interceptors with extended warranties due to an increase in state sales tax.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on the 10th day of November 2009 by the following vote:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 9
Meeting Date: November 10, 2009
Subject/Title: Adopt a Resolution accepting all off-site public improvements for maintenance;
accepting the Maintenance Bond; releasing the Improvement Securities; and
directing the City Clerk to file this Resolution with the Recorder of Contra Costa
County, for Design Review No. 01-43, developed by Mercy Housing, located at
the northeast corner of Shady Willow Lane and Sand Creek Road.
Prepared by: Heather Silfies, Technical Assistant
Submitted by: Bailey Grewal, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
____________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution accepting all off-site public improvements for maintenance; accepting the
Maintenance Bond; releasing the Improvement Securities; and directing the City Clerk to file this
Resolution with the Recorder of Contra Costa County, for Design Review (“DR”) No. 01-43,
developed by Mercy Housing (“Developer”), located at the northeast corner of Shady Willow
Lane and Sand Creek Road.
PREVIOUS ACTION
On January 21, 2003, by Resolution No. 03-01, Planning Commission approved DR No. 01-43,
to allow for the construction of a 96-unit multi-family development.
BACKGROUND
This project located at the northeast corner of Shady Willow Lane and Sand Creek Road, was
approved for the development of 96 multi-family units consisting of fourteen residential buildings
and a 3,100 square foot (“SF”) community building including a childcare center. All
improvements required by the Conditions of Approval for this project have been constructed and
inspected for conformance with the approved improvement plans including sewer, water and
storm drain lines, sidewalk, paving, streetlights, fiber optic conduit and landscaping. A
Maintenance Bond to cover the twelve-month warranty period for all public improvements has
been posted.
As a part of the project, the Developer has installed the following improvement quantities:
108,781 SF of paving, 478,636 SF of aggregate base, 6,808 SF of sidewalk, 1,453 Linear Feet
(“LF”) of curb and gutter, 5 handicap ramps, 101 LF 6’ sound wall, 600 LF 9’ sound wall, 31 LF
18” storm drain line, 5 inlets, 5 manholes, 67 LF 8” sewer line, 1,004 LF 10” sewer line, 1,527
LF 16” waterline, 10 valves, 170 street trees, 47,00 SF landscaping and irrigation.
With the improvements now installed to the satisfaction of the City, it is the appropriate time to
accept the public improvements and begin the warranty period.
FISCAL IMPACT
Upon acceptance of improvements the City will incur annual costs associated with necessary
maintenance of streets, landscaping and utilities, estimated at $30,961.69. Routine roadway
maintenance will be funded by the General Fund and Measure “J” transportation sales tax, with
sewer and water maintenance funded through their respective enterprise funds. Landscaping
and Lighting Assessment District (“LLD”) No. 06-4 will be responsible for the street lighting and
landscaping maintenance in public areas.
Attachments:
Resolution
Site Map
RESOLUTION NO.
ADOPT A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ALL OFF-SITE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
FOR MAINTENANCE; ACCEPTING THE MAINTENANCE BOND; RELEASING THE
IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES; AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FILE THIS
RESOLUTION WITH THE RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, FOR DESIGN
REVIEW (“DR”) NO. 01-43, DEVELOPED BY MERCY HOUSING (“DEVELOPER”),
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SHADY WILLOW LANE AND SAND
CREEK ROAD.
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2003, by Resolution No. 03-01, Planning Commission
approved DR No. 01-43, to allow for the construction of a 96-unit multi-family development; and
WHEREAS, the required improvements have been completed and constructed in
substantial conformance with the approved improvement plans.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood
with respect to DR No. 01-43, developed by Mercy Housing that:
1. All off-site public improvements are hereby accepted for maintenance.
2. The Maintenance Bond is hereby accepted.
3. The Improvement Securities will be released within sixty (60) days of the passage of
this Resolution.
4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file this Resolution with the Recorder of Contra
Costa County.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on the 10th day of November 2009 by the following vote:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 10
Meeting Date: November 10, 2009
Subject/Title: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Engineer or designee to execute and
submit a grant application and all other related documents to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission for the 2009/10 Transportation Development Act,
Article 3 Program for funding in the amount of $277,200, for the Sunset Road
in-pavement crosswalk system, Kirkman Road curb ramp, and Balfour Road
sidewalk projects.
Prepared by: Steve Kersevan, Traffic Engineering Manager
Submitted by: Bailey Grewal, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Engineer or designee to execute and submit a grant
application and all other related documents to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for
the 2009/10 Transportation Development Act, Article 3 Program for funding in the amount of
$277,200, for the Sunset Road in-pavement crosswalk system, Kirkman Road curb ramp, and
Balfour Road sidewalk projects.
PREVIOUS ACTION
None.
BACKGROUND
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (“MTC”), as the regional transportation planning
agency for the San Francisco Bay Area, has adopted MTC Resolution No. 875 entitled
“Transportation Development Act (“TDA”), Article 3, Pedestrian/Bicycle Projects.” This
Resolution delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation of
funds intended for bicycle and pedestrian projects.
The application will include a project to install in-pavement crosswalk lights on Sunset Road at
the Marsh Creek Trail crossing, sidewalk along the north side of Balfour Road between
Minnesota Avenue, and the existing sidewalk 820 feet to the west and a ramp on Kirkman Road
to allow bicycle access to the neighboring subdivision.
FISCAL IMPACT
The TDA Article 3 Program will reimburse up to 100% of project costs. This work is dependent
on award of the grant.
Attachments:
Resolution with Attachments A and B
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AND SUBMIT A
GRANT APPLICATION AND ALL OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS TO THE
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR THE 2009/10
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT, ARTICLE 3 PROGRAM FOR FUNDING
IN THE AMOUNT OF $277,200, FOR THE SUNSET ROAD IN-PAVEMENT
CROSSWALK SYSTEM, KIRKMAN ROAD CURB RAMP AND BALFOUR ROAD
SIDEWALK PROJECTS.
WHEREAS, Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (“TDA”), Public Utilities
Code (“PUC”) Section 99200 et seq., authorizes the submission of claims to a regional
transportation planning agency for the funding of projects exclusively for the benefit and/or use
of pedestrians and bicyclists; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (“MTC”), as the regional
transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC Resolution
No. 875, Revised, entitled “Transportation Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian/Bicycle
Projects,” which delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation
of “TDA Article 3” funding; and
WHEREAS, MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised requires that requests for the allocation
of TDA Article 3 funding be submitted as part of a single, countywide coordinated claim from
each county in the San Francisco Bay region; and
WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood desires to submit a request to MTC for the allocation
of TDA Article 3 funds to support the projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, which
are for the exclusive benefit and/or use of pedestrians and/or bicyclists.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood
does hereby authorize the City Engineer or designee to execute and submit a grant application
and all other related documents to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the 2009/10
Transportation Development Act, Article 3 Program for funding in the amount of $277,200, for
the Sunset Road in-pavement crosswalk system, Kirkman Road curb ramp, and Balfour Road
sidewalk projects, and that:
1. The City of Brentwood declares it is eligible to request an allocation of TDA Article 3
funds pursuant to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code; and
2. There is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project or
projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, or that might impair the ability
of the City of Brentwood to carry out the project; and
3. The City of Brentwood attests to the accuracy of and approves the statements in
Attachment A to this resolution; and
4. A certified copy of this resolution and its attachments, and any accompanying
supporting materials shall be forwarded to the congestion management agency,
countywide transportation planning agency, or county association of governments,
as the case may be, of Contra Costa County for submission to MTC as part of the
countywide coordinated TDA Article 3 claim.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on the 10th day of November 2009 by the following vote:
Resolution No. _________
Attachment A
Re: Request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2009/2010
Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project Funding
Findings
Page 1 of 1
1. That the City of Brentwood is not legally impeded from submitting a request to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission for the allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds,
nor is the City of Brentwood legally impeded from undertaking the project(s) described in “Attachment B”
of this resolution.
2. That the City of Brentwood has committed adequate staffing resources to complete the project(s)
described in Attachment B.
3. A review of the project(s) described in Attachment B has resulted in the consideration of all pertinent
matters, including those related to environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances, attendant to
the successful completion of the project(s).
4. Issues attendant to securing environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances for the projects
described in Attachment B have been reviewed and will be concluded in a manner and on a schedule
that will not jeopardize the deadline for the use of the TDA funds being requested.
5. That the project(s) described in Attachment B comply with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.).
6. That as portrayed in the budgetary description(s) of the project(s) in Attachment B, the sources of funding
other than TDA are assured and adequate for completion of the project(s).
7. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are for capital construction and/or design engineering;
and/or for the maintenance of a Class I bikeway which is closed to motorized traffic; and/or for the
purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes; and/or for the development or support of a bicycle safety
education program; and/or for the development of a comprehensive bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities
plan, and an allocation of TDA Article 3 funding for such a plan has not been received by the City of
Brentwood within the prior five fiscal years.
8. That the project(s) described in Attachment B which are bicycle projects have been included in a detailed
bicycle circulation element included in an adopted general plan, or included in an adopted
comprehensive bikeway plan (such as outlined in Section 2377 of the California Bikeways Act, Streets
and Highways Code section 2370 et seq.).
9. That any project described in Attachment B that is a “Class I Bikeway,” meets the mandatory minimum
safety design criteria published in Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual.
10. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are ready to commence implementation during the fiscal
year of the requested allocation.
11. That the City of Brentwood agrees to maintain, or provide for the maintenance of, the project(s) and
facilities described in Attachment B, for the benefit of and use by the public.
Resolution No. _________
Attachment B
TDA Article 3 Project Application Form
Fiscal Year of this Claim: 2008/2009 Applicant: City of Brentwood
Contact person: Steve Kersevan
Mailing Address: 708 Third Street Brentwood CA 94513
E-Mail Address: skersevan@ci.brentwood.ca.us Telephone: (925) 516-5316
Secondary Contact (in event primary not available)
E-Mail Address: Telephone:
Short Title Description of Project: Sunset Road in pavement crosswalk lights, Kirkman Road ramp and Balfour Road sidewalk
Amount of claim: $
Functional Description of Project:
Place an in pavement crosswalk light system on Sunset Road at the Marsh Creek regional trail crossing. Construct a curb cut on Kirkman Road in order
to allow bicycle access to neighboring subdivision. Construct 820 linear feet of sidewalk along the north side of Balfour Road between Minnesota and the
existing sidewalk top the west
Financial Plan:
List the project elements for which TDA funding is being requested (e.g., planning, environmental, engineering, right-of-way, construction, inspection,
contingency, audit). Use the table below to show the project budget. Include prior and proposed future funding of the project. If the project is a
segment of a larger project, include prior and proposed funding sources for the other segments.
Project Elements:
Funding Source All Prior FYs Application FY Next FY Following FYs Totals
TDA Article 3
list all other sources:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Totals
Project Eligibility: YES?/NO?
A. Has the project been approved by the claimant's governing body? (If "NO," provide the approximate date approval is YES
anticipated). February 2009
B. Has this project previously received TDA Article 3 funding? If "YES," provide an explanation on a separate page. NO
C. For "bikeways," does the project meet Caltrans minimum safety design criteria pursuant to Chapter 1000 of the California N/A
Highway Design Manual? (Available on the internet via: http://www.dot.ca.gov).
D. Has the project been reviewed by a Bicycle Advisory Committee? (If "NO," provide an explanation). YES
E. Has the public availability of the environmental compliance documentation for the project (pursuant to CEQA) been YES
evidenced by the dated stamping of the document by the county clerk or county recorder? (required only for projects that
include construction).
F. Will the project be completed before the allocation expires? Enter the anticipated completion date of project (month and YES (June 2010)
year)
G. Have provisions been made by the claimant to maintain the project or facility, or has the claimant arranged for such YES
maintenance by another agency? (If an agency other than the Claimant is to maintain the facility provide its name:
)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 11
Meeting Date: November 10, 2009
Subject/Title: Adopt a resolution approving Temporary Use Permit No. 09-17, allowing the
Chamber of Commerce to close several downtown streets and temporarily
establishing no parking restrictions and tow away zones, as part of allowing the
use of City-owned property for the 27th Annual Holiday Parade and the
Brentwood Advisory Neighborhood Committee’s (BANC) annual Christmas tree
lighting ceremony, for one day, Saturday, November 21st, between the hours of
1:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., located within the downtown.
Prepared by: Jeff Zilm, Senior Planner
Submitted by: Casey McCann, Community Development Director
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving Temporary Use Permit No. 09-17, allowing the Chamber of
Commerce to close several downtown streets and temporarily establishing no parking
restrictions and tow away zones, as part of allowing the use of City-owned property for the 27th
Annual Holiday Parade and the Brentwood Advisory Neighborhood Committee’s (BANC)
annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony, for one day, Saturday, November 21st, between the
hours of 1:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., located within the downtown.
PREVIOUS ACTION
On April 13, 2004, the City Council approved an amendment to the Brentwood Municipal Code
section for Temporary Use Permits. Section 17.850.004 requires that any temporary use
seeking closure of city right-of-way must be approved by the City Council.
DISCUSSION
On September 25, 2009, the Brentwood Chamber of Commerce submitted an application to use
City right-of-way located in the downtown to hold its 27th Annual Holiday Parade and the
Brentwood Advisory Neighborhood Committee’s annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony.
The criteria for approval, when evaluating a request for a TUP, includes consideration of
impacts on traffic, circulation, parking, visibility, noise, harmful effects on adjoining property and
any other relevant impacts or considerations of the proposed use. The proposed use may be
reasonably conditioned to mitigate identified impacts or to ensure public health, safety or
welfare.
The proposed parade route includes several of the streets in the downtown area. The route will
include First Street north of Birch Street, Pine Street between First Street and Second Street,
Second Street between Pine Street and Oak Street, as well as staging areas on Birch Street
and a portion of First Street east of Birch Street to Fir Street and Fir Street from Brentwood
Boulevard to First Street. The parade will end on Oak Street, between Second Street and Third
Street. A condition of approval requires final approval of the street closure by the Police
Department.
The parade will consist of several hundred people proceeding on foot through the downtown
area along with the more traditional automobiles, floats, equestrians, members of the military,
bands and scouts. The parade formation will begin along First Street, east of Birch Street as
well as on Birch Street north of First Street. The parade will start at the intersection of Birch
Street and First Street.
The proposed parade and Christmas tree lighting hours are:
Saturday 1:30 p.m. to 2:30p.m. – clearing and closing the streets for the parade
Saturday 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. – staging and setup for the parade
Saturday 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. – holiday parade
Saturday 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. – Christmas tree lighting/clean-up
At the conclusion of the parade, Second Street, between Maple Street and Oak Street and Oak
Street, between Second Street and Third Street, will remain closed for the Brentwood Advisory
Neighborhood Committee’s annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony. This ceremony takes
place at the corner of Oak Street and Second Street where several hundred people will gather
to watch the lights, on the large decorated Christmas tree, being turned on. Once the ceremony
is over Second Street, between Maple Street and Oak Street and Oak Street, between Second
Street and Third Street, will be opened for vehicular traffic.
The proposed holiday parade and Christmas tree lighting ceremony will have a temporary
impact upon surrounding businesses. Some areas of the downtown will not be accessible to
vehicular traffic for three hours; however, there have been no complaints in past years from
residents or business owners concerning this particular function. Barriers would be placed at
intersections off the parade route, keeping traffic flowing by preventing vehicles from turning
down a street with a closure and backing up, thereby creating a traffic problem.
Traffic will also be moderately impacted in the downtown, as large portions of downtown streets
will be closed from 1:30 p.m. through 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, November 21st. General parking is
available in the two municipal lots on Brentwood Boulevard, as well as on-street parking
throughout the downtown area not closed to traffic. City Park will be the terminus, where four
portable restrooms will be on-hand. There will also be two portable restrooms within the staging
area. This event is expected to draw 500 to 800 visitors to the parade and the greater
downtown area of Brentwood over the course of the event. The Holiday Parade and Christmas
tree lighting ceremony are designed to kick off the winter shopping season and will expose the
downtown to visitors that may not typically frequent the area.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed project qualifies as a Class 4 categorical exemption under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 (e)) in that the proposed 27th Annual
Holiday Parade and the annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony are a minor temporary use of
land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost of providing police services for the 2009 Chamber of Commerce 27th Annual
Holiday Parade has been estimated at $5,061.86 by the Brentwood Police Department based
upon past years. This cost will be reimbursed to the Police Department after the conclusion of
the event by the Brentwood Chamber of Commerce. The Police Department will deploy
Reserve Officers, CSOs, and Volunteers where appropriate to reduce personnel costs.
2
Additionally, the applicant has paid the application fee of $490.00 for the processing of this
Temporary Use Permit.
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
APPROVING TEMPORARY USE PERMIT NO. 09-17, CLOSING SEVERAL
DOWNTOWN STREETS AND TEMPORARILY ESTABLISHING NO PARKING
RESTRICTIONS AND TOW AWAY ZONES, AS PART OF ALLOWING THE USE OF
CITY-OWNED PROPERTY FOR THE 27TH ANNUAL HOLIDAY PARADE AND THE
BRENTWOOD ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE’S (BANC) ANNUAL
CHRISTMAS TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY, FOR ONE DAY, SATURDAY,
NOVEMBER 21, 2009, BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 1:30 P.M. AND 7:00 P.M.,
LOCATED WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN.
WHEREAS, the Brentwood Chamber of Commerce will be holding its 27TH Annual
Holiday Parade and the Brentwood Advisory Neighborhood Committee will be holding its annual
Christmas tree lighting ceremony, on November 21, 2009, events of community significance;
and
WHEREAS, to accommodate the 2009 Chamber of Commerce 27th Annual Holiday
Parade, it is requested that the following streets be closed to traffic and no parking and tow
away zones be established between 1:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. on November 21, 2009:
First Street from Fir Street to Pine Street
Birch Street from First Street to Third Street
Pine Street from First Street to Second Street
Second Street from Oak Street to Pine Street
Left Turn lane from southbound Brentwood Boulevard onto Second Street
Left Turn lane from southbound Brentwood Boulevard onto Oak Street
Additionally, it is requested that the following streets be closed to traffic for staging areas
or to prevent traffic impacts:
Fir Street from Brentwood Boulevard to First Street
Chestnut Street from Brentwood Boulevard to Fourth Street
Oak Street from Brentwood Boulevard to Third Street
Maple Street from Brentwood Boulevard to the east end of Maple Street
Third Street from Oak Street to Birch Street
Second Street from Oak Street to Birch Street
Delta Avenue
Rolando Avenue
Cesa Avenue
WHEREAS, to accommodate the Brentwood Advisory Neighborhood Committee’s
(BANC) annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony, it is requested that the following streets
remain closed to traffic and no parking and tow away zones established for the Holiday parade
remain in effect between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. on November 21, 2009:
Second Street, between Maple Street and Oak Street
Oak Street, between Second Street and Third Street
WHEREAS, pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 21101(e), the City may temporarily close
portions of streets for parades and local special events such as the Chamber of Commerce 27th
1
Annual Holiday Parade and the Brentwood Advisory Neighborhood Committee’s annual
Christmas tree lighting ceremony when the closing is necessary for the safety and protection of
persons who are to use those portions of the street during the temporary closure; pursuant to
Vehicle Code Section 22507, the City may prohibit parking on portions of streets during all or
certain hours of the day; pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 22651(b), (m), and (n), City peace
officers may remove by towing any vehicle from those portions of the street where parking is
prohibited; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project qualifies as a Class 4 categorical exemption under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 (e)) in that the proposed
27th Annual Holiday Parade and the annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony are a minor
temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood
hereby approves TUP 09-17, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit A,
attached hereto, and authorizes the closure of the streets depicted in Attachment 1 to Exhibit A,
the prohibition of parking, and the establishment of tow away zones between the hours of 1:30
p.m. and 7:00 p.m., November 21, 2009.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
an adjourned regular meeting held on November 10, 2009 by the following vote:
2
EXHIBIT “A” TO
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TUP 09-17
1. The applicant shall provide documentation of City of Brentwood Police Department approval
for street closures to the Community Development Department by November 13, 2009.
2. The applicant shall provide documentation of Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
approval for street closure accessibility to the Community Development Department by
November 13, 2009.
3. The applicant shall provide a plan showing adequate restroom facilities to the satisfaction of
the City of Brentwood’s Community Development Department by November 13, 2009.
4. The applicant shall provide a certificate of insurance or statement of self-insurance coverage
naming the City as additionally insured in the amount of $1,000,000.00 for general liability,
automobile liability, employer’s liability and errors and omissions. This document must be
provided to the City by November 13, 2009.
5. The approved hours of operation are as follows:
Saturday, November 21, 2008 from 1:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
6. The applicant shall provide a statement agreeing to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend
the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all liability or claims that may be
brought against the City arising out of its approval of this permit, or the environmental
determination rendered in connection with the permit approval, or arising out of the
operation of the use or uses allowed under the permit, save and except that caused solely
by the City’s active negligence by November 13, 2009.
7. The Chamber of Commerce shall restore any areas used for the parade and the Brentwood
Advisory Neighborhood Committee shall restore any areas used for the tree lighting
ceremony to the same or better condition prior to the events, immediately following the
event.
8. No parking shall be allowed in front of any street closure barricades.
9. All aspects of the proposed use and street closures shall be in substantial conformance with
Attachment 1.
10. The applicant shall arrange with the Public Works Department for additional carts and street
sweeping and submit documentation of approval to the Community Development
Department by November 13, 2009.
11. In the event the Chamber of Commerce or the Brentwood Advisory Neighborhood
Committee do not clean up the trash from their respective events, to the satisfaction of the
City of Brentwood Public Works Department, the Chamber of Commerce and the Brentwood
Advisory Neighborhood Committee must work with the Solid Waste Division to schedule a
garbage pick-up and to have the streets swept after the event.
3
12. The Brentwood Chamber of Commerce will reimburse the cost of providing Police Services
to the Police Department after the conclusion of the event. The Police Department will
deploy Reserve Officers, CSOs, and Volunteers where appropriate to reduce personnel
costs.
4
5
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 12
Meeting Date: November 10, 2009
Subject/Title: A Resolution approving, and authorizing the City Manager to execute, an
agreement with CalPERS to allow the City to prefund other post employment
benefits through the CalPERS California Employer’s Retiree Benefit Trust
Program and delegating authority to the City Manager and City
Treasurer/Director of Finance and Information Systems to request and certify the
purpose of disbursements from the Trust.
Submitted by: Kerry Breen, Business Services Manager
Approved by: Pam Ehler, Director of Finance and Information Systems
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving, and authorizing the City Manager to execute, an agreement with
CalPERS to prefund other post employment benefits through the CalPERS California Employer’s
Retiree Benefit Trust Program and delegating authority to the City Manager and City
Treasurer/Director of Finance and Information Systems to request and certify the purpose of
disbursements from the Trust.
PREVIOUS ACTION
On June 22, 2004 the City Council approved Resolution No. 2004-151 establishing a health
benefit vesting requirement for future employees of the City (previous bargaining unit MOU
agreements had established a less stringent eligibility requirement).
On April 28, 2009 the City Council directed staff to pursue an agreement with CalPERS for Other
Post Employment Benefit trust services as recommended by the OPEB Ad-Hoc Subcommittee.
BACKGROUND
On June 21, 2004, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) approved Statement
No. 45 (GASB 45), Accounting Standards for Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB). For most
governments, including the City, the most common and largest of these benefits is the funding of
retiree medical costs. GASB 45 requires government employers to report the costs and financial
obligations that governments incur for OPEB benefits as part of the compensation for services
rendered by their employees.
Prior to GASB 45, OPEB costs were reported on a “pay-as-you-go” basis, meaning the expenses
were recorded as the City made the payments on behalf of the retiree. With GASB 45, the City
will have to report the costs and financial obligations associated with OPEB as the employee
earns the benefit, as opposed to waiting until they are retired. In this way the cost of employee
service will be accounted for during actual employment; thus avoiding passing along current
employee benefit expenses to future taxpayers.
OPEB Trusts are a funding vehicle used by employers to prefund the future costs of retiree OPEB
benefits. Once funds are deposited in these irrevocable trusts, they may not be withdrawn for
any purpose other than funding the costs of retiree OPEB benefits, similar to how pension trusts
operate. OPEB Trusts provide agencies with a fiscally sound option for ensuring they are able to
meet their OPEB liability in the most cost-effective manner. There is, however, no requirement
that the City prefund any amount of the OPEB liability, even after a trust is established. Council’s
action tonight does not commit any funds.
There are two primary benefits to entering a trust. First, prefunding allows the City to make
periodic contributions to the trust, which when placed in equity investments, have the potential to
generate greater earnings over the long term than what the City’s investment portfolio would
normally be expected to achieve. In future years, the City will be able use these investment
earnings to pay for retiree OPEB benefits, similar to the way the CalPERS pension plan operates.
As a result, over the long term the City’s cash payments for retiree OPEB costs will be reduced.
This has held true over long periods of time, despite the fluctuations that occur during economic
booms and busts. Second, GASB 45 rules require that until the funds are transferred to an
irrevocable trust, an employer must disclose that its liability is unfunded because the funds are
still held directly under the employer’s control. This means that any funds the City accumulates
and sets aside in an OPEB reserve account or in our Insurance Internal Service Fund, which
currently has approximately $5.6 million, cannot be used to reduce the liability on the City’s
financial statements. Only placing the funds in an irrevocable OPEB Trust allows the City to
report them as a reduction to the City’s OPEB liability under GASB 45.
The inherent financial responsibility from prefunding OPEB liabilities has been repeatedly
confirmed by independent studies and panels, including the State’s Public Employee Post-
Employment Benefits Commission (appointed by leaders of the California Legislature and
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger). The bipartisan commission concluded that "prefunding OPEB
benefits is just as important as prefunding pensions," and "the ultimate goal of a prefunding policy
should be to achieve full funding."
Following the implementation of the new GASB 45 requirement, CalPERS created the California
Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CERBT), a new trust fund which permits agencies to
prefund the future cost of their retiree OPEB benefits. A number of other financial institutions
have created similar trusts in response to the GASB 45 requirement. After reviewing the
available options, staff believes that CalPERS provides the best overall benefit to the City for the
following reasons:
• As the largest public pension system in the United States, CalPERS has significant
experience in administering employer-sponsored plans.
• Earnings from trust fund investments help reduce future costs. CalPERS has a history of
outstanding investment performance, with investment rate of returns paying 75% of
CalPERS pension benefits. It is expected that the new trust fund for OPEB benefits will
have similar returns and will generate significant revenues to apply to future benefit costs.
• Administrative costs are lower with CalPERS than with other trust options.
• The CalPERS CERBT has been the choice of more California governmental agencies
than any other trust option available.
Based on the strategic investment asset allocation for CERBT, which follows the same
investment management guidelines as the pension trust, CalPERS is projecting a long term
expected rate of return of 7.75%. While there is a level of risk in the CalPERS portfolio in order to
earn this higher level of return, the long term proven track record of CalPERS investments
provides some assurance that the expected return of 7.75% can be achieved.
In order to enroll in the CERBT, the City has to establish a targeted annual contribution rate. This
is typically expressed as a percentage of the Actuarial Required Contribution (ARC). The ARC
represents the amount that would have to be contributed each year in order to fully fund an OPEB
trust. The City’s current ARC is approximately $2.7 million, which is significantly higher than what
is currently being funded (pay as you go costs of $675,000). While it is not feasible for the City to
immediately begin contributing the full ARC, establishing a long-term financing strategy helps the
City address the significant costs of OPEB. The OPEB Subcommittee met on August 20, 2009
and recommended that the City, which is currently funding on a pay-as-you-go level, increase
funding systematically over the next decade until approximately 85% annual funding of the ARC
is achieved.
Staff presented this information to the City’s actuarial consultant, who developed an estimated
funding schedule. It is important to note that the actuary made several assumptions in
developing their estimated funding schedule and should these variables change the funding
amounts would change substantially. One of the most significant assumptions is that the cost of
health care will increase between 69% and 76% over the course of the next 9 years, followed by
annual increases of 4.5% per year after that.
The numbers presented below detail the actuary’s estimated funding schedule. These will be
updated every two years, in accordance with the requirement that the City obtain an OPEB
actuarial valuation study on a bi-annual basis. While the City is not required to make these
contributions, they represent a long term strategic plan for managing the costs of OPEB. Funding
for each individual year will be requested through the City’s Operating Budget.
Fiscal Year % of ARC Funded Est. $ Funding
2009/10 22% (Pay as you go) $ 675,000
2010/11 30% $ 1,012,000
2011/12 38% $ 1,404 000
2012/13 46% $ 1,851,000
2013/14 54% $ 2,352,000
2014/15 61% $ 2,904,000
2015/16 69% $ 3,503,000
2016/17 77% $ 4,141,000
2017/18 85% $ 4,810,000
These costs will be split by fund in accordance with staffing levels on an annual basis. The
current allocation of costs indicates that the General Fund will be responsible for 67% of these
costs, the Enterprises for 23%, the Internal Services for 6%, and the Redevelopment Agency and
Citywide Parks District for 2% each. In addition, the City has $5.6 million in the Insurance internal
service fund which may be used to help offset these expenses. Estimated OPEB costs were
included in the most recent rate studies for both the Water and Wastewater Enterprises.
The estimated funding amounts will be modified with each successive actuarial valuation study,
as changes in employment trends, healthcare costs, and other actuarial assumptions are made.
The City is required to have a new actuarial valuation study every two years. The current
actuarial valuation study is for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.
Once the City’s CERBT account is established and funded, the City will have the ability to
withdraw funds for qualified other post employment benefit costs. Staff is recommending that the
City Manager and the City Treasurer/Director of Finance and Information Systems be given the
authority to request such disbursements.
FISCAL IMPACT
Tonight’s action does not have any fiscal impact. Funding for each individual year will be
requested through the Operating Budget process. The costs of the required bi-annual actuarial
valuation studies are budgeted through the City’s Insurance Internal Service Fund.
Attachment:
Resolution
Agreement with CalPERS for CERBT Trustee Services
Delegation of Authority to Request Disbursements
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD TO
APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
WITH CALPERS TO ALLOW THE CITY TO PREFUND OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS THROUGH THE CALPERS CALIFORNIA EMPLOYER’S RETIREE BENEFIT
TRUST PROGRAM AND DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE CITY MANAGER AND
CITY TREASURER/DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS TO
REQUEST AND CERTIFY THE PURPOSE OF DISBURSEMENTS FROM THE TRUST
WHEREAS, On June 22, 2004 the City Council approved Resolution No. 2007-150
establishing a health benefit vesting requirement for future employees of the City (previous
bargaining unit MOU agreements had established a less stringent eligibility requirement); and
WHEREAS, On April 28, 2009 the City Council directed staff to pursue an agreement with
CalPERS for Other Post Employment Benefit trust services as recommended by the OPEB Ad-
Hoc Subcommittee; and
WHEREAS, OPEB Trusts are a funding vehicle used by employers to prefund the future
costs of retiree OPEB benefits; and
WHEREAS, after thorough analysis staff believes that CalPERS provides the best overall
benefit to the City among the OPEB Trust providers; and
WHEREAS, the inherent financial responsibility from prefunding OPEB liabilities has been
repeatedly confirmed by independent studies and panels; and
WHEREAS, the City has $5.6 million in the Insurance Internal Service fund which may be
used to help offset OPEB expenses; and
WHEREAS, the estimated funding amounts for OPEB will be modified with each
successive actuarial valuation study; and
WHEREAS, the City is required to have a new actuarial valuation study every two years.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood
hereby
1. Approves, and authorizes the City Manager to execute, an agreement with CalPERS
to allow the City to prefund other post employment benefits through the CalPERS
California Employer’s Retiree Benefit Trust program.
2. Delegates authority to the City Manager and City Treasurer/Director of Finance and
Information Systems to request and certify the purpose of disbursements from the
Trust.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a
regular meeting held on the November 10, 2009 by the following vote:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 13
Meeting Date: November 10, 2009
Subject/Title: A Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to
execute a third amendment to the lease agreement with the Contra Costa
Community College District pertaining to Los Medanos College located at the
Brentwood Education and Technology Center
Prepared by: Denise Davies, Chief Financial Operations Officer
Marna Huber, Management Analyst
Submitted by: Pamela Ehler, Director of Finance and Information Systems
RECOMMENDATION
A Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute a third
amendment to the lease agreement with the Contra Costa Community College District
pertaining to Los Medanos College located at the Brentwood Education and Technology Center.
PREVIOUS ACTION
On September 14, 1999, City Council approved Resolution No. 99-147, authorizing the
purchase and sale of property at 101 Sand Creek Road in an amount not to exceed $1.35
million, CIP Project No. 336-3112.
On June 27, 2000, City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a lease with the Contra
Costa Community College District for the Brentwood Education and Technology Center.
On September 4, 2001, Los Medanos College opened in Brentwood.
On December 19, 2001, the parties executed the lease agreement between the City of
Brentwood and the Contra Costa Community College District to lease 17,000 square feet at the
Brentwood Education and Technology Center.
On March 20, 2002, City Council approved Amendment No. 1 to the lease between the City of
Brentwood and Contra Costa Community College District. This amended the parking and
janitorial services for Los Medanos College.
On October 9, 2007, City Council approved a second amendment to the lease between City of
Brentwood and Los Medanos College for the lease of an additional 1,830 square feet of space
at the Brentwood Education and Technology Center.
BACKGROUND
The agreement between the Contra Costa Community College District (CCCCD) and the City of
Brentwood, authorized by the City Council in June of 2000, provided the City with the ability to
lease approximately 17,000 square feet of space at the Brentwood Education and Technology
Center to CCCCD. Additionally, the City Council authorized an amendment to the agreement
with CCCCD in March of 2002 to resolve matters related to the on-going parking and janitorial
services for Los Medanos College (LMC). The second amendment with CCCCD, added 1,830
square feet of space to the lease.
At the time the original lease agreement was executed in 2001, it was anticipated that
enrollment at LMC would slowly grow to 500 full-time equivalent students. That was a very
conservative estimate and in fact enrollment reached 500 students during the first year that
LMC was opened. Additionally, the City Council authorized an amendment to the agreement
with CCCCD in March of 2002 to resolve matters related to the on-going parking and janitorial
services for Los Medanos College (LMC). In October 2007, City Council authorized a second
amendment with CCCCD that added an additional 1,830 square feet of space to the lease for
additional classrooms.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to establish the parameters under which the
additional 2,692 square feet of space needed for two additional classrooms will be leased by the
City to CCCCD as well as amend the current rental rate associated with 1,830 square feet
leased to the College in 2007 based upon current market pricing.
The original lease of 17,000 square feet of space was based on full-time student enrollment and
included utilities. The lease of the additional 1,830 square feet of space was based on a rent
per square foot amount to be established annually by the City Council with the approval and
adoption of the Cost Allocation Plan and Fee Schedule. The costs associated with the
amendment are based upon negotiated terms as described in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of the
Agreement.
LMC will pay the City for their pro-rated share of utility cost for the additional leased space. The
remainder of the agreement is unchanged from the previous version approved by Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
For the Third Demised Premises, the pro-rated utility cost, which is based on the actual 2008/09
cost per square foot, is $494.87 per month ($5,938.44 annually) for the which CCCCD will pay
to the City with their additional lease payment of $5,168.64 per month ($62,023.68 annually).
For the Additional Demised Premises, the pro-rated utility cost, which is based on the actual
2008/09 cost per square foot, is $336.41 per month ($4,036.92 annually) and leased space
payment of $3,513.60 per month ($42,163.20 annually).
In addition, the utility costs will be adjusted annually based on the actual utility cost per square
foot of the preceding fiscal year. The monthly square foot rental rate will be adjusted annually
based on the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco Bay Area. The original agreement
calls for CCCCD to make semi-annual lease payments on January 15th and July 15th of each
calendar year.
Attachments:
Resolution
Third Amendment
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO
EXECUTE A THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE
CONTRA COSTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT PERTAINING TO LOS
MEDANOS COLLEGE LOCATED AT THE BRENTWOOD EDUCATION AND
TECHNOLOGY CENTER
WHEREAS, on September 14, 1999, City Council approved Resolution No. 99-147,
authorizing the purchase and sale of property at 101 Sand Creek Road in an amount not to
exceed $1.35 million, CIP Project No. 336-3112.; and
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2000, City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a
lease with the Contra Costa Community College District for the Brentwood Education and
Technology Center; and
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2001, the lease agreement between the City of
Brentwood and the Contra Costa Community College District was executed whereby the City
leased to Contra Costa Community College District 17,000 square feet at the Brentwood
Education and Technology Center; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2002, City Council approved Amendment No. 1 to the lease
between the City of Brentwood and Contra Costa Community College District amending the
parking and janitorial services for Los Medanos College; and
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2007 City Council approved a second amendment to the
lease between City of Brentwood and Los Medanos College for the lease of an additional 1,830
square feet of space at the Brentwood Education and Technology Center; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the agreement and to increase Contra Costa
Community College District’s total leased area.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood
does hereby:
Approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute a Third
Amendment to the agreement with the Contra Costa Community College District
pertaining to Los Medanos College located at the Brentwood Education and
Technology Center in the form attached hereto, with minor revisions that may be
approved by the City Manager in consultation with the City Attorney.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on the 10th day of November 2009 by the following vote:
THIRD AMENDMENT TO LEASE
BRENTWOOD EDUCATION AND BUSINESS CENTER
This Third Amendment to Lease – Brentwood Education and Business Center (the
“Second Amendment”) is entered into as of , 2009 (the “Effective Date”),
by and between the City of Brentwood, a municipal corporation (“Landlord”) and Contra Costa
Community College District, a public community college district established under the laws of
the State of California (“Tenant”).
Recitals
A. Landlord and Tenant entered into that certain Lease – Brentwood Education and
Business Center, dated December 19, 2001, for the Tenant’s lease of certain Landlord-owned
property defined as the Demised Premises, and that certain Amendment No. 1 to Lease dated
March 20, 2002, to address parking and janitorial services and that certain Second Amendment
to the Lease to add Leased Premises and provide for certain work (collectively, the “Lease”).
Any capitalized term not defined herein shall have the definition set forth in the Lease.
B. The parties desire to amend the Lease to (1) provide for the lease of an
additional 2,692 square feet of property located adjacent to the Leased Premises and depicted
on Exhibit A-3 attached hereto (the “Third Demised Premises”); (2) provide for the Tenant’s
work on the Additional and Third Demised Premises; and (3) amend the Additional Demised
Premises Rent. The Demised Premises, the Additional Demised Premises and the Third
Demised Premises may hereinafter be collectively referred to as the “Leased Premises.”
Terms
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and for other good and
valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:
1. Effective Date. This Third Amendment shall be effective as of the Effective Date.
The Additional Demised Premises Rent and Third Demised Premises Rent as
defined herein will go into effect January 1, 2010.
2. Amendment to Section 2.2 to Adjust Additional Demised Premises Rent.
The Additional Demised Premises Rent set forth in Section 2.2 is hereby
amended to $3,513.60 per month ($1.92 per square foot) plus an additional
$336.41 per month for utilities. All other portions of Section 2.2 remain
unchanged.
3. Amendment of Section 2 to Address Third Demised Premises.
Section 2.3 of the Lease is hereby deleted and Sections 2.3 and 2.4 are
added to the Lease as follows:
“2.3. Rental of the Third Demised Premises. Tenant and Landlord
agree that Tenant shall lease the Third Demises Premises from the Landlord for
a monthly rental payment of $5,168.64 per month, ($1.92 per square foot) plus
an additional $494.87 for utilities based upon 2,692 square feet (the “Third
Demised Premises Rent”). The Third Demised Premises Rent shall be paid
semi-annually on January 15 and July 15 of each year. The Third Demised
Premises Rent shall be adjusted annually based on the City’s Cost Allocation
Plan (July 1) based upon the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco Bay
Area. The utilities charge shall be based on the Tenant’s proportionate share of
the actual “cost of utilities.”
2.4 Definition of Rent. Any and all payments of Minimum
Yearly Rent or Base Rent, Additional Demised Premises Rent, or Third
Demised Premises shall constitute “Rent” for purposes of this Lease. Any
Rent payable to Landlord by Tenant for any fractional year shall be
prorated based on a 365-day year. Any and all Rent payments shall
commence on the Rent Commencement Date.”
4. Addition of Language to Section 3. The following language is added to the end
of Section 3:
“Possession of the Third Demised Premises shall be on January 1, 2010.”
5. Amendment of Section 4.
Section 4.3 is hereby added to the Lease as follows:
“4.3 Additional and Third Demised Premises Construction
Work. Landlord shall deliver the Third Demised Premises vacant and in
“broom clean” and otherwise “as-is” condition. Tenant’s work is as
described in Exhibit E-3, and no other work shall be completed, and
Tenant shall diligently pursue work to completion. At expiration or
termination of this Lease, Tenant agrees to remove at Tenant’s expense,
Tenant’s fixtures and those interior and other improvements made by
Tenant which Landlord designates in writing not less than 30 days prior to
such expiration that Tenant shall be required to remove, and shall
otherwise return the Additional and Third Demised Premises to Landlord
in good condition, ordinary wear and tear, damage by casualty,
condemnation, act of god and/or failure to make repairs by Landlord
excepted. Notwithstanding any provision of this Lease to the contrary, in
no event shall Tenant be required to remove any improvements and/or
alterations which are incorporated into the building structure and/or
enclosed in any exterior or interior wall of the Additional and Third
Demised Premises, Landlord shall be permitted to post Notices of Non-
Responsibility in connection with completion of Tenant’s work by Tenant’s
contractor and subcontractors at the Additional and Third Demised
Premises.”
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 14
Meeting Date: November 10, 2009
Subject/Title: Adopt three Resolutions that approve and authorize the City Manager to
execute amendments to the following 457 Deferred Compensation Plans
(“Plans”) to permit employee loans: International City/County Management
Association Retirement Corporation (“ICMA-RC”), California Public Employees’
Retirement System (“CalPERS”), and VALIC Retirement Services Company
(“VALIC”).
Prepared by: Patti Standley, Human Resources Manager
Submitted by: Karen L. Chew, Assistant City Manager
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt three Resolutions that approve and authorize the City Manager to execute amendments
to the following 457 Deferred Compensation Plans (“Plans”) to permit employee loans:
International City/County Management Association Retirement Corporation (“ICMA-RC”),
California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”), and VALIC Retirement Services
Company (“VALIC”).
PREVIOUS ACTION
On October 26, 1982, City Council approved Resolution 82-53 establishing Deferred
Compensation Plan Number 30-1344 with the International City/County Management
Association Retirement Corporation (“ICMA-RC”), effective November 1, 1982.
On September 24, 1996, City Council approved Resolution 96-142 approving adoption of
California Public Employees’ (“CalPERS”) Deferred Compensation Plan Number 4-50094
available through the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, effective January 1,
1997.
On January 8, 2002, City Council approved Resolution 2435 approving provisions of the ICMA
Deferred Compensation Plan Number 301344 as allowed by the Economic Growth and Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), effective January 1, 2002.
On April 8, 2003, City Council approved Resolution 2821 approving the addition of AIG Valic
/STARS – Self-Directed Tax Advantaged Retirement System (“AIG Valic/STARS”) as a
Deferred Compensation Plan provider for City employees, Plan Number BRENT457,
65785/001, effective June 15, 2003.
BACKGROUND
At the time the City implemented the Plans, the option to permit employee loans was not
included. Given the current economic times, it seems appropriate to provide this option to City
employees so that they may access their funds if it becomes necessary.
The Loan Agreement Documents for the Plans include parameters including but not limited to:
• No more than one outstanding employee loan at a time.
• Minimum employee loan amount $1,000; Maximum employee loan amount is the lesser
of $50,000 or one-half of the participants vested account balance.
• Length of employee loan may not exceed five years in any case for the CalPERS Plan.
• Length of employee loan may not exceed five years for ICMA-RC or VALIC, unless the
loan is for a principal residence and then it may not exceed fifteen years.
• Employee loan repayment will be made by payroll deduction.
• All employee loans are due and payable in full upon separation from service.
The parameters detailed above provide structure and consistency to the Plans and do not allow
for borrowing in excess of half of the employee’s available vested balance. This is important as
should an employee end their employment with the City of Brentwood, their balance is due and
payable in full.
In the event that City Council approves the employee Loan Provision to the Plans, staff will
begin preparations for the change with the Plans. Staff anticipates availability of the employee
Loan Provision in approximately the next two months.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact in permitting loans as the employee is responsible to repay the
withdrawn amount from their account.
Attachment:
Resolutions (3)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION – RETIREMENT CORPORATION (“ICMA-RC”) 457
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN TO EMPLOYEE PERMIT LOANS
WHEREAS, the City has employees rendering valuable services, and
WHEREAS, the City has established a deferred compensation retirement plan with
ICMA-RC (the “Plan”) for such employees, and
WHEREAS, the Plan serves the interest of the City by enabling it to provide reasonable
retirement security for its employees, by providing increased flexibility in its personnel
management system, and by assisting in the attraction and retention of competent personnel,
and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that permitting participants in the retirement plan to
take loans from the Plan will serve these objectives, and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood
hereby approves and authorizes the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Plan so that
the Plan will permit employee loans, per the Loan Guidelines Agreement a copy of which is
included as Exhibit A to this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on November 10, 2009 by the following vote:
Exhibit A
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT
SYSTEM (“CalPERS”) 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN TO PERMIT
LOANS
WHEREAS, the City has employees rendering valuable services, and
WHEREAS, the City has established a deferred compensation retirement plan with
CalPERS (the “Plan”) for such employees, and
WHEREAS, the Plan serves the interest of the City by enabling it to provide reasonable
retirement security for its employees, by providing increased flexibility in its personnel
management system, and by assisting in the attraction and retention of competent personnel,
and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that permitting participants in the retirement plan to
take loans from the Plan will serve these objectives, and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood
hereby approves and authorizes the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Plan so that
the Plan will permit employee loans, per the CalPERS 457 Plan Loan Rules and Procedures a
copy of which is included as Exhibit A to this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on November 10, 2009 by the following vote:
Exhibit A
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE VALIC RETIREMENT SERVICES COMPANY
(“VALIC”) 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN TO PERMIT LOANS
WHEREAS, the City has employees rendering valuable services, and
WHEREAS, the City has established a deferred compensation retirement plan with
VALIC (the “Plan”) for such employees, and
WHEREAS, the Plan serves the interest of the City by enabling it to provide reasonable
retirement security for its employees, by providing increased flexibility in its personnel
management system, and by assisting in the attraction and retention of competent personnel,
and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that permitting participants in the retirement plan to
take loans from the Plan will serve these objectives, and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood
hereby approves and authorizes the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Plan so that
the Plan will permit employee loans, per the VALIC Deferred Compensation Plan Loan Policy
457(b) a copy of which is included as Exhibit A to this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on November 10, 2009 by the following vote:
Exhibit A
LOAN POLICY 457(b)
VALIC Retirement Services Company
Plan Number BRENT457, 65785/001
The Plan Administrator of the City of Brentwood Deferred Compensation Plan adopts
the following loan policy pursuant to the terms of the Plan. As a participant or
beneficiary under the Plan, you may receive a loan only as permitted by this loan policy.
1. Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to establish the terms and conditions under which the
Employer will grant loans to participants. This is the only official Loan Policy document
of the above named Plan.
2. Eligibility
Loans are available to all active participating employees. Loans will not be granted to
participants who have an existing loan in default. Loans will be pro-rated among all the
funds in which the participant is invested at the time the loan is made.
Loans are available for any purpose.
3. Frequency of Loan
Participants may receive one loan per calendar year. Moreover, participants may have
only one (1) outstanding loan at a time.
4. Loan Amount
The minimum loan amount is $1,000.
The maximum amount of all loans to the participant from the plan and all other plans
sponsored by the Employer that are qualified employer plans under section 72(p)(4) of
the Code is the lesser of:
(1) $50,000, reduced by the highest outstanding balance of all loans from any
401 or 457 plans for that participant during the one-year period ending on the
day before the date a loan is to be made, or
(2) one half of the participant’s vested account balance, reduced by the current
outstanding balance of all 401 or 457 loans from all plans for that participant.
A loan cannot be issued for more than the above amount. The participant’s requested
loan amount is subject to downward adjustment without notice due to market fluctuation
between the time of application and the time the loan is made.
5. Length of Loan
A loan must be repaid in substantially equal installments of principal and interest, at
least monthly, over a period that does not exceed five (5) years.
1
Loans for a principal residence must be repaid in substantially equal installments of
principal and interest, at least monthly, over a period that does not exceed fifteen (15)
years.
6. Loan Repayment Process
Loan repayments for active employees must be through payroll deduction only. The
employee must notify the Employer so that the Employer can ensure that repayment will
begin as soon as practicable on a date determined by the Employer’s payroll cycle.
Failure to begin payroll deduction in a timely way could lead to the employee’s loan
entering delinquency status. Payroll deduction should begin within two payroll cycles
following the employee’s receipt of the loan.
Repayments through payroll deduction will be sent via check or wire by the Employer to
VALIC Retirement Services Company semi-monthly (24 payments per year).
Loans outstanding for employees on a leave of absence must be repaid on the same
schedule as if payroll deductions were still being made unless they reamortize their
loans and establish a new repayment schedule that provides that substantially equal
payments are made at least monthly over the remaining period of the loan. If the
participant is on leave of absence due to the performance of military service, loan
payments may be suspended for the entire period of the military leave. The loan will
accrue interest during the period of leave. Upon return from a period of military leave,
the loan will be reamortized such that the loan (and the interest accrued during military
leave) will be paid off over a period equal to the original term of the loan plus the period
of military leave.
Loan payments are allocated to the participant’s current election of investment options
on file with VALIC Retirement Services Company.
The participant may pay off all or a portion of the principal and interest early without
penalty or additional fee. Extra payments are applied forward to both principal and
interest as specified in the original repayment schedule, unless the additional payment
is for the balance due.
7. Loan Interest Rate
Every loan will be documented in the form of a promissory note signed by the
participant for the face amount of the loan, together with a commercially reasonable rate
of interest.
A loan will provide a fixed rate of interest of 1.00% above the current prime interest rate
as published from time to time in the Wall Street Journal.
The interest rate is locked in at the time a loan is approved and remains constant
throughout the life of the loan.
2
Loan interest rates for new loans taken in different months may fluctuate upward or
downward monthly, depending on the movement of the prime interest rates.
8. Loan Application Procedure
Loans must be requested using the following method:
Online and through hard copy Loan Application: All loans must be requested either
online by employees through VALIC’s access site at VALIC.com, or through the hard
copy Loan Application, both of which require pre-authorization by the Employer as
outlined in italics below.
If an employee is married at the time of application, and spousal consent is required by
the Plan for the loan, the employee’s spouse must consent, in writing, to the loan and
the consent must be witnessed by a plan representative or notary public. Such consent
must be received in writing by VALIC. In the case of a hard copy Loan Application,
spousal consent should be sent along with the application.
The promissory note, truth-in-lending rescission notice and disclosure statement are
mailed to the employee along with the issued loan check. The employee confirms
receipt and acceptance of these documents and terms at the time the endorsed check
is presented for payment.
The Employer hereby authorizes all future loans requested through the online process
via VALIC.com, as well as any requests that employees submit on paper forms, pending
review of the application by Plan Administrator for the City of Brentwood. Notice of loan
issuance will be provided to the Employer via reports posted on VALIC.com site.
The loan amount will generally be redeemed from the employee’s account on the same
day as either VALIC receipt of a loan application (complete and in good order), if it is
submitted prior to 4:00 p.m. ET on a business day. If not, the loan amount will be
redeemed on the next business day following submission. The loan check is generally
issued on the next business day following redemption, and will be mailed directly to the
employee. The employee’s presentment of the loan check for payment constitutes an
acknowledgment that the employee has received and read the loan disclosure
information provided by VALIC and agrees to the terms therein.
9. Acceleration
All loans are due and payable in full upon separation from service. When payments
cease and the loan becomes 90 days past due, VALIC will default/foreclose the loan.
10. Reamortization
Loan payments may be suspended for a period not exceeding one year that a
participant is on an approved leave of absence without pay (or is on leave at a pay rate,
after applicable withholdings, that is lower than the loan payments). If the participant is
on a leave of absence due to the performance of military service, loan payments may
be suspended for the entire period of the military leave. In either case, the loan will
3
accrue interest during the period of leave. Upon return from a period of non-military
leave, the loan will be reamortized such that (i) the loan (and the interest that accrued
during the leave of absence) is paid off within five (5) years from the original date of a
general purpose loan (or within fifteen (15) years from the original date of a loan to
purchase a principal residence), and (ii) the amount of each payment is not less than
under the terms of the original loan. Upon return from a period of military leave, the
loan will be reamortized such that the loan (and the interest that accrued during the
leave of absence) will be paid off over a period equal to the original term of the loan plus
the period of military leave.
11. Reduction of Loan
If a participant dies prior to full repayment of the outstanding loan(s), the outstanding
loan balance(s) will be deducted from the account prior to distribution to the
beneficiary(ies). The unpaid loan amount is a taxable distribution and may be subject to
early withdrawal penalties. The participant’s estate is responsible for taxes or penalties
on the unpaid loan amount, if any. A beneficiary is responsible for taxes due on the
amount he or she receives. A Form 1099 will be issued to both the beneficiary and the
estate for these purposes.
12. Deemed Distribution
Loan repayments must be made in accordance with the plan document, plan loan
guidelines, and as reflected in the promissory note signed by the participant. If a loan
becomes past due, a notice will be sent to the employee prior to the 90 day default.
A loan will be deemed distributed when a scheduled payment is still unpaid at the end of
the calendar quarter following the calendar quarter in which the payment was due. If
the total amount of any delinquent payment is not received by VALIC by the end of the
calendar quarter following the calendar quarter in which the payment was due, the loan
is considered a taxable distribution, and the principal balance, in addition to any accrued
interest, is reported as a distribution to the IRS. However, no money is paid in this
distribution, because the participant already has the loan proceeds.
The loan is deemed distributed for tax purposes, but it is not an actual distribution and
therefore remains an asset of the participant’s account. Interest continues to accrue.
The outstanding loan balance and accrued interest are reported on the participant’s
account statement.
Repayment of a deemed distribution will not change or reverse the taxable event.
The loan continues to be outstanding, and to accrue interest, until it is repaid or offset
using the participant’s account balance. An offset can occur only if the participant is
eligible to receive a distribution from the plan as outlined in the plan document.
Participants are required to repay any outstanding loan which has been deemed
distributed before they can be eligible for a new loan. The deemed distribution and any
interest accrued since the date it became a taxable event is taken into account when
4
determining the maximum amount available for a new loan. New loans must be repaid
through payroll deduction.
The employer is obligated by federal regulation to comply with the loan guideline
requirements applicable to participant loans, and to ensure against deemed distribution
by monitoring loan repayments, regardless of the method of repayment, and by advising
employees if loans are in danger of being deemed distributed. The tax-qualified status
or eligibility of the entire plan may be revoked in cases of frequent repayment
delinquency or deemed distribution.
13. Fees
There will be a $50.00 loan initiation fee and a $30.00 annual loan maintenance fee
charged to the participant’s account.
14. Other
The employer has the right to set other terms and conditions as it deems necessary for
loans from the plan in order to comply with any legal requirements. All terms and
conditions will be administered in a uniform and non-discriminatory manner.
In Witness Whereof, the employer hereby caused this Policy to be executed this 12th
day of November, 2009.
City of Brentwood: Accepted: VALIC Retirement Services
Company
By: By:
Donna Landeros
Title: City Manager/Plan Administrator Title:
Attest: Attest:
5
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 15
Meeting Date: November 10, 2009
Subject/Title: Adopt a Resolution approving an agricultural conservation easement for
Preston Ranch Assessor’s Parcel Number 011-140-013 as originally proposed,
in accordance with the recommendation of the Agricultural Enterprise
Committee.
Prepared by: Barbara Mason, Economic Development Consultant
Submitted by: Casey McCann, Community Development Director
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving an agricultural conservation easement on Preston Ranch,
Assessor’s Parcel Number 011-140-013 as originally proposed, in accordance with the
recommendation of the Agricultural Enterprise Committee.
PREVIOUS ACTION
On September 18, 2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance 683, which established the
Brentwood Agricultural Enterprise Program. This program was designed to protect and
conserve agricultural lands located within the Brentwood Planning Area and the County’s
Agricultural Core. The program establishes a number of requirements and procedures to
determine which land is best suited for conservation.
On August 25, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009-181 approving a
Memorandum of Understanding between the Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust, Ronald E. and
Shirley A. Nunn, and the City of Brentwood as recommended by the Agricultural Enterprise
Subcommittee. The memorandum of understanding outlined (i) the City’s proposed contribution
to the easement purchase price, (ii) the proposed terms of the easement and (iii) a cost sharing
agreement between the parties for transaction costs.
On October 27, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009-209 approving a budget
amendment and related expenditure from the City’s Agricultural Land Trust Fund 263 in an
amount up to $1,852,002 to fund the purchase price of a 140.56 acre agricultural conservation
easement for Preston Ranch Assessor’s Parcel Number 011-140-013 to be held by the
Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust (BALT) in accordance with the recommendation of the
Agricultural Enterprise Committee, with modified language in section 6(a) of the Deed of
Perpetual Easement.
BACKGROUND
On October 27, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009-209 approving a budget
amendment and related expenditure from the City’s Agricultural Land Trust Fund 263 in an
amount up to $1,852,002 to fund the purchase price of a 140.56 acre agricultural conservation
easement for Preston Ranch Assessor’s Parcel Number 011-140-013 to be held by the
Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust (BALT) in accordance with the recommendation of the
Agricultural Enterprise Committee. At that meeting the City Council provided one change to the
Deed of Perpetual Easement.
Section 6 (a) as proposed read as follows:
“6. Enforcement.
a. Land Trust’s Rights. The Land Trust shall have the right to
prevent and correct violations of the terms of this Easement.
Should Land Trust be informed, or reasonably believe, that a
violation of the terms of this Easement exists, Land Trust, with
reasonable advance notice to the Property Owner, may enter the
Property for the purpose of inspecting for violations. If the Land
Trust finds what it believes is a violation, it may, at its discretion,
take appropriate legal action. Except when an ongoing or
imminent violation could irreversibly diminish or impair the
Conservation Values, the Land Trust shall give the Property
Owner written notice of the violation and thirty (30) days to correct
it, before filing any legal action. If a court with jurisdiction
determines that a violation may exist or has occurred, the Land
Trust may obtain an injunction to stop it, temporarily or
permanently. A court may also issue an injunction requiring the
Property Owner to restore the Property to its condition prior to the
violation. In any action filed pursuant to this Section 6(a), the
Court shall have discretion to award the prevailing party all costs
incurred, including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees.
The failure of the Land Trust to discover a violation or to take
immediate legal action shall not bar it from doing so at a later
time, subject to the applicable Statute of Limitations.”
The City Council revised the underlined sentence to read:
“In any action filed pursuant to this Section 6(a), the Property Owner
shall pay all parties’ attorneys fees except in the event that the court
determines that the Land Trust has acted with gross negligence or
willful misconduct.”
Both the Property Owner and BALT (the defined Land Trust) expressed concerns
with the revised language. A Special Meeting of the Agriculture Enterprise
Committee was held on November 2, 2009 to address this issue. It is the
recommendation of the Committee to revert back to the original language for the
following reasons:
• With the proposed language, there is no disincentive for someone to file a
lawsuit, whether frivolous or justified, since the property owner would have to
pay all attorneys fees unless a certain standard is met.
• It could be potentially onerous for a property owner to prove “gross
negligence” and/or “willful misconduct” on the part of the Land Trust.
• Unless that standard is met, the property owner would have to pay all
attorneys’ fees regardless of the court’s decision.
• The original language has been used in the five past easement agreements
and is considered standard language in conservation easement transactions.
• The provision in question is in the section entitled Enforcement by the Land
Trust. BALT, who is the Land Trust in this easement acquisition, is not in
agreement with the new language and feels they are adequately protected
by the existing language.
• The new language could be a deterrent for other easements to move
forward.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.
Attachments:
Resolution
Deed of Perpetual Agricultural Conservation Easement
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN AGRICULTURAL
CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR PRESTON RANCH ASSESSOR’S PARCEL
NUMBER 011-140-013 AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISE COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance 683
establishing the Brentwood Agricultural Enterprise Program. This program was designed to
protect and conserve agricultural lands located within or adjacent to the Brentwood Planning
Area or its approved Sphere of Influence; and
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009-181
approving a Memorandum of Understanding between the Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust,
Ronald E. and Shirley A. Nunn, and the City of Brentwood as recommended by the Agricultural
Enterprise Subcommittee. The memorandum of understanding outlined (i) the City’s proposed
contribution to the easement purchase price, (ii) the proposed terms of the easement and (iii) a
cost sharing agreement between the parties for transaction costs; and
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2009 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009-209
approving a budget amendment and related expenditure from the City’s Agriculture Land Trust
fund 263 in an amount not to exceed $1,852,002 to fund the purchase price of a 140.56 acre
agriculture conservation easement for Preston Ranch Assessor’s Parcel Number 011-140-013
to be held by the Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust (BALT) in accordance with the
recommendation of the Agricultural Enterprise Committee and with modified language in the
Deed of Perpetual Easement.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood
approves the agricultural conservation easement for Preston Ranch APN 011-140-013 with the
following revision to section 6(a) of the Deed of Perpetual Easement:
“6. Enforcement.
a. Land Trust’s Rights. The Land Trust shall have the right to
prevent and correct violations of the terms of this Easement.
Should Land Trust be informed, or reasonably believe, that a
violation of the terms of this Easement exists, Land Trust, with
reasonable advance notice to the Property Owner, may enter the
Property for the purpose of inspecting for violations. If the Land
Trust finds what it believes is a violation, it may, at its discretion,
take appropriate legal action. Except when an ongoing or
imminent violation could irreversibly diminish or impair the
Conservation Values, the Land Trust shall give the Property
Owner written notice of the violation and thirty (30) days to correct
it, before filing any legal action. If a court with jurisdiction
determines that a violation may exist or has occurred, the Land
Trust may obtain an injunction to stop it, temporarily or
permanently. A court may also issue an injunction requiring the
Property Owner to restore the Property to its condition prior to the
violation. In any action filed pursuant to this Section 6(a), the
Court shall have discretion to award the prevailing party all costs
incurred, including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees.
The failure of the Land Trust to discover a violation or to take
immediate legal action shall not bar it from doing so at a later
time, subject to the applicable Statute of Limitations.”
.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on the 10th day of November 2009 by the following vote:
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust
P.O. Box 2046
Brentwood, CA 94513
DEED OF PERPETUAL AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT
This DEED OF AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT (the “Easement”) is entered
into the __ day of ___________, 2009, by and between Ronald E. Nunn and Shirley A. Nunn (the
“Property Owner”), and the BRENTWOOD AGRICULTURAL LAND TRUST, a California
nonprofit public benefit corporation (the “Land Trust”).
RECITALS
A. Property Owner is the sole owner of certain real property that is the subject of this easement
commonly known as 7170 Balfour Road (APN 011-140-013) in the City of Byron, County of Contra
Costa, State of California (the “Property”). The Property is approximately 140 acres and is more
particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Property is
currently comprised of one legal parcel owned by Property Owner. The Property is agricultural land
with capability classifications of _________ as defined in the United States Department of
Agricultural Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California dated September 1977 and currently in
agricultural production.
B. Pursuant to Section 17.730 of the Municipal Code (the “Agricultural Enterprise Ordinance”)
of the City of Brentwood (the “City”) and in accordance with the City’s General Plan, the City seeks
to ensure the permanent preservation of productive agricultural land in and around the City of
Brentwood, including the Property.
C. Pursuant to the Municipal Code of the City, Section 17.730.060, the City shall be named as a
beneficiary of the Easement, and if the Land Trust (or then qualifying entity) should cease to exist,
the duty to hold, administer, monitor and enforce the interest in the Easement shall pass to the City.
D. Pursuant to the Agricultural Enterprise Ordinance and the Final Report approved by the City
Council on October 22, 2002, the City has established a program to promote and maintain prime
agricultural lands and locations for the continued agricultural use or agriculture supported industries.
E. The City Implementation Guidelines for the Agricultural Enterprise Ordinance, adopted by
the City Council, on September 25, 2007 establish certain strategic priorities for agricultural
586513-2
conservation easements. Priorities include properties that are (i) already planted and currently in
productive agriculture, (ii) a minimum of ten acres, (iii) an agreement to invest easement funds in
planting the land, (iv) an agreement to invest the easement funds in value-added development such
as wineries, and (v) an agreement to invest the easement funds in a manner that promotes the
agricultural economic vitality of the Brentwood region.
F. Pursuant to the General Plan of Contra Costa County (the “County”), the County seeks to
ensure that certain agricultural land within the County retain its agricultural character and has
designated such property, including the Property, as the County Agricultural Core Area. Fifty
percent of the parcels in the County Agricultural Core Area are ten acres or less.
G. The Property is located in the middle of the County Agricultural Core, approximately one (1)
mile from the City limits. The Property is prime agricultural soil and has abundant irrigation water
available to support agricultural operations. The Property, which is currently being farmed, is one of
the largest undivided parcels of agricultural land in the County Agricultural Core and represents a
significant block of farmland in an agricultural area characterized by small parcel size. The Property
neighbors productive farmlands that are subject to conservation easements held by the Land Trust:
an eighty acre property bordered by Balfour Road (APNs 011-140-024 and 011-140-025) and a 206
acre property bordered by Balfour Road, Byron Highway, and Chestnut Boulevard (APN 015-060-
010). The Property, located on the corner of Balfour Road and Byron Highway, is highly visible
from these public roads and provides an agricultural view corridor between Brentwood and
Discovery Bay.
H. As described in the above Recitals and itemized below, the Property possesses significant
agricultural, open space and scenic values (referred to collectively herein as “Conservation Values”)
of great importance to the Property Owner, the Land Trust, the people of the City, the County, and
the State of California including but not limited to
• Prime agricultural soils as designated in the 2004 California Farmland Mapping Program
map of Contra Costa County
• Food production capacity located close to an urban population
• Historic and existing productive agricultural uses
• A significant large block of agricultural land with an agricultural view corridor on the
urban edge
I. The Property Owner and Land Trust intend that the agricultural productive capacity and open
space character of the Property will be conserved and maintained forever, and that uses of the land
that are inconsistent with these purposes are prohibited and will be prevented or corrected.
J. The Conservation Values of the Property, including the agricultural capacity of the Property,
are documented in the Baseline Condition Report, a summary of which is attached, and the Baseline
Report is incorporated herein by reference. The Baseline Condition Report provides an inventory of
relevant features of the Property including all structures. The Property Owner and Land Trust agree
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 2 of 24
586513-2
that the Baseline Condition Report provides an accurate description of the Property as of the date of
this Easement. The Property Owner and Land Trust further agree that the Baseline Condition Report
will serve as an objective statement of the condition of the Property as of the date of the Easement
that shall be used to monitor compliance with the terms of this Easement. The Property Owner
hereby acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Baseline Condition Report, and the Baseline Condition
Report is on file at the offices of the Land Trust.
K. The Land Trust is a publicly supported, tax-exempt nonprofit organization and a qualified
organization under Sections 501(c) (3) and 170(h), respectively, of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended, and the regulations promulgated there under (the “Internal Revenue Code”). A
primary purpose of the Land Trust is to preserve and protect productive agricultural land through the
acquisition of conservation easements.
L. By accepting the grant of this Easement, the Land Trust agrees to honor the intentions of
Property Owner stated herein to promote, preserve and enhance the Conservation Values of the
Property for the benefit of the people of the City, the people of the County and the people of the
State of California, and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this Conservation Easement.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the facts recited above, and the mutual covenants,
terms, conditions and restrictions contained herein, and pursuant to the laws of the State of
California, and in particular California Civil Code section 815 et seq., and any amendments or
successor provisions thereto, Property Owner hereby voluntarily GRANTS and conveys to Land
Trust for valuable consideration, an agricultural conservation easement in perpetuity and in gross
over the Property, of the nature and character set forth herein.
1. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Easement to protect and preserve the Conservation Values of
the Property, prohibit the conversion of the Property to urban and nonagricultural uses and to
prevent any use of the Property that will impair or interfere with the Conservation Values. Property
Owner intends that this Easement will limit the use and activities of the Property to those uses and
activities that do not materially impair or harm the Conservation Values and that are permitted by
the terms and conditions of this Easement. The primary purpose of this Easement is to preserve and
protect the agricultural capacity of the Property. Additionally, to the extent that the preservation of
open space and scenic values of the Property is consistent with the preservation and protection of
such agricultural capacity, it is also within the purpose of this Easement to protect those values.
These purposes are collectively referred to as the “Conservation Purposes” of this Easement.
2. Rights Retained by the Property Owner. The Property Owner retains for itself, and its personal
representatives, heirs, successors, transferees and assigns, all rights accruing from ownership of the
Property, including the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in all uses of the
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 3 of 24
586513-2
Property that do not materially impair or harm the Conservation Values and that are permitted by the
this Easement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following rights are expressly
reserved to the Property Owner:
a. Permitted Uses and Activities. The Land Trust and Property Owner intend that this
Easement shall restrict the uses and activities on the Property to agricultural, ranching and
residential uses that do not materially impair or harm the Conservation Values. The Land Trust and
Property Owner agree that the current uses and activities as documented in the Baseline Report do
not substantially impair the Conservation Values. Section 2(a) sets forth uses and activities
regarding the Property that are consistent with the Conservation Values and that are hereby
expressly permitted. The Property Owner specifically retains the right to engage in the following
activities and uses of the Property:
(i) To reside on the Property, including all uses ancillary to residing on the Property
consistent with Section 4 below, within the residential building site envelope (the “Residential
Building Envelope”) the location of which may be identified at a later date; provided that, (A) the
Residential Building Envelope shall not exceed one acre; and (B) the Property Owner shall provide
the Land Trust with a survey of the Residential Building Envelope when it is identified and shall
mark the Residential Building Envelope with surveyors monuments.
(ii) To engage in any and all agricultural uses of the Property in accordance with
sound, generally accepted agricultural practices that do not significantly degrade the topsoil and that
do not materially impair or harm the Conservation Values. For the purpose of this Easement,
“agricultural uses” shall be defined as breeding, raising, pasturing and grazing livestock of every
nature and description; for the production of food and fiber; breeding and raising bees, fish, poultry
and other fowl; planting, fallowing, raising, harvesting and producing agricultural, viticulture, aqua
cultural, horticultural crops and products of every nature and description. Agricultural uses shall not
include the establishment or maintenance of any commercial feedlot which is defined for the
purposes of this Easement as a confined area or facility within which land is not grazed or cropped at
least annually and that is used to receive and feed livestock that have been raised off the Property
(iii) To maintain and repair existing structures, housing, fences, corrals, roads,
ditches, pipes, pumps and other improvements on the Property in substantially the location and size
described in the Baseline Report. However, no roads shall be paved or graveled unless they are
currently paved or graveled or unless specifically required in writing by the government or fire
department. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, Property Owner may construct, install,
maintain, and repair a paved or graveled road to be used for ingress and egress to the Residential
Building Envelope and for ingress and egress to the Agricultural Enterprise Envelope. The Property
Owner shall provide notice to the Land Trust prior to any such paving and gravelling. Additional
fencing deemed by the Property Owner to be reasonably necessary for agricultural activities may be
constructed without the Land Trust’s consent.
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 4 of 24
586513-2
(iv) To construct and remodel a single-family residence (“Primary Residence”) and a
second residential unit complying with then-current zoning regulations (the “Second Residential
Unit”) within the Residential Building Envelope, with the approval of appropriate governmental
agencies. Prior to the construction of the Primary Residence or the Second Residential Unit or any
remodeling that requires a building permit, the Property Owner shall provide notice to the Land
Trust which notice includes a copy of the application demonstrating that the construction or
remodeling will occur within the Residential Building Envelope. Such notice will be provided not
less than fifteen days prior to filing the application for the proposed improvements or not less than
sixty days prior to the commencement of construction, whichever comes first.
(v) To construct and maintain buildings and other structures ancillary to agricultural
production in an “Agricultural Enterprise Envelope.” For purposes of this Easement “Agricultural
Enterprises” means otherwise lawful and customary agricultural rural enterprises owned and
operated by Property Owner such as, but not limited to, marketing of farm products and farm by-
products predominantly grown, raised or produced on the Property or on other real property owned
or operated by Property Owner which is located in Contra Costa County and businesses principally
providing agricultural-related goods and services to other farms and farmers in the vicinity of the
Property including, but not limited to, wineries, tasting rooms, processing facilities, packaging
facilities and cooling facilities. One Agricultural Enterprise Envelope may be created on the
Property with the location being determined at a later date. The maximum size of the Agricultural
Enterprise Envelope is seven acres. Prior to the construction of any such buildings or structures, the
Property Owner shall provide the Land Trust with a survey of the Agricultural Enterprise Envelope
and shall mark the Agricultural Enterprise Envelope with surveyor’s monuments. Prior to the
construction of any such buildings or structures, and prior to commencing modifications or other
actions that require a building permit, the Property Owner shall give notice to the Land Trust that
construction or modification will be taking place within the Agricultural Enterprise Envelope. Such
notice will be provided not less than fifteen days prior to filing an application for any permit
required by any governmental entity for the proposed improvements or not less than sixty days prior
to the commencement of construction, whichever comes first.
(vi) In the event of destruction, deterioration or obsolescence of any the Property
Owner may repair and replace improvements, structures, housing, fences, roads or ditches, whether
existing at the date of this Easement or constructed subsequently pursuant to the provisions of the
preceding paragraphs and Easement with improvements or structures of similar size, function,
capacity and location in a manner that does not materially impair or harm the Conservation Values.
(vii) To develop and maintain such water resources on the Property as are necessary
or convenient for agriculture, irrigation and residential uses in a manner consistent with the
Conservation Purpose of this Easement, provided, however, that no water rights or rights to a water
service may be transferred, severed, sold, leased or encumbered separately from the title of the
Property without the consent of the Land Trust, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
A transfer, sale, lease or encumbrance of water rights that neither adversely impacts the use of the
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 5 of 24
586513-2
Property for productive agriculture nor adversely impacts the Conservation Values shall be deemed
reasonable. Owner also reserves all interest in, and right and title to all tributary and non-tributary
water, water rights, and related interest in, on, under or appurtenant to the Property, provided that,
such water rights shall not be transferred, severed, sold, leased or encumbered separately from title
to the Property, except as permitted under this Section 2(a)(vii).
(viii) To use agrichemicals, including, but not limited to, fertilizers and biocides in
the amount and with such frequency of application necessary to accomplish reasonable agricultural
purposes, subject to Paragraph 11 of this Easement concerning Hazardous Materials.
(ix) To control predatory and problem animals by use of selective control techniques,
subject to the provisions of Paragraph 11 of this Easement concerning Hazardous Materials.
(x) With Land Trust’s approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, Property
Owner may explore for, produce and develop oil, gas and other hydrocarbon substances (“Oil and
Gas”) but only to the extent that such activity does not materially impair or harm the Conversation
Values and so long as such activity is undertaken in a manner that is consistent with practices used
in the City of Brentwood and Contra Costa County. At no time shall the cumulative acreage affected
by Oil and Gas activities, excluding (i) any roads used for ingress and egress to the drill pad; and (ii)
any land surface temporarily disturbed during construction and installation of underground pipelines
and similar underground Oil and Gas conveyance facilities, exceed one and one-half (1.5) acres on
the Property. Prior to beginning exploration or installation of Oil and Gas facilities on a parcel,
Property Owner shall comply with the California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas,
and Geothermal Resources bonding requirements and [shall deposit the sum of $19,500 per parcel
(in 2008 dollars) with the Land Trust as security for Property Owner’s obligations under this Section
2(a)(x).] The amount of the deposit shall be adjusted by the adjustment in the cost of living since
2008. Underground pipelines and similar underground Oil and Gas conveyance facilities of a minor
nature that temporarily disturb only a de minimis land surface area during construction, and no land
surface after construction and do not materially impair or harm the Conservation Values, are
permitted. Property Owner may construct graveled “all-weather” roads to be used for ingress and
egress to the drill pad during construction and operation of the Oil and Gas activities. Property
Owner shall restore all surface areas, including but not limited to all roads and drill sites, disturbed
by the activities to agricultural use within forty-five days after completing construction or
abandoning a site. If Property Owner fails to restore the surface areas to agricultural use within
forty-five days after construction or abandonment of a site, the Land Trust may use the security
deposit of Property Owner to undertake such restoration. In the event the security deposit is
insufficient to complete the restoration of the site, Property Owner shall promptly pay to Land Trust
the additional expenses of restoration. Property Owner shall require that Oil and Gas operators
implement commercially reasonable measures available to not materially impair or harm the
Conservation Values of the Property in connection with their activities on the Property.
(xi) To construct and maintain customary agricultural structures used in agricultural
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 6 of 24
586513-2
production such as agricultural trellises, agricultural shade canopies, agricultural netting or wells, or
structures used in agricultural storage such as a barn or shed. No such structures shall impair or
harm the Conservation Values of the Property.
b. Retained Private Ownership Rights. The right to exclude trespassers from the Property
and the right to lease an interest in the Property to others or to sell the Property (but not the right to
create or suffer a legal or de facto subdivision of, or otherwise sell, transfer, or convey portions of
the Property), subject to the restrictions set forth in this Easement.
c. Section 2(a) Not Exhaustive. The activities and uses set forth in Section 2(a) are not
exhaustive recitals of permitted or consistent uses and activities of the Property. They are set forth
to: (i) establish specific permitted uses and activities of the Property and (ii) provide guidance in
determining whether other activities and uses would be consistent with the Conservation Values.
3. Obligations Retained by the Property Owner.
a. Costs and Liabilities. Property Owner retains all responsibilities and shall bear all costs
related to the ownership, operation, upkeep, and maintenance of the Property and shall keep
adequate comprehensive general liability insurance coverage. The Property Owner shall keep the
Property free of any mechanics liens arising out of any work performed for, materials furnished to,
or obligations incurred by Property Owner which may result in a mechanics lien or lis pendens being
recorded against the Property. In the event of the recordation of a mechanics lien encumbering the
Property, the validity of which is, in good faith, contested by Property Owner, Property Owner shall
be entitled to litigate or arbitrate the validity of such mechanics lien. In any event, Property Owner
shall cause such lien to be removed prior to foreclosure.
b. Real Property and Possessory Interest Taxes. The Property Owner shall pay, before
delinquency, all real property and possessory interest taxes, assessments, fees, and charges of
whatever description levied on or assessed against the Property, including any taxes imposed upon,
or incurred as a result of, this Easement (collectively referred to herein as “Taxes”).
c. Hold Harmless. In view of the Land Trust’s negative rights, limited access to the land and
lack of active involvement in the day-to-day management activities on the Property, the Property
Owner shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend the Land Trust, the City and their respective
officers, directors, governing members, employees, contractors, partners, insurers, attorneys, agents,
personal and legal representatives, successors and assigns of each of them (collectively “Indemnified
Parties”) from and against all liabilities, penalties, costs, losses, orders, liens, charges, damages,
expenses, causes of action, claims, demands or judgments, including, without limitation, reasonable
attorneys fees, arising from or in any way connected with (i) injury to or the death of any person or
physical damage to any property, resulting from any act, omission, condition or other matter related
to or occurring on or about the Property, regardless of cause, unless due to the sole negligence or
willful misconduct of any of the Indemnified Parties and (ii) the obligations specified in Paragraph 5
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 7 of 24
586513-2
herein. The Land Trust and the City shall be named as an additional insured on all of the Property
Owner’s insurance policies related to the Property, which policies shall provide that the Land Trust
shall be notified in the event of any lapse in the policy coverage.
4. Uses of and Activities on the Property.
a. Prohibited Uses. Any use or activity on the Property that will materially impair or harm
the Conservation Values is inconsistent with the Conservation Purpose of this Easement and is
prohibited in perpetuity. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities
and uses are inconsistent with the Conservation Purpose of this Easement and are expressly
prohibited in perpetuity:
(i) The legal or de facto subdivision, or transfer or sale of any portion thereof or
interest therein, of the Property for any purpose. Property Owner shall maintain the parcels comprising
the Property, and all interests therein, under common ownership, as though one single parcel. Sale of one
parcel, lot, or portion of the Property separate from the rest of the Property is prohibited. Property Owner will
not apply for or otherwise seek recognition of additional legal parcels with the Property based on certificates
of compliance or any other authority. Notwithstanding the preceding, the following are not prohibited
by this paragraph: (a) a lease of all or a portion of the Property for agricultural use; or (b) the transfer
or sale of the Property.
(ii) The construction, reconstruction or replacement of any structure, facility or road,
except as permitted in Section 2(a) of this Easement.
(iii) The establishment of residential uses outside the Residential Building Envelope
and the establishment of commercial uses or industrial uses outside of the Agricultural Enterprise
Envelope.
(iv) Except as provided in Section 2(a)(x), the filling, dumping, excavating, draining
dredging mining, drilling, removing, or the exploring for or extracting of minerals, hydrocarbons,
solid, sands, gravel, rock or any other material on or below the surface of the Property that is not
directly related to accepted agricultural practices, except the extracting of water on or below the
surface of the Property; provided however, that this provision shall not prohibit Property Owner’s
exercise of subsurface mineral rights that are not accessed through the surface of the Property.
(v) The accumulation, dumping or other disposal of trash, waste, refuse, or debris on
the Property, except for organic material generated on the Property or used for permitted agricultural
uses on the Property; provided that any such dumping or disposal of organic material shall be in
accordance with applicable law and generally accepted agricultural management practices.
(vi) Any uses or activities that would pollute or degrade the surface or sub-surface
waters on or underlying the Property, except such uses or activities consistent with generally
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 8 of 24
586513-2
accepted, sound agricultural practices.
(vii) Any use or activity that causes substantial degradation of topsoil quality.
(viii) Except as otherwise permitted in Section 2(a)(v), any commercial or for-profit
recreational, educational or other nonagricultural use that disturbs or alters the current physical
characteristics of the Property or requires surface alteration or other development of the Property,
except for water rights as permitted by Section 2(a) of this Easement and interferes with or impairs
the Conservation Values or Conservation Purposes set forth in the Easement.
(xi) The use of motorized vehicles on the Property, except as necessary for the
farming operations, for residential access and use, for property maintenance and security, for Oil and
Gas exploration and development as permitted in Section 2(a)(x), for the carrying out of permitted
activities in the Agricultural Enterprise Envelope, or for the monitoring of this Easement.
(x) The use of motorized recreational vehicles (e.g. motorbikes and all-terrain
vehicles), except within the Residential Building Envelope.
b. Section 4(a) Not Exhaustive. The activities and uses set forth in Section 4(a) are not
exhaustive recitals of inconsistent uses and activities of the Property. They are set forth to (i)
establish specific prohibited uses and activities of the Property, and (ii) provide guidance in
determining whether other activities and uses would be consistent with the Conservation Values.
c. Uses Requiring Land Trust Approval and Basis for Approval. When the Property Owner
desires to use the Property in a manner that is not permitted by Section 2(a) and is not prohibited by
Section 4(a), then the Property Owner shall seek Land Trust’s written approval. When Land Trust
approval is required hereunder, the Land Trust shall consider the possible effect of the proposed uses
of the Property on the Conservation Values protected by this Easement. The Land Trust’s decision
on a specific request for the approval shall apply to that specific request only and shall not establish
precedent. Approval or disapproval shall be at the sole discretion of the Land Trust, based on the
protection of the Conservation Values, and may be granted upon conditions that protect the
Conservation Values.
d. Procedure for Obtaining Land Trust Approval.
(i) When the Property Owner is required to request the approval of the Land Trust
pursuant to this Easement, the Property Owner shall provide the Land Trust with a written
description of the proposed new use of the Property, including information of its size, function,
capacity, duration and location (referred to herein as the “Proposed Use Application”) no later than
sixty (60) days before the Property Owner intends to begin the proposed use. The information shall
be sufficient for Land Trust to make a reasonably informed judgment.
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 9 of 24
586513-2
(ii) Within fifteen days after delivery of the Proposed Use Application, the Land
Trust shall review the Proposed Use Application and the information submitted with it and shall
notify Property Owner whether the information submitted by Property Owner is sufficient to allow
Land Trust to make an informed determination about whether the proposed use or activity complies
with all applicable specific restrictions in this Conservation Easement and whether it will materially
impair or harm the Conservation Values. If the information submitted was insufficient to make an
informed decision, then Land Trust shall request that Property Owner supply the additional
information reasonably necessary to make such a determination.
(iii) Within forty-five (45) days from the date Land Trust receives the information (or
additional information) supplied by Property Owner, the Land Trust shall review the proposed use or
activity and to give notice to Property Owner of its decision. Land Trust shall approve the proposed
use or activity only if it determines that it complies with all applicable restrictions in this
Conservation Easement and that it will not materially impair or harm the Conservation Values. If, in
the judgment of Land Trust, the proposed use or activity should not be permitted in the form set
forth in the Proposed Use Application, but that the proposed use or activity would be permitted if
modified, then Land Trust’s response shall notify Property Owner of suggested modification(s) and
conditions that would make the proposed use or activity permissible.
(iv) No Activity Pending Resolution. Pending the determination by Land Trust, the
new use or activity may not be conducted. If Property Owner disagrees with the Land Trust
determination, the parties may agree to mediate, arbitrate or litigate the disagreement. Pending
resolution of the disagreement, Property Owner agrees that the new use or activity shall not be
conducted.
(v) Land Trust’s Sole Discretion in Making Determination. Land Trust’s decision
shall be based upon the specific activities and uses in question. Approval or disapproval of Land
Trust shall be based on the Conservation Purpose of this Easement and may be granted with
conditions that further the Conservation Purposes. Each such request may be considered and
determined on its own and without accepting as precedent existing nonagricultural uses or previous
decisions by the Land Trust. No decision by the Land Trust shall establish precedent for or
commitment to the outcome of future decisions.
(vi) Certificate/Amendment of Easement After Completion. Upon the completion of
any new use or activity, Land Trust shall, with reasonable notice to the Property Owner, inspect the
Property. If the action was performed in accordance with the terms of this Easement and the
approved by the Land Trust as set forth in this section, the Land Trust shall issue a certificate to that
effect. The certificate shall be specifically limited to approval or consent to the new use or activity,
and shall not be construed as an approval or consent to all uses or activities ongoing on the Property
as of the date of said inspection. Depending on the nature of the new use or activity, Land Trust
may require that an amendment to the Easement documenting the new use or activity be prepared,
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 10 of 24
586513-2
executed by the Land Trust and the Property Owner and recorded with the County Recorder’s office.
Any oral representation made by Land Trust, its officers, employees or agents, does not meet the
requirements of this paragraph, does not otherwise bind or commit Land Trust, and may not be relied
on. To that end no oral representation made by Land Trust, its officers, employees or agents, or
understood by Property Owner to have been made by the Land Trust, its officers, employees or
agents, shall be used by Property Owner to assert that Land Trust is estopped or has made an
election or has waived any provision of this Easement.
(vii) Property Owner to Be Responsible for All Costs. The Property Owner shall
reimburse the Land Trust for the costs, including but not limited to, reasonable professional fees of
surveyors, attorneys, consultants, Land Trust staff, and accountants, incurred in processing a
Proposed Use Application.
5. Rights of Land Trust. To accomplish the purpose of this Easement, the following rights are
conveyed to Land Trust:
a. Identification and Protection of Conservation Values. To identify, preserve and protect in
perpetuity the Conservation Values of the Property for the benefit of the general public, including
the soil and water quality, productive agricultural capacity and the open space and scenic values.
b. Prevention of Prohibited Uses. To prevent any activity on or use of the Property that is
inconsistent with the Conservation Values, and to require the restoration of any features of the
Property that may be damaged by any inconsistent activity or use. However, it is the intention of
this Easement that the Property Owner shall have the discretion to employ its choices of agricultural
management practices, so long as those uses and practices protect and preserve the Conservation
Values and are consistent with the Conservation Purpose.
c. Inspection of the Property. To enter upon the Property annually and at such other times
with reasonable notice to Property Owner, if Land Trust has been informed or reasonably believes
that a violation of the terms of this Easement exists, in order to (i) conduct monitoring inspections
and tests and other reasonable activities as may be deemed appropriate by Land Trust to monitor
Property Owner’s compliance with the terms of this Easement for the purpose of ensuring that the
Conservation Values are being protected, and (ii) enforce the terms of this Easement as set forth in
Paragraph 4 below.
d. Signage. Subject to the written consent of the Property Owner, to erect and maintain a
sign or other appropriate marker in a prominent location on the Property, visible from a public road,
stating that the Property is protected by Land Trust. The wording of this information shall be
determined by Land Trust, but shall clearly indicate that the Property is privately owned and that
public access is prohibited or restricted. Land Trust shall be responsible for the costs of erecting and
maintaining such sign or marker.
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 11 of 24
586513-2
6. Enforcement.
a. Land Trust’s Rights. The Land Trust shall have the right to prevent and correct violations
of the terms of this Easement. Should Land Trust be informed, or reasonably believe, that a
violation of the terms of this Easement exists, Land Trust, with reasonable advance notice to the
Property Owner, may enter the Property for the purpose of inspecting for violations. If the Land
Trust finds what it believes is a violation, it may, at its discretion, take appropriate legal action.
Except when an ongoing or imminent violation could irreversibly diminish or impair the
Conservation Values, the Land Trust shall give the Property Owner written notice of the violation
and thirty (30) days to correct it, before filing any legal action. If a court with jurisdiction
determines that a violation may exist or has occurred, the Land Trust may obtain an injunction to
stop it, temporarily or permanently. A court may also issue an injunction requiring the Property
Owner to restore the Property to its condition prior to the violation. In any action filed pursuant to
this Section 6(a), the Court shall have discretion to award the prevailing party all costs incurred,
including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees. The failure of the Land Trust to discover a
violation or to take immediate legal action shall not bar it from doing so at a later time, subject to the
applicable Statute of Limitations.
b. Ex Parte Relief. Notwithstanding the previous paragraph, if Land Trust, in its sole
discretion, determines that circumstances require immediate action to prevent violation of the
Conservation Purpose or to mitigate significant damage to the Conservation Values of the Property,
the Land Trust may pursue its remedies under this section without prior notice to Property Owner or
without waiting for the period provided for cure to expire, including but not limited to ex parte
judicial relief. Land Trust shall have the right to obtain injunctive relief pursuant to this Section 6
if, in Land Trust’s sole discretion, an injunction is required to protect the Conservation Values or the
Conservation Purpose or otherwise to enforce this Conservation Easement.
c. Equitable Remedies. Land Trust’s rights under this section apply equally in the event of
actual or threatened violations of the terms of this Conservation Easement. The Property Owner and
the Land Trust expressly agree that, because of its Conservation Values, the Property is unique, and
that a violation of the Easement and any ensuing harm or alteration of the Property may result in
damages that are irremediable and not subject to quantification. Accordingly, the Property Owner
agrees that Land Trust’s remedies at law for any violation of the terms of this Conservation
Easement are inadequate and that the Land Trust is entitled to seek injunctive relief described in this
section, both prohibitive and mandatory, in addition to such other relief to which Land Trust may be
entitled, including specific performance of the terms of this Easement, without necessity of proving
either actual damages or the inadequacy of otherwise available legal remedies. Land Trust’s
remedies described in this section shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to all remedies
existing at law or in equity. Equitable relief may include restoration of the Property to the condition
that existed prior to the injury.
d. Actual Damages. Inasmuch as the actual damages that would result from a breach of the
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 12 of 24
586513-2
Easement and a the loss of the values associated with the Conservation Purpose are uncertain and
would be impractical or extremely difficult to measure, the parties agree that damages allowed by
Civil Code section 815.7(c) shall be include the following:
(i) for damages attributable to an improvement prohibited by this Easement,
which is not removed, an amount equal to the increase in the value of the Property due to the
improvement, as set forth in a written estimate by a qualified person or organization selected by
Land Trust, plus interest compounded monthly at the then-current rate for post-judgment interest for
the length of time commencing with Land Trust’s notice until such damages are collected by Land
Trust; and/or
(ii) for damages attributable to a use prohibited by this Easement, whether or not
it involves an improvement, an amount equal to any economic gain realized because of the change in
use, as set forth in a written estimate by a qualified person or organization selected by Land Trust,
plus interest compounded monthly at the then-current rate for post-judgment interest for the length
of time commencing with Land Trust’s notice until such damages are collected by Land Trust;
and/or
(iii) for damages attributable to a use prohibited by this Easement, whether or not
it involves an improvement and whether or not there is any measurable economic gain realized by
Property Owner, an amount equal to the cost of restoration, as set forth in a written estimate by a
qualified person or organization selected by Land Trust , plus interest compounded monthly at the
then-current rate for post-judgment interest for the length of time commencing with Land Trust ’s
notice until such damages are collected by Land Trust.
e. Application of Proceeds. Without limiting Property Owner’s liability therefore, the Land
Trust shall apply damages recovered to the cost of undertaking any corrective action on the Property.
Should the restoration of lost values be impossible or impractical, the Land Trust shall apply any
and all damages recovered to furthering the Land Trust’s mission, with primary emphasis on
agricultural easement acquisition, stewardship and enforcement.
f. Forbearance is Not a Waiver. Forbearance by the Land Trust to exercise its rights under
this Easement in the event of any breach of any term of this Easement by Property Owner shall not
be construed to be a waiver by the Land Trust of such term or of any subsequent breach of the same
or any other term of this Easement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy
upon any breach by Property Owner shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver.
g. Rights of Enforcement of Beneficiary. As a beneficiary of the Easement, the City shall
have the right, but not the obligation, to enforce the terms of this Easement in the same manner as
the Land Trust and pursuant to the rights granted to the Land Trust under this Easement.
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 13 of 24
586513-2
7. Acts Beyond Property Owner’s Control. Nothing contained in this Easement shall be construed
to entitle Land Trust to bring any action against Property Owner for any injury to or change in the
Property resulting from causes beyond Property Owner’s control, including, without limitation, fire,
flood, storm, or earth movement, or from any prudent action taken by Property Owner under
emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to the Property and structures
on the Property resulting from such causes.
8. Access. No right of access by the general public to any portion of the Property is conveyed by
this Easement.
9. Property Owner’s Title Warranty. Except for the exceptions set forth in the policy of title
insurance issued to Land Trust at the time of execution of this Easement, Property Owner covenants
that the Property is free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, assessments, easements, leases
(recorded and unrecorded), and taxes.
10. Subordination. This easement shall have priority over any financing lien or encumbrance on the
Property. The existing financing liens on the Property have been subordinated to the Easement
11. Environmental Provisions.
a. Property Owner’s Representations. The Property Owner warrants and represents to the
Land Trust, which warranties and representations shall survive the termination of this Easement, that
to the best of the Property Owner’s knowledge, and except as disclosed by the Property Owner to the
Land Trust, in writing, prior to the date hereof, (i) no material (hereinafter collectively “Hazardous
Materials”) regulated under any applicable environmental, hazardous waste, and/or health and safety
laws, statutes or regulations, including, without limitation, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq.),
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, the Federal Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq.), the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section
466 et seq.), the Safe Drinking Water Act (14 U.S.C. Sections 1401-1450), the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. Section 1801 et seq.), the Toxic Substance Control Act (15 U.S.C.
Sections 2601-2629), the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety
Code Sections 25100-25600), the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Health and
Safety Code Section 13000 et seq.), and the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act
(California Health and Safety Code Section 25249.5 et seq.), and any and all amendments,
modifications, successor and related statutes, regulations, rules and ordinances thereto (hereinafter
collectively the “Applicable Laws”), has been used, generated, manufactured, placed, stored, treated,
released, disposed, or discharged on the Property in violation of any of the Applicable Laws; (ii)
none of the Property Owner’s operations on the Property are the subject of any federal, state, county,
municipal or other governmental or quasi-governmental investigation evaluating whether any
remedial action involving a material expenditure is needed to respond to a release of any toxic or
hazardous waste or substance into the environment; and (iii) the Property Owner has no material
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 14 of 24
586513-2
contingent liability in connection with any release of any toxic or hazardous material or substance
into the environment.
The Property Owner further warrants and represents to the Land Trust, which warranties and
representations shall survive the termination of this Easement, that neither the Property Owner, nor
any of its successors or assigns (including, by way of example but not limitation, lessees, subleases,
occupants, or purchasers of all or a portion of or interest in the Property) shall, in violation of any of
the Applicable Laws, use, generate, manufacture, place, store, treat, release, dispose or discharge any
Hazardous Materials on the Property, or cause or suffer any such activity to occur, in violation of
any of the Applicable Laws.
b. Property Owner’s Indemnity. The Property Owner hereby releases and agrees to defend,
indemnify and hold the Land Trust, the City and their respective officers, directors, governing
members, employees, contractors, partners, insurers, attorneys, agents, personal and legal
representatives, successors and assigns, harmless from and against any and all liabilities, losses,
claims, costs, demands, penalties, orders, charges, liens and expenses (including reasonable
attorneys fees and costs) whatsoever, regardless of by whom or when asserted, arising out of,
connected with or relating to (i) any such use, generation, manufacture, placement, storage,
treatment, release, disposal, discharge, or contamination in violation of the foregoing warranties and
representations; (ii) any violation or alleged violation of, or other failure or alleged failure to comply
with any of the Applicable Laws; (iii) any investigation and/or remediation of any Hazardous
Material or (iv) any claim or defense by the Property Owner or any third party that any Indemnified
Party is liable as an “owner” or “operator” or “responsible person” of the Property under any
Applicable Law. The Property Owners obligation under this Section shall include the obligation to
provide, upon demand, a defense for the Land Trust against any demand, claim, liability, litigation,
claim, investigation, and/or order for remediation, with counsel reasonably satisfactory to the Land
Trust. The obligations of the Property Owner hereunder shall include, but not be limited to,
investigation and remediation activities with respect to any known or suspected Hazardous
Materials, liabilities arising out of any investigation or remediation with respect to Hazardous
Materials and any damages claimed by any third party or parties, including claims for personal
injury and/or property damage, arising from or relating to any Hazardous Materials, the violation by
the Property Owner of any of the warranties and representations set forth above, or from the
investigation, remediation, or other actions of the Property Owner.
c. Land Trust Not an Owner, Operator or Responsible Person. Notwithstanding any other
provision herein to the contrary, the parties do not intend this Easement to be construed such that it
creates or gives the Land Trust or the City the obligations or liability of an “owner” or “operator” or
“responsible person” as those words are defined by the Applicable Laws.
12. Amendment. If circumstances arise under which an amendment to or modification of this
Easement is appropriate, the Property Owner and the Land Trust may jointly amend this Easement;
provided that no amendment shall be allowed that will affect the qualification of this Easement
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 15 of 24
586513-2
under any applicable laws, including, but not limited to, California Civil Code Section 815.1 et seq.
and Internal Revenue Code sections 501(c) (3) and 170(h) and any amendments or successor
provisions thereto. Any amendment shall be consistent with the Conservation Purposes of this
Easement, shall not affect its perpetual duration and shall be recorded in the official records of the
County Recorder for the County of Contra Costa, California. Any amendment that relates to the
City’s rights under this Easement shall not be executed by the parties without the City’s prior written
consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
13. Termination of Easement. The parties agree that it is the intent of this Easement to run with the
land in perpetuity. If, however, circumstances arise in the future such as to render the Conservation
Purpose of this Easement impossible to accomplish, this Easement may be terminated, in whole or in
part, only by judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction, and the amount of the
compensation to which the Land Trust shall be entitled from such sale, exchange, or involuntary
conversion of all or any portion of the Property subsequent to such termination or extinguishment
shall be determined, unless otherwise provided by California law at the time, in accordance with
paragraph 14. Any such compensation shall be returned to the City and placed in the Agricultural
Land Conservation Fund and the City shall use all such proceeds in a manner consistent with the
Conservation Purposes of this Easement. To the extent that the proceeds are distributed to the Land
Trust, it shall use all such proceeds in a manner consistent with the Conservation Purposes of this
Easement. Property Owner and Land Trust intend that this Easement shall not be terminated solely
as a result of changes in the surrounding land uses, changed agricultural practices, the non-
availability of water, or any other changes in the condition of the Property or the land surrounding
the Property. Similarly, the fact that one of the Conservation Purposes is not being satisfied, e.g. that
the property is not then in agricultural use, is not by itself sufficient reason for termination of this
Easement.
14. Valuation. This Easement constitutes a real property interest immediately vested in Land Trust.
For the purpose of this paragraph 14, the parties stipulate that this Easement has a fair market value
equal to the greater of:
(a) the value determined by multiplying
(i) the fair market value of the Property unencumbered by the Easement at the time of
termination or condemnation of the Easement (minus any increase in value attributable to
improvements made after the date of this Easement) by
(ii) the ratio of the value of the Easement at the time of this grant to the value of the
Property, unencumbered by the Easement at the time of this grant; or
(b) the amount of the difference between the then current fair market value of the Property
unencumbered by this Easement at the time of termination or condemnation of the Easement and the
then current fair market value of the Property encumbered by this Easement at the time of
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 16 of 24
586513-2
termination or condemnation of the Easement, as determined by an appraisal prepared an appraiser
jointly selected by Property Owner and Land Trust and approved by Property Owner and Land
Trust. and performed at Property Owner’s sole expense by an appraiser jointly selected by Property
Owner and Land Trust.
For the purposes of this paragraph, the Property Owner and the Land Trust agree that the ratio of the
value of the Easement to the value of the Property (minus any value attributable to improvements)
unencumbered by this Easement is _______%, which is the ratio determined by an appraisal
approved by the parties as of the Effective Date.
15. Condemnation. If all or any part of the Property is taken by exercise of the power of eminent
domain or acquired by purchase in lieu of condemnation, whether by public, corporate, or other
authority, so as to terminate this Easement, in whole or in part, the Property Owner and the Land
Trust shall act jointly to recover the full value of their respective interests in the Property so taken or
purchased, and all direct or incidental damages resulting therefore. Land Trust shall be entitled to
compensation as determined pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Chapter 9 of Title 7 and
also Section 1260.220, or any successor statutes. If only a portion of the Property is subject to
such exercise of eminent domain, this Easement shall remain in effect as to all other portions of the
Property. Any such compensation received by the Land Trust under this Section shall be returned
to the City pursuant to the terms of Section 13 of this Easement and placed in the Agricultural Land
Conservation Fund, and the City shall use such proceeds in a manner consistent with the
Conservation Purposes of this Easement.
16. Assignment. The Land Trust may assign its interest in this Easement only to a non-profit entity
which is (i) qualified under section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code (or any successor provision
then applicable) and the applicable regulations promulgated there under, and (ii) authorized to
acquire and hold agricultural conservation easements under California Civil Code Section 815.3 (or
any successor provision then applicable). In selecting an appropriate transferee entity, preference
will be given to a qualified entity with an agricultural conservation purpose and a board, staff or
consultants with practical agricultural management experience.
As stated in Recital C, the City of Brentwood, as beneficiary of this Easement, shall have the right to
hold, administer, monitor and enforce the interest in the Easement at such time as the Land Trust its
assignee and/or successor cease to exist.
17. Subsequent Transfers. Property Owner agrees to incorporate by reference the terms of this
Easement in any deed or other legal instrument by which it divests itself of any interest in all or a
portion of the Property, including but not limited to, leasehold interests. Property Owner further
agrees to give written notice to Land Trust and the City of the transfer of any interest in all or any
portion of the Property not less than thirty (30) days prior to such transfer. The failure of the
Property Owner to perform any act required by this paragraph shall not impair the validity of this
Easement or limit its enforceability in any way. This Easement shall be recorded and any transferee
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 17 of 24
586513-2
of title to all or any portion of the Property shall take title subject to the terms of this Easement,
whether or not the Easement is specifically referred to in the deed or other instrument of
conveyance.
18. Costs of Enforcement. Any costs incurred in enforcing the terms of this Easement, including
costs of suit, reasonable attorneys fees, and any costs of restoration, necessitated by Property
Owner’s violation of the terms of this Easement (including costs of routine monitoring compliance)
from such time as the violation was first identified through completion of any required restoration,
shall be borne by the Property Owner.
19. Notices. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that any party
desires or is required to give to any other party shall be in writing and may be served in any one of
the following ways: personally, by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by overnight delivery,
such as Federal Express, addressed as follows:
To the Property Owner: Ronald E. Nunn
741 Sunset Road
Brentwood, CA 94513-5501
To the Land Trust: Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust
Attention: Executive Director
1120 Second Street, Suite 108
P.O. Box 2046
Brentwood, CA 94513
To the Beneficiary: City of Brentwood
Attention: City Manager
734 Third Street
Brentwood, CA 94513
Or to such other address as any party from time to time shall designate by written notice to all other
parties. Such notice shall be deemed to be effective when received if served personally or sent via
Federal Express, and seven days (7) after being deposited in the mail.
20. Recordation. Land Trust and the Property Owner shall work together to record this instrument
in a timely fashion in the official records of the County Recorder for the County of Contra Costa,
California.
21. General Provisions.
a. Controlling Law. The interpretation and performance of this Easement shall be governed
by the laws of the State of California. References to authorities in this Easement shall be to the
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 18 of 24
586513-2
Statute, rule, regulation, ordinance or other legal provision that is in effect at the time this Easement
becomes effective.
b. Liberal Construction. Any general rule of construction to the contrary notwithstanding,
this Easement shall be liberally construed in favor of the grant to affect the purpose of this Easement
and the policy and purpose of California Civil Code Section 815. If any provision of this instrument
is found to be ambiguous, an interpretation consistent with the purpose of this Easement that would
render the provision valid shall be favored over any interpretation that would render it invalid.
c. Severability. If any provision of this Easement is found to be invalid, the remainder of the
provisions of this Easement, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance other
than those as to which it has been found to be invalid, shall not be affected thereby.
d. Entire Agreement. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with
respect to the Easement and supersedes all prior understandings, discussions, negotiations, or
agreements relating to the Easement, all of which are merged herein. No alteration or variation of
this instrument shall be valid or binding unless contained in an amendment that complies with
paragraph 12 herein.
e. Perpetual Duration. The Easement created by this instrument shall be a servitude running
with the land in perpetuity. Every provision of this Easement shall be binding upon on the Property
Owner and the Land Trust and their respective personal heirs, representatives, successors, and
assigns. All such heirs, representatives, successors and assigns shall be bound to every provision in
this Easement, whether or not this Easement is referred to in the instrument by which such heirs,
representatives, successors or assigns acquire an interest in the Property.
f. Termination of Rights and Obligations. A party’s rights and obligations under this
Easement terminate upon transfer of the party’s interest in the Easement or the Property, except that
liability for acts or omissions occurring prior to transfer shall survive transfer.
g. Captions. The captions in this instrument have been inserted solely for convenience of
reference and are not a part of this instrument and shall have no effect upon construction or
interpretation.
h. Cooperation. The parties agree to cooperate in good faith with each other in the
administration of this Easement. Each party hereto will, upon the reasonable request of the other
party, execute, acknowledge, and deliver, or cause to be executed, acknowledged, and delivered,
such further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary in order to fulfill the intents
and purposes of this Easement.
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 19 of 24
586513-2
i. Warranty of Authority. Each person executing this Easement on behalf of a party represents
and warrants that such person is duly and validly authorized to do so, has full right and authority to
enter into this Easement and all of its obligations hereunder.
-Signatures follow-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Property Owner and Land Trust have executed this agreement
effective as of the date first above written.
PROPERTY OWNER:
Ronald E. Nunn and Shirley A. Nunn
Date___________________ ______________________________________
Ronald E. Nunn
Date ___________________ ______________________________________
Shirley A. Nunn
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 20 of 24
586513-2
LAND TRUST:
BRENTWOOD AGRICULTURAL LAND TRUST
a California nonprofit public benefit corporation
Date_________________ _____________________________________
Tom Bloomfield, Chairman of the Board of Directors
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A Legal Description and Map of the Property
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 21 of 24
586513-2
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County of __________
On _______________ before me, ___________________________________ personally
appeared_____________________________________________________________________
___ _______________________________________________________________________,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s)
is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed
the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the
instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County of __________
On _______________ before me, ___________________________________ personally
appeared_____________________________________________________________________
___ _______________________________________________________________________,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s)
is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed
the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the
instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 22 of 24
586513-2
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description and Map of the Property
The land referred to is situated in the unincorporated area of the County of Contra Costa, State of
California, and is described as follows:
PARCEL ONE:
Portion of the North 1/2 of Section 21, Township 1 North, Range 3 East, Mount Diablo Base and
Meridian, described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of Section 21, Township 1 North, Range 3 East, Mount Diablo
Base and Meridian; thence South along center lien of a road, 1326 feet to the Northeast corner of
the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 21; thence West 1,345 feet to the
Northwest corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 21; thence South
1,320 feet to the North right of way line of the East Contra Costa Irrigation Company's Canal;
thence West along said canal right of way, 1,632 feet to a point; thence North 2,642 feet to a
point on the North line of said Section 21; thence East 2,985 feet along section line to the point
of beginning.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM:
All Coal Mines or Beds of Coal Etc., as prOVided for in the Deed from Central Pacific Railroad
Company, successor to the Western Pacific Railroad Company and the Central Pacific Railroad
Company of California, consolidated, to George Fellows, dated August 16, 1870, recorded
August 11, 1880, in Book 38 of Deeds, Page 422.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM:
50% of all oil, gas, casinghead gasoline and other hydrocarbons and mineral substances below a
point 500 feet below the surface of said land, hereinabove described, together with the right to
take, remove, mine, pass through and dispose of all oil, gas, casinghead gasoline and other
hydrocarbons and mineral substances, but without any right whatsoever to enter upon the surface
of said land, as reserved in the Grant Deed from Robert E. Garin, Elsie Jane Garin Dill and
William O. Garin, recorded August 24, 1984, Book 11939, Page 734, series No. 84-118417,
Official Records.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM:
Any and all minerals and mineral rights lying in, on and under the strip of land herein conveyed,
but without the right of surface entry or entry within the upper 500 feet from the surface of said
strip for the purpose of mineral exploration or development, as reserved in the Grant Deed from
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 23 of 24
586513-2
East Contra Costa Irrigation District, recorded September 5, 1986, Book 13105, Page 469, Series
No. 86-14363, Official Records.
PARCEL TWO:
That certain strip of land described in the instrument recorded in Book 434 of Deeds, at Page
117, lying adjacent to the South line of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of the
Section 21, Township 1 North, Range 3 East, MDB&M.
EXCEPTING any and all minerals and mineral rights lying below a depth of 500 feet from the
surface of the land herein Quitclaimed, with no right of entry upon the surface or within the
upper 500 feet from the surface of said land as reseNed in the Deed from East Contra Costa
Irrigation District, recorded November 9, 1989, Book 15471, Page 331, Series No. 89-228272,
Official Records.
APN: 011-140-013
Nunn- Preston Ranch Conservation Easement (v. 10-13-09) Page 24 of 24
586513-2
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 16
Meeting Date: November 10, 2009
Subject/Title: A Resolution to Increase, by $75,000, the Amount Authorized to be Spent
during Fiscal Year 2009/2010 for Litigation Services Provided by Meyers,
Nave, Riback, Silver and Wilson for a Total not to Exceed Amount of $150,000.
Prepared by: Damien Brower, City Attorney
Submitted by: Damien Brower, City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution to increase, by $75,000, the amount authorized to be spent for litigation
services provided by Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver and Wilson (Meyers Nave) during Fiscal
Year 2009/2010 for a total not to exceed amount of $150,000.
PREVIOUS ACTION
On June 23, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009-152 approving and authorizing
the City Manager or City Attorney as appropriate, to execute Agreements, after approval as to
form by the City Attorney, with specified vendors for specified not-to-exceed dollar amounts.
BACKGROUND
As part of the annual budget adoption, City staff includes budgeted amounts for ongoing
services and supplies. The Purchasing Policy requires that the use of vendors for recurring
services over $50,000 be approved by the City Council before each fiscal year. In order to
comply with the Purchasing Policy and to streamline the process for ongoing purchases of
goods and/or services, each year staff prepares a list of vendors and not-to-exceed amounts.
This past June, the Council approved and authorized the City Manager or City Attorney, as
appropriate, to execute agreements with specified vendors for specific not to exceed dollar
amounts. One such vendor was Meyers Nave, a law firm that provides litigation support
services to the City. Currently, the City has several agreements with Meyers, Nave for litigation
services, at least one of which may require additional funding prior to the end of the current
Fiscal Year.
To ensure that sufficient funding exists for litigation services that might be required, it is
requested that Council adopt the attached resolution which increases, by $75,000, the amount
of money that may be spent on litigation support services for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 for a total
not to exceed amount of $150,000. This amount may be used for any of the litigation service
agreements that the City has, or will have, with the firm for the 2009/2010 Fiscal Year.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for these services is currently budgeted in the 2009/2010 Operating and 2009/2010 –
2013/2014 CIP Budgets. This action does not request a budget increase.
Attachment: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
INCREASING, BY $75,000, THE AMOUNT AUTHORIZED TO BE SPENT FOR
LITIGATION SERVICES PROVIDED BY MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER AND
WILSON FOR A TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $150,000.
WHEREAS, as part of the annual budget adoption, City staff includes budgeted amounts
for ongoing services and supplies; and
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Policy requires that the use of vendors for recurring services
over $50,000 be approved by the City Council before each fiscal year. In order to comply with
the Purchasing Policy and to streamline the process for ongoing purchases of goods and/or
services, each year staff prepares a list of vendors and not-to-exceed amounts; and
WHEREAS, this past June, the Council approved and authorized the City Manager or
City Attorney, as appropriate, to execute Purchase Orders, Change Orders and/or agreements
with specified vendors for specific not to exceed dollar amounts; and
WHEREAS, one such vendor was Meyers, Nave, Riback Silver and Wilson (Meyers
Nave), a law firm that provides litigation support services to the City. Currently the City has
several agreements with Meyers, Nave, at least one of which may require additional funding;
and
WHEREAS, to ensure that sufficient funding exists for this and any other agreements
that might be required, Council is requested to increase by $75,000, the amount of money that
may be spent on litigation support services provided by Meyers Nave for Fiscal Year 2009/2010
for a total not to exceed amount of $150,000; and
WHEREAS, this amount may be used for any of the agreements that the City has, or will
have, with the firm during the 2009/2010 Fiscal Year.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood
does hereby increase, by $75,000, the amount authorized to be spent for litigation services
provided by Meyers Nave for a total not to exceed amount of $150,000.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on November 10, 2009, by the following vote:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 17
Meeting Date: November 10, 2009
Subject/Title: Waive the second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 876 approving a rezone
(RZ 08-07) for the Brentwood Business Park project, located on approximately
43 acres west of Sellers Avenue, north of the ECCID Main Canal and east of
Guthrie Lane (APN 010-160-037,038, 039, 041, 042 and 043)
Prepared by: Erik Nolthenius, Principal Planner
Submitted by: Casey McCann, Community Development Director
RECOMMENDATION
Waive the second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 876.
PREVIOUS ACTION
At its meeting on October 27, 2009, the City Council waived the first reading of Ordinance No.
876 on a 4-0-1 vote (Council Member Stonebarger recused). At that same meeting, the City
Council adopted a resolution by an identical vote adopting the mitigated negative declaration for
the Brentwood Business Park project.
ANALYSIS
Adoption of this ordinance will establish a list of allowable uses and development standards for
approximately 43 acres within the PD-24 Zone in order to facilitate future development of the
mixed-use Brentwood Business Park project.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with approval of the rezone. The applicant paid the
required processing fees for this project. All future projects will be required to pay applicable
processing and development fees.
Attachments:
Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. 876
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
APPROVING A REZONE (RZ 08-07) TO ESTABLISH A LIST OF ALLOWABLE USES
AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE BRENTWOOD BUSINESS PARK
PROJECT, LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 43 ACRES WITHIN THE PD-24 ZONE
BETWEEN GUTHRIE LANE AND SELLERS AVENUE, NORTH OF THE ECCID MAIN
CANAL (APN 010-160-037,038, 039, 041, 042 AND 043).
WHEREAS, Equus Group has requested approval of a rezone to establish a list of
allowable uses and development standards for the Brentwood Business Park project, located on
approximately 43 acres within the PD-24 Zone between Guthrie Lane and Sellers Avenue, north
of the ECCID Main Canal (APN 010-160-037,038, 039, 041, 042 and 043); and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was distributed to all property owners of record
within 300 feet of the project site and published in the Brentwood Press on October 16, 2009, in
accordance with City policies and Government Code 65090; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezone at its
regular meeting of October 6, 2009 by adopting Resolution No. 09-053; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a mitigated negative declaration for the
project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered this request at a public hearing at its regular
meeting of October 27, 2009, and considered the staff report, the Planning Commission
recommendation, all accompanying information, and testimony received from all interested
parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood:
Section 1.
The City Council hereby makes the following supporting findings for this rezone:
1. The proposed rezone has been processed in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental
Quality Act; and
2. The proposed rezone will not result in any adverse impacts to surrounding
properties; and
3. The site is physically suitable for the type and the density of development proposed;
and
4. The proposed rezone will establish clear development standards for the uses
permitted under the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and
5. The proposed rezone will provide standards resulting in development that is
consistent and compatible with surrounding uses; and
1
6. The proposed rezone will provide for adequate public uses and private open space;
and
7. The proposed development will clearly result in a more desirable use of land, and a
better physical environment than would be possible under any single or combination
of zones; and
8. The proposed rezone is on property that has a suitable relationship to one or more
thoroughfares, and said thoroughfares are adequate to carry any traffic generated by
the development; and
9. The plan for the proposed development presents a unified and organized
arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to
adjacent or nearby properties, and adequate landscaping and/or screening is
included if necessary to ensure compatibility; and
10. The natural and scenic qualities of the site are protected, with adequate available
public and private open spaces designated on the development plan; and
11. The development of the subject property, in the manner proposed by the applicant,
will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City,
and will be consistent with the General Plan, including all relevant Elements thereof,
and with any applicable Specific Plan adopted by the City, as well as the Zoning
Ordinance.
Section 2.
Chapter 17.474 of the Brentwood Municipal Code, regarding PD-24 as shown on Exhibit “A,”
attached hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby amended.
Section 3.
This Ordinance shall be published in accordance with Government Code Section 36933 by
either posting or publishing the Ordinance in accordance with that law. Further, the City Clerk is
directed to cause Section 2 of this Ordinance to be entered in the City of Brentwood Municipal
Code. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days following its adoption.
Section 4.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held
to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, the holding
shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions, and the City Council
declares that it would have adopted each provision of this ordinance irrespective of the validity
of any other provision.
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced with the first reading waived at a regular
meeting of the Brentwood City Council on the 27th day of October, 2009, by the following vote:
2
EXHIBIT “A” TO
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 876
REZONE NO. 08-07
PD-24 ZONE
The following represents an amendment to Chapter 17.474 of the Brentwood Municipal Code,
adding a list of allowable uses and development standards for Sub Areas D through G of the
PD-24 Zone.
Section 17.474.001 (Authority, Purpose and Intent) shall be amended to read as follows:
B. Purpose. The purpose of the PD-24 Zone is to permit and regulate the development of Sub
Area A as 4.34 acres (APN 010-150-034) designated as BP (Mixed Use Business Park) by the
General Plan, Sub Area B as 0.67 acres (APN 010-480-056) designated as BP (Mixed Use
Business Park), Sub Area C to permit and regulate the development of single-family detached
homes in the 14-lot Paradise Cove neighborhood in accordance with the General Plan, and Sub
Areas D through G as 41.57 acres (APN’s 010-160-037, 038, 039, 041, 042 and 043)
designated as BP (Mixed Use Business Park) by the General Plan. Sub Areas D through G are
located south and contiguous to a single-family residential neighborhood, and east and
contiguous to the Harvest Business Park.
C. Intent. It is intended that in order to achieve the purpose of the PD-24 Zone of implementing
the development of Sub Areas A, B and D through G as Mixed Use Business Park in
conformance with the General Plan, the primary character of the area is intended to be a mix of
commercial, office, service and light industrial uses, and Sub Area C as a development of
single-family detached homes in the 14-lot Paradise Cove neighborhood, in accordance with the
General Plan.
The regulations contained within the PD-24 Zone replace land use and development regulations
previously contained within the City of Brentwood’s zoning ordinance for this district. In the
event of a conflict between other provisions of Title 17 and this chapter, this chapter shall
prevail.
Section 17.474.016 (PD-24 Sub Area Map) shall be amended to include Sub Areas D
through G, as shown on Attachment “1” to this ordinance.
Section 17.474.017 (Permitted Uses for Sub Areas D through G) shall be added as
follows:
The following uses are permitted within Sub Areas D through G of the PD-24 Zone:
A. Office, retail, wholesale showroom display and warehouse uses that directly
support the office, business, service and light industrial uses permitted within
these sub areas.
B. Outdoor storage, handling and distribution areas when screened to prevent
viewing interior contents from ground level of public right of way in
conjunction with the following permitted uses:
1. Agricultural products and services, such as agricultural office uses
including consulting service, equipment leasing, County, State or
3
Federal agricultural agencies, Farm Bureau and similar
organizations, fruit and vegetable brokers, growers or shippers
2. Chemical, supplement, root stock, tree and seed sales
3. Agricultural laboratories
4. Agricultural supplies
C. Vehicle (including automobile, truck, boat, RV, golf cart, electric / hybrid
vehicles) products and services:
1. Vehicle rental and leasing
2. Vehicle wholesale
3. Vehicle transport
4. Alarm and security system, installation and service
5. Radio, stereo, phone, GPS, installation and service
6. Vehicle parts and accessory sales and service
7. Vehicle detailing
8. Diagnostic service, smog, brake and lamp inspection and repair
9. Vehicle glass replacement, repair and tinting
10. Upholstery, seat cover and top repair and replacement
11. After market accessory sales, installation and service for autos,
trucks and recreation vehicles/
12. Vehicle tune up and minor repairs
13. Transmission service and repair
D. Building products and services:
1. Building material and supplies wholesale office
2. Building design and planning, inspection service, maintenance and
cleaning service
3. Contractor’s office
4. Building material, equipment and maintenance, rental and supplies
5. Plumbing, irrigation, heating, air conditioning, sheet metal
fabrication, and supply
6. Swimming pool, hot tub, spa, landscape, outdoor living, barbecue,
play structure, supplies and services
7. Remodel business including kitchen, bath, flooring, tile, granite,
closet and storage organizer, glass, mirror and window supplies,
service
8. Drapery and window covering (manufactured on or off-site),
upholstery shop and similar uses
9. Janitorial services and supplies
10. Contractor’s storage yard (e.g. electrical, plumbing, HVAC,
irrigation, fire sprinkler)
11. Antique repair and restoration and furniture refinishing
12. Carpet and rug repair, restoration and cleaning
13. Awning (metal or fabric) manufacturing, sales and service
14. Solar system manufacturing, sales and service
15. Garage door and operating devices, garage cabinets and organizers
service and sales
E. Medical:
1. Medical, dental, chiropractic and similar offices or clinics
2. Veterinary office
4
3. Marriage and family counseling, therapy
4. Occupational and physical therapy
5. Speech and hearing therapy
6. Medical supplies, rental and sales
7. Medical or dental laboratories
8. Bio-technology or bio-medical research, development and
production
9. Medical imaging, magnetic imaging diagnostic imaging
F. General and miscellaneous:
1. Certified public accountant, accountant, auditor, bookkeeper,
financial planner and similar professional offices
2. Answering services, bill paying services, excluding telemarketing
3. Real-estate broker / agent, title company, appraiser, consultant,
developer, property management
4. Insurance broker / agent, appraiser, adjuster, examiner
5. Advertising agency, newspaper, magazine publishing
6. Architect, landscape architect, designer, engineer, attorney and
other professional offices
7. Software developers, computer design and repair, data recovery,
internet services
8. Database research and management
9. Employment agencies and temporary help agencies
10. Online services and products
11. Radio and television broadcasting stations
12. Catalogue showroom, mail order service
13. Restaurant, coffee shop or deli with a maximum floor area of 3,000
square feet, catering businesses
14. Commercial laundromats and dry cleaning establishments
15. Event and party supplies, favors and services including inflatable
play structures
16. Office furniture repair, refurbishing, new furniture, supplies and
equipment service and sales
17. Small equipment repair, appliance repair, laser die cutting, and
similar uses
18. Light assembly and processing facilities
19. Light metal fabrication, machine shops, welding shops
20. Blueprint, film developing, photo finishing, color laboratory, graphic
design and similar uses
21. Advertising sign manufacture, sales and service
22. Fire sprinkler, fire extinguishers, fire protection equipment service
and supplies
23. Golf course equipment and supply, golf cart service
24. Laboratories – analytical, biological, testing
25. Music, sound or recording studio
26. Pest control service, supplies and equipment
27. Warehousing for all permitted uses
G. Public schools in Sub Area G only.
H. In Sub Area E, up to three single family residential dwelling units and all uses
permitted in Section 17.110.002 (Ranchette Estate) of the Municipal Code.
5
I. Uses that are similar in nature and operation to those uses identified above,
but not specifically listed, may also be permitted subject to the determination
of the Zoning Administrator or Community Development Director.
Section 17.474.018 (Conditionally Permitted Uses for Sub Areas D through G) shall be
added as follows:
The following uses are permitted upon obtaining a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter
17.830 within Sub Areas D through G of the PD-24 Zone:
A. Outdoor storage, holding, display manufacturing and distribution area(s)
exceeding screen heights or with exterior contents that can otherwise be
seen from the ground level of the public right of way in conjunction with
permitted and conditionally permitted uses.
B. Products and Services:
1. Retail and wholesale nurseries with outside display
2. Agriculture equipment sales, service and repair
3. Manufacturing or processing of locally grown food products
including but not limited to a winery and wine storage facility, olive
processing, but excluding fish or meat processing.
4. Auto body and frame repair and paint
5. Antique and classic automobile refurbishment or customizing
6. Utility and horse trailer manufacture and supply
7. Cabinet refinishing, re-facing and cabinetmaker
8. Manufacture or processing of pharmaceutical and similar products
9. Restaurant, coffee shop or deli with a floor area exceeding 3,000
square feet
10. Any use including the sale of alcoholic beverages for either on or
off-site consumption
11. Public or quasi-public uses appropriate to and compatible with the
area such as municipal, school or special district corporation
yards, electrical or telephone substations and similar uses
12. Recreational vehicle or boat storage facilities not visually
screened from view of an adjacent and contiguous street, or
located within Sub Areas D or E, with or without one care taker
residential unit
13. Veterinary hospital for large or small animals with or without
boarding of animals
14. Telemarketing or similar uses
15. Dance, gymnastic, karate or similar schools or uses
16. Law enforcement, fire and security training including but not
limited to personal physical training, classroom, fire arms, fire
prevention combat and similar training
C. In Sub Area E, those conditionally permitted uses identified in Section
17.110.003 (Ranchette Estate) of the Municipal Code.
D. Religious assembly uses and/or private schools.
6
E. Self storage, office records storage, and recreational vehicle storage, with or
without a caretaker residential unit.
F. Other uses that the Zoning Administrator or Community Development
Director determines that because of the type of operation, material stored or
sold or other special circumstances, require special consideration and
conditioning through the conditional use permit procedure.
Section 17.474.019 (Prohibited Uses for Sub Areas D through G) shall be added as
follows:
The following uses are prohibited within Sub Areas D through G:
A. Gravel, rock, concrete or ready mix facilities, excluding small ready mix
facilities incidental to a permitted or conditionally permitted use and intended
to be removed from the site by the customer in a small trailer designed for
such purpose and carrying a maximum of one (1) yard of ready mix material
B. Auto dismantling yards
C. Lumber milling, truss and beam manufacturing
D. Gasoline service stations and/or car washes
E. Hotels and motels
Section 17.474.020 (Development Standards for Sub Areas D through G) shall be added
as follows:
A. All non-residential permitted and conditionally permitted uses developed within Sub
Areas D through G shall conform to the development standards set forth as follows:
1. Minimum lot area: Twenty thousand (20,000) square feet;
2. Minimum average lot width: One hundred (100) feet, street frontage not
required with access easement;
3. Minimum street frontage yard: ten (10) feet;
4. Minimum non-street frontage yard: zero (0) feet, except that in Sub Areas D
and E there shall be a minimum five (5) foot landscape area separating the
existing residential area from a parking or storage area and a minimum ten
(10) foot landscape area separating a building from the residential area;
5. Maximum building height: Two (2) stories not to exceed forty (40) feet. For all
development contiguous to the north boundary of Sub Areas D and E, the
maximum height shall be limited to one (1) story and twenty (20) feet, except
that if the building is setback a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the
residential area then one (1) story not to exceed thirty (30) feet shall be
permitted, and if the building is setback a minimum of twenty (20) feet from
the residential area then two (2) stories not to exceed forty (40) feet shall be
permitted;
6. If developing condominium units, the individual units will not comply with the
above development standards, however the overall building envelope within
7
which the condominium units are located must comply with the above
identified development standards;
7. The buffer transition area along the east boundary of Sub Areas D through F
shall be consistent with the cross section for Sellers Avenue, included as
Attachment “2” to this ordinance.
B. Other Regulations – Non-residential uses.
1. Zone Wall. A minimum six foot high masonry zone wall shall be required on
the property line separating Sub Areas D and E from the existing residential
area to the north. Actual height shall be determined through an acoustical
analysis. The height of the wall shall be measured from the higher of the two
finished grades.
2. Refuse Disposal Enclosure. All uses shall provide masonry refuse disposal
enclosures constructed to City standards and specifications.
3. Off-street Parking and Loading Facilities. All uses shall provide off-street
parking and loading facilities in accordance with Chapter 17.620.
4. Illumination of Parking Facilities and Structures. All uses shall provide
adequate lighting or illumination of the parking facilities and structures in
accordance with Chapter 17.620.
5. Open Storage or Display. Open storage and/or display of merchandise visible
from a public roadway is prohibited unless expressly provided for in Sections
17.474.017 and 17.474.018 above or through the Design Review or
Conditional Use Permit process.
6. Advertising Signs. All signs shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter
17.640 and a Master Sign Program approved by the City.
7. Landscape and Screening. All uses shall provide landscaping and screening
in accordance with Chapter 17.630.
8. Yards. All required yards shall be utilized for landscaping, including C.3 or
storm water detention requirements only, except for access drives to the
property or unless expressly provided for through the Design Review or
Conditional Use Permit process.
9. Security Measures. All uses shall provide security measures in accordance
with City standards.
10. Accessory Structures. All accessory structures and buildings shall be
permitted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.660.
C. Development Standards – Residential uses.
1. The residential unit(s) permitted in Sub Area E shall comply with the
development standards identified in Section 17.110.004 (Ranchette Estate –
Regulations for lot area, density, yards, height and related matters) of the
Municipal Code, except that the minimum lot area shall be 40,000 square
feet.
D. Other Regulations – Residential uses.
1. All residential development permitted in Sub Area E shall comply with the
Development Standards set forth in Section 17.110.005 (Ranchette Estate –
Other regulations) of the Municipal Code.
2. Accessory Structures. All accessory structures and buildings shall be
permitted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.660.
8
Section 17.474.021 (Performance Standards for Sub Areas D through G) shall be added
as follows:
All permitted and conditionally permitted uses shall conform to the performance
standards set forth within Chapter 17.200.
Section 17.474.022 (Design and Site Development Review for Sub Areas D through G)
shall be added as follows:
The design and site development of all new structures shall comply with Chapter 17.820.
9
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 18
Meeting Date: November 10, 2009
Subject/Title: Consideration of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse No. 2000122013) and an amendment to Chapter 17.730
(Agricultural Land Conservation) of the Brentwood Municipal Code, as
recommended by the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood.
Prepared by: Barbara Mason, Economic Development Consultant
Submitted by: Casey McCann, Community Development Director
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution certifying the Final Supplementary
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2000122013) and waive the first
reading and introduce an Ordinance to amend Chapter 17.730 of the Brentwood Municipal
Code (Agriculture Land Conservation Ordinance).
PREVIOUS ACTION
On August 28, 2001, the City Council approved the Agricultural Enterprise Program Report and
adopted Ordinance 683 and Resolution 2354, establishing the Agricultural Enterprise Program
and the Agricultural Conservation Fee.
On September 11, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution 2007-203 authorizing staff to
begin processing an amendment to Chapter 17.730 of the Brentwood Municipal Code.
On February 3, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to take comments on the
proposed amendments to Chapter 17.730 of the Brentwood Municipal Code and associated
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.
On July 7, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed
amendments to Chapter 17.730 of the Brentwood Municipal Code and Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 09-038
recommending the certification of the Supplementary Environmental Impact Report and
associated documents and Resolution 09-037 recommending the City Council approve a rezone
amending the chapter.
On August 11, 2009 this item was continued to date certain on September 8, 2009 to address
additional issues.
On September 8, 2009 this item was continued to date certain on October 27, 2009.
On October 27, 2009 this item was continued to date certain on November 10, 2009.
BACKGROUND
On August 28, 2001, the City Council adopted by resolution the Agricultural Enterprise Program
(AEP) with the intent to protect and enhance agriculture around Brentwood through various
measures. The program consisted of three key elements:
1) A Farmland Mitigation Program and Fee
2) A Transferable Agricultural Credit (TAC) Program
3) An Agricultural Enterprise Program
The Farmland Mitigation Program and Fee, along with the Transferable Agricultural Credit
(TAC) Program, were adopted by Ordinance 683 and codified into the Brentwood Municipal
Code, Chapter 17.730. The Enterprise portion of the Program was not included in the
Ordinance.
In January 2006, the City retained the services of Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
to help the City review its Agricultural Enterprise Program to determine its effectiveness in
achieving the goals of the City’s General Plan, as well as those goals outlined in the AEP report.
In January 2007, EPS held a workshop with the City Council and provided an assessment of the
first five years of the program, as required by the AEP. EPS analyzed the existing conservation
easement program, its challenges and limited effectiveness and summarized that while an
easement program is important, the amount of land that would be conserved by this program
would be approximately 7% of the Agricultural Core. The City Council discussed the larger
policy considerations for a future program, including how agricultural enterprise programs could
benefit the City and the surrounding agricultural area and provided guidance to the newly
formed ad-hoc Agricultural Enterprise Committee to begin working on this issue.
In September 2007, with the recommendation of the ad-hoc Agricultural Enterprise Committee,
the City Council adopted Resolution 2007-203 authorizing City staff to begin processing an
amendment to Chapter 17.730 of the Brentwood Municipal Code, as well as any necessary
environmental work required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The proposed ordinance restructures Chapter 17.730 (Agricultural Land Conservation) of the
Brentwood Municipal Code to more fully and effectively implement the Council-adopted 2001
Agricultural Enterprise Program (AEP). The changes to the ordinance reflect the reorganization
of the funds, for in addition to altering the use of new funds paid by developers, it also
contemplates a change in the use of existing previously collected fees, with the ultimate goal of
increasing the economic viability of commercial agriculture around Brentwood.
The proposed project would allow the City to change its implementation strategy for the AEP.
Chapter 17.730 would be renamed “Agricultural Preservation Program” (it is currently named
“Agricultural Land Conservation”). The project’s amendments to Section 17.730.010 of the
Municipal Code would expand the purpose of agricultural preservation programs to include the
improvement of economic viability of agriculture in Brentwood (in addition to the purchase of
conservation easements or fee title purchase of lands).
The ad-hoc Agricultural Enterprise Committee has met on several occasions and has sought the
input of local farmers and growers and other stakeholders to help define a more effective
program.
Staff spent significant time interviewing local farmers to gather information on what would assist
the farms to become or remain sustainable. In addition, more recently an Agriculture Survey
was conducted and the findings reinforced the information previously garnered from the farming
community. Whereas an easement protects the land from development pressures and retains
its zoning designation as an agricultural piece of land, it does not, however, mandate that the
land be actively farmed. In order to ensure that the farms remain viable, it is important to
recognize that basic, vital infrastructure is needed by the farming community as well as other
resources to keep the farmers producing high quality produce for which the Brentwood area is
widely known.
The most imperative issue farmers are facing is water related concerns. Whether that is the
cost to install a lateral to the East Contra Costa Irrigation District line, replacing or repairing a
well or sinking a new well, this has become the most important issue as discussed by the
farmers. Without a high quality water source there is no food production. The second most
important issue is the high cost of power for their operations and the interest in alternative
energy technologies to assist with this cost. Refrigeration, production equipment, commercial
kitchens, water pumps, wells and a myriad of other equipment add significant cost to the bottom
line, which can make small farms unable to compete in the marketplace. As the local economy
has significantly changed over the past two years, the City of Brentwood has had more interest
in easement opportunities, but the viability of the farming operation remains a vital concern.
On February 3, 2009, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission to take comments
on the Draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR). The Draft SEIR was made
available for public review from January 12, 2009 until February 26, 2009. Comments and
questions were due by the end of the review period.
Two written letters were received by the City of Brentwood regarding this proposed amendment
as well as verbal comments at the Planning Commission meeting of February 3, 2009. The
response to these comments is included in the Final Supplementary Environmental Impact
Report (FSEIR).
On July 7, 2009, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission to consider the rezone
amending Chapter 17.730 of the Brentwood Municipal Code and to recommend the certification
of the FSEIR to the City Council. The Planning Commission recommends the two following
items for the Council’s consideration:
1. The Agricultural Enterprise Committee should be expanded to incorporate additional
stakeholders. The Planning Commission recommends the committee be comprised of a
farmer in the agriculture core area, a Contra Costa County representative, the two City
Council members currently serving, a resident of the City of Brentwood, a member of the
Planning Commission and City staff.
2. The percentage of how the Agriculture Mitigation Fee should be split should be indicated in
the Ordinance. The Planning Commission recommended the division be the following: not
to exceed 20% administration and agriculture grant program, not to exceed 30% agriculture
enterprise program and 50% for easements. The “not to exceed” would not apply to the
easement purchases to solidify the commitment of the City of Brentwood to place
precedence on the purchase of easements. In this example, easements may surpass 50%
of the funds, but administration and the grant and loan programs may not exceed their
respective amounts.
The administration costs include easement appraisals, support for a land trust to manage the
appraisal and acquisition process, the Brentwood Grown Program, marketing and advertising,
consulting, and the Agriculture Grant Program, which has funded items such as the Harvest
Time map and the Buy Fresh, Buy Local Brentwood billboards.
At the above referenced Planning Commission meeting, Greenbelt Alliance, represented by
their President, John Chapman, pointed out a number of items for the City Council’s attention.
Of particular note, the Brentwood Municipal Code, Section 17.730.020 Definitions, item E,
defines “Agricultural Conservation Easement” to allow temporary easements. To date, all the
easements that have been purchased have been permanent easements. Greenbelt Alliance is
encouraging the Council to consider the removal of the temporary easement language. In
keeping with this theme, as staff continues to work with the California Department of
Conservation, Farmland Conservancy Program, to partner with the City to purchase agriculture
easements, they will only participate if the easement is in perpetuity.
Staff recommends the following:
• If the expansion of the Agricultural Enterprise Committee is supported by the Council,
this change should be inserted in the Implementation Plan, which would allow for any
future changes in the composition of the committee to be addressed by an update to the
Implementation Plan instead of an amendment to the Ordinance. As part of the
Implementation Plan, in order to address the question of agricultural sustainability, the
City Council could consider changes to provide a loan and grant program to allow the
farmers to continue the production of high quality fruits and vegetables that has brought
recognition to the Brentwood area. A proposed Implementation Plan will be brought to
the Council at a later date.
• The percentages of Agriculture Mitigation Funds should be a maximum of 20%
administration and a minimum of 50% easements, in order to continue to focus on
easements, with the remaining to be used for agriculture enterprise programs or
easements, in order to ensure economic sustainability of agricultural operations. In
order to facilitate this potential change, a third fund would be implemented that would be
available for the AEP or for easement expenses, which would be implemented by a
resolution brought along with the second reading to the ordinance. The proposed
ordinance includes this revision to section 17.730.070. The Council may adopt the
ordinance with the recommendation, alter the percentage or revert back to the original
language of section 17.730.070: “The in-lieu fee paid to the City shall be placed in a
separate account, and funds from this account, as well as interest earned shall be used
to fund conservation easements, fee title purchases by the City, as well as the
agricultural preservation and enterprise programs that are consistent with the land use
designations and policies included in the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code.
Twenty percent of the fees collected may be used for administrative purposes and be
placed in a separate account.”
• The temporary easement language should be removed from the ordinance. The
definition of Agricultural conservation easement has been modified accordingly in
section 17.730.020. If the Council disagrees with this recommendation, the following
language should be added back to the end of the definition: “However, mitigation funds
should be available to fund term easements at minimum lengths to be determined by the
City Council.”
FISCAL IMPACT
Although the agriculture mitigation fee amount does not change and the amount in the
Agriculture Administration Fund remains the same, there is a potential to allocate the Agriculture
Land Fund into different percentages if the City Council chooses to adopt the changes as
presented. This change would necessitate the creation of a third Agriculture Program Fund
account that would be able to be used for either the AEP or agriculture easements by Council
resolution. For accounting purposes, with respect to unspent fees previously collected,
Agricultural Land funds would be transferred to an agricultural program fund to provide a 5 to 3
ratio of land funds to program funds based on the 50/30 percent allocation. No funds would be
transferred for administrative purposes; there would be no fiscal impact to the existing
administrative fund.
A budget adjustment, with no overall fiscal impact, for fiscal year 2009/10 will be brought back to
the City Council for consideration if the new Fund is established.
Attachments:
1. Resolution certifying the Final Supplementary Impact Report including Findings of Fact
and a Statement of Overriding Considerations related to land use and agricultural
resources impacts, regarding amendments to Chapter 17.730 (Agricultural Land
Conservation)
2. Ordinance to amend Chapter 17.730 of the Brentwood Municipal Code (Agricultural
Land Conservation)
3. Final Supplementary Environmental Impact Report
4. Agriculture Survey Results
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,
INCLUDING FINDINGS OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
IMPACTS, REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL
LAND CONSERVATION).
WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood has proposed an amendment to Chapter 17.730
(Agricultural Land Conservation) of the Brentwood Municipal Code to more fully implement the
Agricultural Enterprise Program by restructuring the chapter to include agricultural enterprise
programs as potential funding recipients (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the City determined that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(SEIR) should be prepared to analyze the potential impacts of the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR evaluates impacts and mitigation of the ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to preparation of the SEIR; and
WHEREAS, a Draft SEIR was prepared pursuant to CEQA, and all comments in
response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) were incorporated into the Draft SEIR; and
WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR has been circulated to the State Clearinghouse, all relevant
agencies and interested parties for a 45-day public comment period, pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, all comments received during the public comment period and written
responses to those comments, taken together with the Draft SEIR, constitute the Final SEIR,
pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2009, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the ordinance and Final SEIR and recommended certification of the Draft
SEIR; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2009, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
to consider the ordinance and Final SEIR.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED after consideration of the record in these
proceedings, including the testimony, exhibits and materials presented at the hearing, the City
Council of the City of Brentwood resolves as follows:
1. The City Council certifies that the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
for the Project, which consists of the Draft SEIR and the Response to Comments,
has been completed in accordance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines.
2. The City Council certifies that the SEIR was prepared, published, circulated and
reviewed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA
Guidelines, and constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective and complete Final
Environmental Impact Report in full compliance with the requirements of CEQA and
the State CEQA Guidelines.
3. The City Council certifies that the SEIR was presented to this body, that the City
Council has reviewed the SEIR and has considered the information contained in the
SEIR prior to acting on the proposed Project and that the SEIR reflects the City
Council’s independent judgment and analysis.
4. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, and in support of its
approval of the Project, the City Council adopts the attached Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations in support of approval of the Project as set
forth in the attached Exhibit “A” of this Resolution.
5. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, and in
support of its approval of the Project, the City Council certifies the SEIR.
6. The City Council directs that, upon approval of the Project, the City’s Community
Development Department shall file a notice of determination with the County Clerk of
the Contra Costa County, pursuant to the provisions of CEQA Section 21152.
7. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e), the documents and other materials
that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission has
based its decision are located in, and may be obtained from, the City of Brentwood
Community Development Department at 118 Oak Street, Brentwood, California.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on the 10th day of November 2009 by the following vote:
EXHIBIT "A" TO
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-037
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Description of the Project
The proposed project is to restructure Chapter 17.730 of the City of Brentwood Municipal Code
to more fully and effectively implement the Agricultural Enterprise Program (AEP). The
proposed ordinance would allow for more flexibility in the use of mitigation funds collected under
the AEP and would fund a wider variety of enterprise programs, with the ultimate goal of
increasing the viability of commercial agriculture around Brentwood. Under the existing
program, mitigation funds are primarily used to purchase conservation easements. However,
the City believes the use of mitigation funds primarily to purchase conservation easements will
ultimately be ineffective at preserving the critical mass of farmland around Brentwood that is
necessary to sustain farming in the area over the long-term. The proposed project would
amend Chapter 17.730 to expand the purpose of agricultural preservation programs to include
the improvement of economic viability of agriculture in Brentwood.
Findings Required Under CEQA
1. Procedural Findings
The City Council of the City of Brentwood finds as follows:
The City of Brentwood’s Community Development Department determined, based on
substantial evidence, that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment, and a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared for the Project. The SEIR was
prepared, noticed, published, circulated, reviewed, and completed in full compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq. (CEQA) and the
CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §15000 et seq.), as follows:
a. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft SEIR was filed with the Office of
Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency July 16, 2008 and was
circulated for public comments through August 15, 2008.
b. A Notice of Availability (NOA) and copies of the Draft SEIR were distributed to the
Office of Planning and Research on January 12, 2009 and to those public agencies that have
jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, or which exercise authority over resources that
may be affected by the Project, and to other interested parties and agencies as required by law.
The comments of such persons and agencies were sought.
c. An official 45-day public comment period for the Draft SEIR was established by
the Office of Planning and Research. The public comment period began on January 12, 2009
and ended on February 26, 2009.
d. A NOA of the Draft EIR was mailed to all interested groups, organizations, and
individuals who had previously requested notice in writing on January 12, 2009. The NOA stated
that the City of Brentwood had completed the Draft EIR and that copies were available at the
City of Brentwood Community Development Department at 118 Oak Street, Brentwood,
California. The letter also indicated that the official 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR
would end on February 26, 2009.
e. A public hearing to take comments on the Project, which was publicly noticed in
the Brentwood Press on January 9, 2009, took place on February 3, 2009.
f. Following closure of the public comment period, all comments received on the
Draft SEIR during the comment period and the City’s written responses to the significant
environmental points raised in those comments were added to the Draft SEIR to produce the
Final SEIR.
2. Record of Proceedings
The following information is incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting
these findings:
a. The Draft and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Reports and all
documents relied upon or incorporated by reference.
b. The City of Brentwood General Plan, City of Brentwood, amended through
January 2006.
c. City of Brentwood General Plan Update EIR, City of Brentwood, November 2001
and all updates.
d. The Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Adoption of the Brentwood General Plan, City of Brentwood.
e. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Brentwood.
f. The proposed amendments to Chapter 17.730 (Agricultural Land Conservation).
g. All records of decision, staff reports, memoranda, maps, exhibits, letters,
synopses of meetings, and other documents approved, reviewed, relied upon, or
prepared by any City commissions, boards, officials, consultants, or staff relating
to the Project.
3. Findings
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible,
to substantially lessen or avoid significant environment impacts that would otherwise occur.
Mitigation measures or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are
infeasible or where the responsibility for the project lies with some other agency. (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15091, sub. [a], [b].)
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened,
a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the
agency first adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the specific reasons
why the agency found that the project’s “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable
adverse environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15093, 15043, sub. [b]; see also
Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, sub. [b].) In the Statement of Overriding Considerations found
at the end of these Findings, the City identifies the specific economic, social, and other
considerations that, in its judgment, outweigh the significant environmental effects that the
Project will cause.
In support of its approval of the Project, the City Council makes the following findings:
A. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts.
The City’s General Plan Update EIR (SCH #2000122013) concluded that the impacts to Land
Use and Agricultural Resources would remain significant and unavoidable and could not be
mitigated in a manner that would substantially lessen the significant impact, despite the
inclusion of Mitigation Measure LU-6.1, Implementation of Recommended Measures from the
Agricultural Enterprise.
LU-6.1 Implementation of Recommended Measures from the Agricultural Enterprise Program.
Following is an explanation of the basic mechanism for the mitigation program
recommended in the Agricultural Enterprise Program draft report. When farmland is
converted to urban use, mitigation would be required directly by offering conserved land
on- or off-site or indirectly through payment of a mitigation fee that is used to purchase
conservation easements in a designated area of high quality farmland. This
compensation, whether it is a mitigation fee or land, would be used to permanently
protect valuable farmland within the City of Brentwood in Brentwood’s Agricultural
Conversation Area and/or the County’s Agricultural Core Area. Following are specific
recommendations for agricultural mitigation that are excerpted from the City of
Brentwood Agricultural Enterprise Program draft report.
● The City should adopt an agricultural mitigation program as identified in
Action Program 1.1.4 of the City’s 1993 General Plan
(Conservation/Open Space Element).
● All appropriate developments which cause the loss of productive
agricultural land regardless of soil type and quality affected, should be
required to mitigate at the same level. The City may want to consider
whether certain types of parcels are exempted such as small parcels
(less than 1 acre for example) or in-fill parcels, surrounded on two or
more sides by existing development.
● The City should use a mitigation ratio of 1:1 (acre for acre) for every
developed acre, a fee equal to one acre of conserved farmland is
required. The Agricultural Advisory Committee has recommended that
the mitigation fee be initially set at $4,000-$6,000 per gross acre,
reflecting the projected price range for conservation easements in the
area, and that this fee be adjusted annually to reflect changes in
valuation.
Notwithstanding disclosure of this impact, the City Council elected to approve the General Plan
Update due to overriding considerations. The current Project would not result in new significant
agricultural resources impacts nor would it result in a substantial increase in the severity of land
use and agricultural resources impacts previously identified. Therefore, the project would not
result in new significant unavoidable impacts. However, the prior significant and unavoidable
impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
B. Project Alternatives.
In adopting the General Plan Update EIR, the City Council considered certain Project
alternatives presented and analyzed in the General Plan Update Final EIR and presented during
the comment period and public hearing process. The City Council found, based on specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, that these alternatives were not
feasible and would not achieve most of the Project objectives. The proposed changes to
Chapter 17.730 do not impact or alter that analysis.
C. Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15092, in certifying the General Plan Update Final EIR,
the City Council found that in approving the project it had eliminated or substantially reduced all
significant and potentially significant effects of the project on the environment where feasible. In
addition, the City Council found that the project and its benefits outweigh its unavoidable
significant effects. The following Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by
ordinance on November 27, 2001.
“The City Council hereby adopts the following findings as its statement of overriding
considerations:
a. Adoption of the General Plan Update will reduce the ultimate population from the 1993
adjusted estimate of 90,000, down 20% to approximately 75,000; and increase job
creation by approximately 40%, from approximately 30,000 jobs to approximately 43,000
jobs.
b. The General Plan Update will generate 11% less daily traffic than the 1993 Plan.
c. Findings from the traffic modeling done for the FEIR indicated traffic forecasts between
east county and central county under the General Plan Update would decrease in the
peak direction and increase in the non-peak direction relative to the 1993 Brentwood
General Plan (see Table PR-4I-1). This shift is consistent with the fact that the General
Plan Update assumes about a 40% increase in total employment and a 20% decrease in
total population, compared to the 1993 Plan.
d. The lower population levels combined with a projected increase in local jobs under the
Plan Update, result in fewer peak direction commuters on Vasco Road.
e. The General Plan Update would have a beneficial impact on Marsh Creek Road by
reducing the number of daily vehicles using the corridor from 7,700 with the 1993
General Plan to 7,400 with the proposed General Plan Update.
f. Adoption of the General Plan Update is necessary to allow for future development within
the Brentwood Planning Area while striving to preserve its existing identity and small
town character.
g. Adoption of this Plan Update is necessary in order to plan for and encourage future
economic and employment growth within the City, while providing adequate housing for
all economic segments of the community within an acceptable commute distance.
h. Adoption of this Plan Update is necessary to ensure the timely development of a
circulation system and other public facilities that will accommodate growth as it occurs.
i. Adoption of this Plan Update is necessary to ensure the provision of the City’s share of
the regional housing needs allocation plan.
j. Three project alternatives to the proposed General Plan Update Land Use Element were
analyzed and found to be infeasible or less desirable in that the same types of impacts
would be created, to a greater or lesser degree, but without the attendant benefits to the
provision of adequate housing, jobs, infrastructure, related services, and the need to
preserve Brentwood’s small town character.
k. This General Plan, has been drafted utilizing the principles of smart growth when
possible, such as incorporating job centers close to housing.
l. Adoption of the General Plan is a confirmation of the majority of desires of the citizens of
Brentwood, whom have actively participated in surveys, meetings, Working Group
meetings, and public hearings.”
The City Council reaffirms and adopts the above Statement of Overriding Considerations as to
the significant and unavoidable impact on Land Use and Agricultural Resources, which remains
significant and unavoidable with the proposed changes to Chapter 17.730.
The City Council has considered these benefits and considerations and has considered the
potentially significant unavoidable environmental effect of the Project, which remains unchanged
with the amendments to Chapter 17.730. The City Council has determined that the economic,
legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project outweigh the identified impacts.
The City Council has determined that the project benefits set forth above override the significant
and unavoidable environmental costs associated with the project.
The City Council finds that any residual or remaining effects on the environment resulting from
the Project, which remain significant and unavoidable, are acceptable due to the benefits set
forth in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council makes this Statement of
Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines in support
of approval of the Project.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
APPROVING A REZONE (RZ 07-03) AMENDING CHAPTER 17.730
(AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION) OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL
CODE.
WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood has proposed an amendment to Chapter 17.730
(Agricultural Land Conservation) of the Brentwood Municipal Code to more fully implement the
Agricultural Enterprise Program by restructuring the chapter to include agricultural enterprise
programs as potential funding recipients (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was distributed to all property owners of record
within 500 feet of the project site and published in the Brentwood Press, in accordance with City
policies and Government Code 65090; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended certification of a Supplemental
Environment Impact Report and adoption of the proposed ordinance for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed rezone on
November 10, 2009, for the purpose of reviewing the project, considering the Planning
Commission’s action, and considering all comments made by the public with respect to the
request; and
WHEREAS, after the close of the public hearing, the City Council considered all public
comments received both before and during the public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommendation, the presentation by City staff, the staff report, and all other pertinent goals,
polices, regulations, and documents regarding the proposed rezone and specific development
standards; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has certified the Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report for the Project; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood:
Section 1.
The City Council hereby makes the following supporting findings for this rezone:
1. The proposed rezone has been processed in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the California Government Code and the California
Environmental Quality Act; and
2. The proposed rezone, will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in
the best interests of the City, and will be consistent with the General Plan,
including all relevant Elements thereof, and with any applicable Specific Plan
adopted by the City, as well as the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 2.
Chapter 17.730 of the Brentwood Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the language attached in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
herein.
Section 3.
Section 17.730.070, Use of In-Lieu Fees, pertains to both fees to be collected from the
effective date of this ordinance, as well as fees previously collected that remain unspent
as of the effective date of this ordinance. For accounting purposes, with respect to
unspent fees previously collected, agricultural easement (land) funds may be transferred
to an agricultural program fund to provide a 5 to 3 ratio of easement funds to program
funds based on the 50/30 percent allocation. No funds may be transferred for
administrative purposes; there will be no fiscal impact to the existing administrative fund.
Section 4.
This Ordinance shall be published in accordance with Government Code Section 36933
by either posting or publishing the Ordinance in accordance with that law. Further, the
City Clerk is directed to cause Section 2 of this Ordinance to be entered in the City of
Brentwood Municipal Code. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days
following its adoption.
Section 5.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of a court of competent
jurisdiction, the holding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining
provisions, and the council declares that it would have adopted each provision of this
ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other provision.
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced with the first reading waived at a
regular meeting of the Brentwood City Council on the 10th day of November 2009 by the
following vote:
Exhibit A
Chapter 17.730 AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION PROGRAM
17.730.010 Purpose and Findings
A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to implement the agricultural preservation policies
contained in the Brentwood General Plan with programs designed to support preservation, and
provide appropriate programs for lands located within, or adjacent to the Brentwood Planning
Area or its approved sphere of influence. This includes mitigating the loss of productive
agricultural lands converted for urban uses within the City by permanently protecting agricultural
lands planned for agricultural use through the use of agricultural conservation easements or fee
title purchase of lands and permitting a transfer of agricultural credits (TAC) from “agricultural
donor parcels” within the TAC target area to “receiver parcels.” This also includes the
development of programs that create incentives for the continuation of agricultural operations. It
is the policy of the City that conservation easements and fee title purchase programs are
important for the long term protection of agricultural lands. It is further the policy that additional
incentive-based programs and measures should be taken to encourage the continuation and
expansion of agricultural operations, including but not limited to, place-based marketing to
increase the value of the agricultural crops grown around Brentwood, grants to fund local co-ops
and marketing programs, agri-tourism and agri-business development, as well as loan programs
that promote the planting of permanent crops and value-added production.
B. Findings. The City Council finds this chapter is necessary for the following reasons: (1)
viable and active agricultural operations around the City’s urban edge provide unique visual and
economic benefits to the City; (2) agricultural land around Brentwood is of highly productive
quality; (3) the Brentwood General Plan sets forth policies to preserve productive agricultural
lands and provide for appropriate programs; (4) loss of agricultural land is determined to be a
significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and (5) loss of
productive agricultural land will have a cumulatively negative impact on air quality, traffic, noise,
public services demands, and aesthetics in the City and in the County of Contra Costa.
17.730.020 Definitions
“Agricultural conservation easement” means an easement over certain agricultural lands
designated in this chapter for the purpose of restricting its use to agricultural operations. The
interest granted pursuant to an agricultural conservation easement is an interest in land which is
less than fee simple. Agricultural conservation easements must be permanent.
“Agricultural enterprise” means activities and programs that encourage the continued use of
agricultural lands, including, but not limited to marketing support for area farmers, and grant and
loan programs that reinvest in the agricultural economy, (plantings of key crops or additional
agricultural operations –wholesale and/or retail - to make farming economically feasible). The
following are examples of agricultural enterprise programs:
1. Place-based marketing efforts to increase the value of products grown
in the Brentwood region, such as the certification program “Brentwood
Grown.”
2. Agri-tourism programs and activities that encourage visits to the
Brentwood region and benefit the local economy.
3. Investment in value-added infrastructure programs to promote growth
industries, such as wine and olive oil in Brentwood, including but not
limited to:
a. Funding for City-sponsored tasting rooms, incubators for
processing grapes and olives, and commercial kitchens.
b. Loan programs for the development of private facilities, such
as wineries, commercial kitchens and tasting rooms.
4. Loan programs to area farmers for the planting of permanent crops,
such as orchards and vines.
5. Marketing grants for local cooperatives and organizations.
“Agricultural land” for the purposes of this chapter means those land areas of Contra Costa
County specifically designated as Agricultural Core (AC) or Agricultural Lands (AL) as defined in
the Contra Costa County General Plan; those land areas near the City designated as
Agricultural Conservation (AC) as defined in the Brentwood General Plan; and/or other lands
upon which agricultural activities, uses, operations or facilities exist or could exist that contain
Class I, II, III or IV soils as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural
Resource Conservation Service.
“Agricultural preservation” means those activities and programs that preserve productive
agricultural lands in Brentwood’s Planning Area. These activities include programs to secure
agricultural lands, as well as agricultural enterprise programs that create incentives for the
continuation of agriculture.
“Agricultural operations” means normal and customary farming and agricultural activities which
may occur during any 24-hour period of the day. Normal and customary farming and agricultural
activities include, but are not limited to, the cultivation and tillage of the soil, the irrigation,
cultivation, growing, harvesting, and processing of any agricultural commodity for wholesale or
retail markets, including viticulture, horticulture, the keeping and raising of livestock, fur bearing
animals, fish or poultry, and any commercial agricultural practices, including value-added
production of an agricultural commodity, performed as incident to or in conjunction with such
activities including preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market, carriers for
transportation to market, or for retail sales allowed by zoning on site.
“Fee title purchase” means a real estate transaction in which the City or a qualified entity
purchases the entire property fee simple.
“Qualified entity,” means any individual or group representing a property owner in the
agricultural areas identified for conservation. All entities must be approved by the City Council
or its designee to receive any financial benefits associated with an agricultural easement or fee
title purchase transaction.
“Qualified land trust” means a nonprofit public benefit 501(c)3 corporation operating in Contra
Costa County for the purpose of conserving and protecting land in its natural, rural or
agricultural condition. All land trusts or conservation groups must be approved by the City
Council or its designee to hold, administer or steward lands acquired by the City.
“Receiver parcel” means a residentially zoned parcel within the city’s jurisdiction to which
agricultural credits are transferred.
“Transferable agricultural credit” means a potential transferable credit to construct dwelling
unit(s) in a city residential zoning district, which can only be exercised when the agricultural
credit has been transferred pursuant to the provisions of this section from a donor to a receiver
parcel and all other legal requirements are fulfilled.
17.730.030 Agricultural Preservation Program and Requirements
A. The City shall require agricultural preservation by any applicant for a subdivision or any other
discretionary land use entitlement which will permanently change agricultural land over one acre
in size to any nonagricultural use. The City shall impose a condition of approval requiring the
applicant to comply with this chapter.
B. Agricultural preservation shall be satisfied by one of the following mechanisms:
1. Granting an agricultural conservation easement to or for the benefit of the City and/or
a qualified land trust approved by the City on agricultural land deemed acceptable by the City.
The easement shall encumber the exact acreage of the proposed entitlement, including any
land used for park and recreation purposes and may encumber land acquired by the City and/or
qualified land trust in fee; or
2. Payment of an in-lieu fee established by City Council resolution. The fee may be
adjusted annually but may not be increased by more than ten percent during any twelve-month
period.
17.730.040 Eligible Land for Agricultural Conservation Easement
A. In the establishment of any agricultural conservation easement, the City shall avoid the
creation of any situation in which a property owner who does not participate in the program,
would have any access, utility or infrastructure easements negatively impacted, unless the
nonparticipating property owner consents. In addition, any nonparticipating property owner shall
not have their land unduly impacted as to present or future development potential, by the
creation of nonparticipating land “islands” (where the nonparticipating land is completely
surrounded by properties participating in the program), unless the nonparticipating property
owner consents.
B. The following minimum criteria shall be met for a property to be eligible for placement in an
agricultural conservation easement:
1. The property shall have adequate water supply to support viable agricultural use on
the land. The water supply for the land shall be protected in the agricultural conservation
easement;
2. The property shall be of adequate size, configuration and location to be viable for
continued agricultural use; and
C. In addition, a property that meets any or all of the following criteria can be considered as
agricultural mitigation land:
1. The mitigation land is located along a roadway and contains unique visual values;
2. The mitigation land is not strategically located for other economic development
purposes;
3. The mitigation land is contiguous with other areas sought for agricultural protection
which comprise a minimum of ten acres; and
4. The mitigation land provides open space and wildlife habitat values.
D. The lands to be conserved are to be located in the following areas:
1. First priority will be given to the Brentwood Agricultural Conservation Area as defined
on the Brentwood general plan land use map.
2. Lands to be conserved may also be located in the following areas: the Contra Costa
County agricultural core lands as defined on the Contra Costa County general plan urban limit
line map.
3. Agricultural land within the city limits that possess unique agricultural, visual, historic
or other important values may also be considered.
E. A property is ineligible to serve as agricultural mitigation land if one or both of the two
circumstances below apply.
1. The property is already subject to easements or physical conditions that legally or
practicably prevent modification of the property’s land use to a nonagricultural use.
2. The property is currently encumbered by a conservation easement of any nature or
kind.
17.730.050 Procedure for establishment of transferable agricultural credits.
A. Transferable agricultural credits are eligible to be allocated to the property owners of record
of agricultural land within the approximately two thousand one hundred sixty acre portion of the
established Contra Costa County Agricultural Core Area, that is bounded by Marsh Creek on
the west, the East Contra Costa Irrigation District Main Canal on the north, Sellers Avenue on
the east, and Marsh Creek Road on the south except as noted in Exhibit 1 for approximately
one hundred sixty acres south of Marsh Creek Road. This area consists of donor parcels and is
identified in Exhibit 1 which is hereby attached and made part of the ordinance codified in this
chapter.
B. Transferable agricultural credits shall run with the land. Existing agricultural parcels in the
subject area over an acre in size are eligible to transfer two credits for one acre of agricultural
land which is placed in a permanent conservation easement. For parcels of land that include
fractional acreage, the calculation of agricultural credits above 0.5 shall be considered a full
agricultural credit (Example: Parcel size: 19.8 acres x 2 = 39.6 credits, rounded to 40 credits;
Parcel size: 19.6 acres x 2 = 39.2 credits, rounded to 39 credits). (Ord. 683 § 3 (part), 2001)
17.730.060 Terms of Agricultural Conservation Easement
A. All owners of the property shall execute an agricultural conservation easement or other
legal instrument. The instrument shall be in recordable form and contain an accurate legal
description setting forth the description of the land. The instrument shall prohibit any activity
that substantially impairs or diminishes the agricultural productivity of the land. The instrument
shall protect the existing water rights and retain them with the agricultural mitigation land.
B. The City or a qualified land trust shall pay the costs of administering, monitoring and
enforcing the instrument. The City shall be a named beneficiary under any instrument
conveying the interest in the agricultural mitigation land to a qualified land trust, unless waived
by the City Council.
C. Interests in the property shall be held in trust by a qualified land trust and/or the City.
D. If a court of law finds that the public interests described in this section of this chapter can
no longer reasonably be fulfilled as to an interest acquired, the interest in the agricultural
mitigation land may be extinguished through sale, and the proceeds shall be redeposited into
the City’s mitigation fund account, and be used to continue agricultural preservation programs
as approved by the City and provided in this chapter.
E. If any qualified land trust owning an interest in agricultural mitigation land ceases to exist,
the duty to hold, administer, monitor and enforce the interest shall pass to the City.
17.730.070 Use of In-Lieu Fees
The in-lieu fee paid to the City shall be placed in three separate accounts. At least fifty percent
of the funds shall be used to fund conservation easements or fee title purchases by the City, in
accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Up to twenty percent of the funds may be used
for administrative purposes. The remainder of the funds may be used to fund agricultural
preservation and enterprise programs that are consistent with the land use designations and
policies included in the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code.
17.730.080 Precedence
This chapter shall take precedence over any other provision of the Brentwood Municipal Code in
conflict with this chapter.
17.730.090 Monitoring
On a periodic basis the community development director shall publish a report delineating the
activities undertaken pursuant to the requirements of this chapter and an assessment of these
activities. The report shall list and report on the status of all lands and easements acquired
under this chapter.
17.730.100 Violations; Enforcement
Any person or entity who violates any provision of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of an
infraction and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding the maximum
prescribed by law. In addition, any person or entity who violates any provision of this article
shall be liable to the transferee of the property for actual damages. In an action to enforce such
liability or fine, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees.
PU BL IC R E V I E W D R A F T
A M E N D M E N T S T O C H A P T E R 1 7.7 3 0
( A G R I C U L T U R A L L A N D C O N S E R VA T I O N ) O F T H E
B R E N T W O O D M U N I C I PA L C O D E S U P P L E M E N T A L E I R
S T A T E C L E A R I N G H O U S E N O . 2 0 0 01 2 2 013
January 2009
PU BL IC R E V I E W D R A F T
A M E N D M E N T S T O C H A P T E R 1 7.7 3 0
( A G R I C U L T U R A L L A N D C O N S E R VA T I O N ) O F T H E
B R E N T W O O D M U N I C I PA L C O D E S U P P L E M E N T A L E I R
S T A T E C L E A R I N G H O U S E N O . 2 0 0 01 2 2 013
Submitted to:
Linda Maurer
City of Brentwood Community
Development Department
104 Oak Street
Brentwood, CA 94513
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
2215 Fifth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
510.540.7331
January 2009
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE AND
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The City of Brentwood has completed the Draft Amendments to Chapter 17.730 (Agricultural
Land Conservation) of the Brentwood Municipal Code and a related Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) that analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed
amendments to the Municipal Code. The City is proposing to restructure Chapter 17.730 of the
City of Brentwood Municipal Code to more fully and effectively implement the Agricultural
Enterprise Program (AEP). The proposed amendments to the Municipal Code would allow for
more flexibility in the use of mitigation funds collected under the AEP and would fund a wider
variety of enterprise programs, with the ultimate goal of increasing the viability of commercial
agriculture around Brentwood. Under the existing program, mitigation funds are primarily used
to purchase conservation easements. However, the City believes that the use of mitigation
funds primarily to purchase conservation easements will ultimately be ineffective at preserving
the critical mass of farmland around Brentwood that is necessary to sustain farming in the area
over the long-term. The City believes that a minimum amount of farmland acreage is required in
the area in order to sustain the complex mix of businesses that support farming in the area, and
to allow Brentwood’s surroundings to remain a viable agricultural area.
The proposed project would amend Chapter 17.730 of the Municipal Code to allow the City to
change its implementation strategy for the AEP. This amendment to the Municipal Code would
also change Mitigation Measure LU-6.1 in the General Plan Update EIR, which was identified to
reduce the impacts of the General Plan Update on farmland conversion. Chapter 17.730 would
be renamed “Agricultural Preservation Program” (it is currently named “Agricultural Land
Conservation”). The project’s amendments to Section 17.730.010 of the Municipal Code would
expand the purpose of agricultural preservation programs to include the improvement of
economic viability of agriculture in Brentwood (in addition to the purchase of conservation
easements or fee title purchase of lands).
The DSEIR identified no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project.
The project area encompasses the City of Brentwood, which may contain sites enumerated
under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
Document Availability
Copies of the Draft Amendments to Chapter 17.730 (Agricultural Land Conservation) of the
Brentwood Municipal Code and DSEIR will be available for public review online at the City’s
website (www.ci.brentwood.ca.us) on January 12, 2009. Copies of the documents will also be
available for review at the Community Development Department at 118 Oak Street and from the
City Clerk’s office at 708 Third Street.
Comment Period
The DSEIR is available for review and comment from January 12, 2009 – February 26,
2009. All comments on the Draft Municipal Code amendments and DSEIR must be
received no later than 5:00 PM, February 26, 2009. Written comments may be sent to my
attention to the City of Brentwood, Community Development Department, 708 Third Street,
Brentwood, California 94513-1364, hand-delivered at 118 Oak Street, or provided by fax at
(925) 516-5407. Comments or concerns relating to the proposed Draft Municipal Code
amendments and DSEIR can also be provided at the Planning Commission public hearing on
February 3, 2009.
Planning Commission Public Hearing
A public hearing to take comments on the Draft Amendments to Chapter 17.730 (Agricultural
Land Conservation) of the Brentwood Municipal Code and DSEIR will be held before the City’s
Planning Commission on February 3, 2009 at 7:00 PM at 734 Third Street in the City Council
Chambers.
Consideration of the proposed amendments to Chapter 17.730 (Agricultural Land Conservation)
and DSEIR for action by the Planning Commission and City Council will be scheduled after the
comment period later in the year. If you have any questions about the Draft Amendments to
Chapter 17.730 (Agricultural Land Conservation) and DSEIR, please contact Linda Maurer by
phone at (925) 516-5139 or via email at lmaurer@ci.brentwood.ca.us. The City looks forward to
your input and feedback on this important project.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY...................................................................................... 1
A. PURPOSE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR .................................................................. 1
B. REPORT ORGANIZATION............................................................................................ 1
C. PROJECT UNDER REVIEW .......................................................................................... 2
D. SUPPLEMENTAL EIR.................................................................................................... 2
E. SUPPLEMENTAL EIR SCOPE ...................................................................................... 4
F. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................... 4
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 7
A. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 7
B. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW................................................................. 10
C. PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................................. 15
D. USES OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR ........................................................................ 24
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................ 25
IV. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS ......................................................... 49
A. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS ............................................................................... 49
B. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES .............................................................. 49
C. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ........................... 51
D. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS............................................................................................ 51
E. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ......................................................... 51
V. REPORT PREPARATION ..................................................................................................... 55
A. LEAD AGENCY ............................................................................................................ 55
B. REPORT PREPARERS.................................................................................................. 55
C. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 55
D. INTERVIEWS................................................................................................................ 57
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation
Appendix B: Proposed Amendments to Chapter 17.730 (Agricultural Land Conservation)
of the Brentwood Municipal Code
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\00-TOC.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT i
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURES
Figure II-1: Aerial Photo................................................................................................................ 11
Figure II-2: Representative Photos ................................................................................................ 17
Figure II-3: Representative Photos ................................................................................................ 18
Figure II-4: Representative Photos ................................................................................................ 19
Figure II-5: Representative Photos ................................................................................................ 20
Figure III-1: Important Farmland in the Brentwood Area .............................................................. 27
CHARTS
Chart III-1: Land Use Trends in Contra Costa County, 1998-2006 (in acres) .............................. 29
Table III-1: Farmland Conserved Under the Agricultural Enterprise Program ............................. 33
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\00-TOC.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ii
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
A. PURPOSE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
This Supplement to the General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (Supplemental EIR)
evaluates the City’s proposed amendments to Chapter 17.730 of the City of Brentwood Municipal
Code, which would allow the City to restructure its implementation strategy for the Agricultural
Enterprise Program (AEP). The key purpose of this review is to determine whether the environmental
effects of the proposed amendments to the Brentwood Municipal Code (project) would result in new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
environmental effects in the General Plan Update EIR1, pursuant to Section 15163 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This section of the CEQA Guidelines is discussed in
more detail below. The proposed amendments could influence the effectiveness of the Municipal
Code and the AEP in preserving farmland, and could be argued to result in secondary environmental
effects.
This Supplemental EIR is intended to inform City of Brentwood decision-makers, other responsible
agencies, and the general public of the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code and their
potential environmen-tal consequences. The City of Brentwood (City) is the Lead Agency for the
environmental review of the proposed project.
B. REPORT ORGANIZATION
This Supplemental EIR is organized into the following chapters:
• Chapter I – Summary: Discusses the overall purpose of the Supplemental EIR; summarizes the
organization of the document; discusses the purpose of a Supplemental EIR as described in the
the CEQA Guidelines; and summarizes the project, and the impacts that would result from the
project.
• Chapter II – Project Description: Provides a description of agriculture in and around the
Brentwood Planning Area; describes the City’s existing AEP; discusses the environmental review
history of the AEP; and describes the project objectives, required approval process, and details of
the project itself.
• Chapter III – Land Use and Agricultural Resources: This chapter, which constitutes the bulk of
the environmental analysis of the proposed project, describes existing land uses and agricultural
resources in the Brentwood Planning Area and evaluates potential land use and agricultural
resources impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project.
1
EIP Associates, Fehr & Peers Associates, Gruen Gruen + Associates, and Moore Iacofano Goltsman, 2001. Final
Environmental Impact Report; City of Brentwood General Plan Update. Prepared for: City of Brentwood Community
Development Department. June 25.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\1-Intro_Summary.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
• Chapter IV – CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions: Provides additional specifically-required
analyses of the proposed project’s effects, including effects found not to be significant that are
excluded from detailed analysis in this Supplemental EIR.
• Chapter V – Report Preparation: Identifies preparers of the Supplemental EIR, references used in
the analysis, and organizations/individual that were contacted.
C. PROJECT UNDER REVIEW
The City of Brentwood Community Development Department proposes to restructure Chapter 17.730
of the City of Brentwood Municipal Code to more fully and effectively implement the AEP. The
proposed amendments to the Municipal Code would allow for more flexibility in the use of mitigation
funds collected under the AEP and would fund a wider variety of enterprise programs, with the
ultimate goal of increasing the viability of commercial agriculture around Brentwood. Under the
existing program, mitigation funds are primarily used to purchase conservation easements. However,
the City believes that the use of mitigation funds primarily to purchase conservation easements will
ultimately be ineffective at preserving the critical mass of farmland around Brentwood that is
necessary to sustain farming in the area over the long-term. The City believes that a minimum amount
of farmland acreage is required in the area in order to sustain the complex mix of businesses that
support farming in the area, and to allow Brentwood’s surroundings to remain a viable agricultural
area.
The proposed project would amend Chapter 17.730 of the Municipal Code to allow the City to change
its implementation strategy for the AEP. This amendment to the Municipal Code would also change
Mitigation Measure LU-6.1 in the General Plan Update EIR, which was identified to reduce the
impacts of the General Plan Update on farmland conversion. Chapter 17.730 would be renamed
“Agricultural Preservation Program” (it is currently named “Agricultural Land Conservation”). The
project’s amendments to Section 17.730.010 of the Municipal Code would expand the purpose of
agricultural preservation programs to include the improvement of economic viability of agriculture in
Brentwood (in addition to the purchase of conservation easements or fee title purchase of lands). A
detailed description of the proposed project is provided in Chapter II, Project Description.
D. SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
A Supplemental EIR, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, is intended to evaluate changes
to a project that was evaluated in a certified EIR, when these project changes could result in new or
more substantial impacts – or require new or altered mitigation measures or project alternatives –
beyond those already identified in the certified EIR.
CEQA Guidelines section 15163 states:
(a) The lead or responsible agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a
subsequent EIR if:
(1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a
subsequent EIR, and
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\1-Intro_Summary.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 2
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
(2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR
adequately apply to the project in the changes situation.
(b) The supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR
adequate for the project as revised.
(c) A supplement to an EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is given to a
draft EIR under Section 15087.
(d) A supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous draft or
Final EIR.
(e) When the agency decides whether to approve the project, the decision-making body shall consider
the previous EIR as revised by the supplemental EIR. A finding under Section 15091 shall be made
for each significant effect shown in the previous EIR as revised.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, referenced in Section 15163, lists the conditions requiring
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous
EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken
which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement
of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known
with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the
negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declarations;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the
project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed
in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\1-Intro_Summary.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 3
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
The proposed project represents a change to the General Plan Update because Mitigation Measure
LU-6.1 in the General Plan Update EIR identifies a farmland protection program that focuses
primarily on purchase of conservation easements as opposed to the funding of enterprise programs.
The City determined that the changes to the Municipal Code have the potential to result in new
significant environmental effects to farmland, beyond those already identified in the General Plan
Update EIR (State Clearinghouse # 2000122013), which was certified in 2002. However, the
additional analysis needed to address the environmental impacts of the changes to the project would
be largely confined to the Land Use and Agricultural Resources chapter of the EIR; this additional
analysis would not constitute a major change to the previous EIR. Therefore, the City determined that
a Supplemental EIR is the appropriate document to analyze the proposed amendments to the
Municipal Code.
As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, this Supplemental EIR includes only the information
necessary to make the certified EIR adequate in regard to addressing the impacts of the amendments
to the Municipal Code. Thus this Supplemental EIR includes the chapters listed under “Report
Preparation,” above, but not an Alternatives chapter, because the Alternatives chapter in the certified
General Plan Update EIR provides a reasonable range of alternatives that would reduce impacts to
farmland (including the Pipeline Buildout Alternative and Modified Proposed Project Alternative).2
In addition, land use and agricultural resources are the only environmental topics subject to detailed
analysis in this Supplemental EIR because the potential significant effects of the proposed project
were anticipated to be limited to these topics (although other topics are addressed briefly in Chapter
IV, CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions).
E. SUPPLEMENTAL EIR SCOPE
Beginning on July 16, 2008, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to help identify the
types of impacts that could result from the proposed project, as well as potential areas of controversy.
The NOP was mailed to public agencies (including the State Clearinghouse), organizations, and
individuals considered likely to be interested in the proposed project and its potential impacts. The
public comment period ended on August 15, 2008. The City did not receive any written comments on
the NOP. A public scoping session was also held on July 26, 2008. Based on preliminary research
into the potential environmental effects of the project and public input at the scoping session, the City
determined that potential significant effects of the proposed project would be limited to the topics of
land use and agricultural resources. The NOP is included in Appendix A.
F. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This summary provides an overview of the analysis contained in Chapter III, Land Use and
Agricultural Resources. CEQA requires a summary to include discussion of: (1) potential areas of
controversy; (2) significant and significant unavoidable impacts; and (3) cumulative impacts.
2
EIP Associates, Fehr & Peers Associates, Gruen Gruen + Associates, and Moore Iacofano Goltsman, 2001. op. cit.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\1-Intro_Summary.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1. Potential Areas of Controversy
The potential areas of controversy and issues to be resolved that surround the project are the topics of
land use and agricultural resources, which are addressed in Chapter III.
2. Significant Unavoidable Impacts
As discussed in Chapter III of this Supplemental EIR, the proposed project would not result in new
significant land use and agricultural resources impacts, nor would it result in a substantial increase in
the severity of land use and agricultural resources impacts previously identified in the General Plan
Update EIR.
3. Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable significant impacts, including
cumulative impacts associated with conversion of farmland to urban uses.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\1-Intro_Summary.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\1-Intro_Summary.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 6
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This chapter describes the proposed amendments to Chapter 17.730 of the City of Brentwood
Municipal Code (project) that are evaluated in this Supplement to the General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report (Supplemental EIR). As discussed below, the proposed project would
amend the Municipal Code in order to more fully and effectively implement the City’s Agricultural
Enterprise Program (AEP), and is intended to support the economic viability of agriculture in
Brentwood. Specifically, the amendments would involve permitting a greater percentage of
agricultural land development mitigation funds under the AEP to be used to improve agricultural
infrastructure in and around Brentwood and to create incentives for continued farming in the area.
The following section includes a discussion of: agriculture in Brentwood and challenges to continued
farming in the area; previous environmental review related to the project; a discussion of the
proposed project itself, including its objectives; and required project approvals.
A. BACKGROUND
1. Agriculture in Brentwood and its Surrounding Areas
Farmland around the City of Brentwood has traditionally served as the center of agricultural
production in east Contra Costa County, due to the area’s fertile soils, mild climate, adequate water
supply, and proximity to the population centers of the San Francisco metropolitan region.1 The
primary soil type in the area is Brentwood clay loam, which is ranked as Class 1 on the Natural
Resource Conservation Service soil conservation scale. Class 1 soils are highly productive soils with
gentle slopes, good drainage, and low salinity, alkalinity, and erodability. Today, cultivated land to
the east and south of the City’s urbanized area constitutes a significant portion of the County’s
remaining arable agricultural land.2 The most common crops grown in and around Brentwood
include: apples, cherries, peaches, apricots, and walnuts (harvested in irrigated orchards); row crops
such as tomatoes and corn; and field crops such as alfalfa.3
Over the past few decades, strong development pressures from the north and northeast have resulted
in the large-scale conversion of agricultural land to urban uses in and around Brentwood. The City
began to transform into a bedroom community serving job centers in the inner Bay Area in the 1970s,
and this process gained momentum in the early 1980s. During the 1980s and 1990s, residential
development (and, more recently, commercial development) spread eastward through Contra Costa
County, increasing development pressures in and around Brentwood. Between 1990 and 2000, the
1
See Figures II-2 through II-5 of this chapter for representative photos of agricultural activities in and around
Brentwood.
2
Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG), 2001. City of Brentwood Agricultural Enterprise Program; Final Report.
Prepared for the City of Brentwood. August 28.
3
The Planning Center, 1993. City of Brentwood General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for
City of Brentwood Community Development Department. July.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\2-ProjDesc.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 7
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
City’s population increased from 7,563 to 23,300 residents.4 In the next eight years, the City’s
population more than doubled. According to the State Department of Finance, the City’s population
reached 50,614 by January 1, 2008.5
Development pressures have posed challenges to the economics of farming in and around
Brentwood. Sharp increases in land values at the edges of urbanizing areas have made it difficult to
consolidate farmland parcels into larger, more profitable agricultural operations. As a result, the
number of small farms in Brentwood and Contra Costa County has increased, while the average farm
size has decreased. Other factors, such as increased transportation costs, rising labor costs, strong
competition, and unpredictable commodity prices have also contributed to a reduction in profits for
local farmers. Farming in and around Brentwood has become more difficult and complex than it was
in the past.6,7
Both the City of Brentwood and Contra Costa County have prioritized agricultural preservation and
have sought to increase the economic viability of agriculture in the area. The City established the
City of Brentwood Agricultural Conservation Area in its 1983 General Plan Update to avoid the
proliferation of “ranchette” rural residential development. Today, the Agricultural Conservation Area
totals approximately 15,000 acres east and south of Brentwood (outside City limits but within the
Brentwood Planning Area). Prior to 1990, the majority of parcels in the Agricultural Conservation
Area were zoned by the County for either one residential unit every 4 acres (A-4) or one residential
unit every 8 acres (A-8). This zoning pattern constrained the intensity of farming in the area due to
the potential for conflicts between agricultural and residential uses (e.g., application of agricultural
chemicals near residential uses). Currently, the majority of parcels in the Agricultural Conservation
Area are zoned for one residential unit per 40 acres (A-40), although only a small percentage of
parcels (9 percent) are actually over 40 acres, according to a 1999 study by Economic and Planning
Systems (EPS). According to the EPS study, parcels range in size from 5 acres to 94 acres in the
Agricultural Conservation Area, with an average (mean) parcel size of 17 acres and a median parcel
size of 17 acres.8 The City has also included farmland mitigation and protection policies in its
General Plan Update, as well as a Right-to-Farm Ordinance.9
The County Agricultural Core is a 10,000-acre area to the east and south of Brentwood that is
intended to protect prime farmland, particularly land with soils classified as Class I or II in the Soil
Conservation Service Land Use Capability Classification. Most of the Agricultural Core is under
active cultivation of intensive row crops, such as tomatoes and vegetables, according to the Contra
Costa County General Plan. The objective of County Agricultural Core policies is to maintain parcel
sizes that are large enough to sustain farming. To that extent, the maximum permitted residential
density in the Agricultural Core is one unit per 40 acres, subdivision of land to create ranchette
4
EIP Associates, Fehr & Peers Associates, Gruen Gruen + Associates, and Moore Iacofano Goltsman, 2001. Final
Environmental Impact Report; City of Brentwood General Plan Update. Prepared for: City of Brentwood Community
Development Department. June 25.
5
State of California, Department of Finance, 2008. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates. Website:
www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5_2001-06. Accessed September 9.
6
The Planning Center, 1993. op. cit.
7
Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG), 2001. op. cit.
8
Economic and Planning Systems, 1999. Economic Analysis of Agricultural Land Values and Mitigation Fee
Scenarios.
9
Ibid.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\2-ProjDesc.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 8
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
housing is forbidden, and uses proposed in areas exposed to flood hazards are subject to additional
regulations. The majority of the County Agricultural Core is contained within the Brentwood
Agricultural Conservation Area (see Figure II-1 for a map of these designated agricultural areas).
2. Agricultural Enterprise Program
The Brentwood City Council adopted the Agricultural Enterprise Program (AEP) on August 28, 2001
and incorporated it into Chapter 17.730 of the Municipal Code (Agricultural Land Conservation).
The City established the Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust (BALT) to administer the AEP, to
ensure that mitigation fees are collected and used appropriately, and to identify, negotiate, and
acquire easements and land. BALT’s Board of Directors consists of five individuals. The AEP is
intended to complement other City agricultural preservation policies and programs, and is aimed at
helping farmers achieve success in “high-value, niche-market agriculture.”10 The AEP is intended to
protect and enhance agriculture around Brentwood through various measures. The following key
program elements are included in the AEP:
• Farmland Mitigation Program and Fee. Developers that convert more than 1 acre of productive
agricultural land to urban uses are required to pay an Agricultural Conservation Fee established
by the City. As of 2008, the Agricultural Fee is $5,977 per acre. At least 80 percent of collected
fees must be used for the purchase of agricultural lands and easements in the Agricultural
Conservation Area or the Agricultural Core Area. A maximum of 20 percent of collected fees
may be used for administrative/monitoring costs. Developers may also grant an agricultural
conservation easement to the City or a City-approved land trust instead of paying mitigation fees.
• Transferable Agricultural Credits (TAC) Program. The TAC Program allows a parcel with an
agricultural General Plan designation to be assigned “agricultural credits” if a permanent conser-
vation easement is placed on the parcel. These credits can be purchased by developers and used
to increase the density of a residential project on land designated for residential development
(within the City) in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The objective of the TAC Program
is to provide an incentive for the establishment of conservation easements on farmland, particu-
larly farmland comprising small parcels with good soils.
• Agricultural Enterprise Program. The “Agricultural Enterprise Program” is a specific program
under the umbrella of the AEP adopted by the City that offers City support for activities that will
help local farmers and agricultural businesses, and encourages policies that assist local farmers to
remain in the business and continue making investments in the area. Potential enterprise pro-
grams include: operational and financial support to establish conservation easements on agricul-
tural lands; economic development programs to attract agricultural businesses to the area; design
and implementation of agricultural buffers; marketing and the encouragement of agri-tourism;
and offering administrative assistance to procure State and federal funds to be used to protect
farmland. The Agricultural Enterprise Program was not adopted by ordinance, and is currently
funded with the 20 percent of mitigation fees designated for administration and monitoring
activities.
10
Ibid.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\2-ProjDesc.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 9
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3. Existing Enterprise Funds Allocation Process
Under the existing AEP, a maximum of 20 percent of collected in-lieu fees from development
projects that would permanently change agricultural land to urbanized uses may be used for
administrative/monitoring costs. This 20 percent of in-lieu fees may also be used for agricultural
enterprise programs (at least 80 percent of collected in-lieu mitigation funds must be used for the
purchase of agricultural land and easements in the City of Brentwood Agricultural Conservation Area
or in the Contra Costa County Agricultural Core Area).
During the first six years of the AEP, the City administered grants for enterprise initiatives, as
requested. In November 2007, the City Council adopted the Agricultural Enterprise Grant Program.
The Agricultural Enterprise Grant Program provides farmers or agricultural organizations seeking
funding for enterprise initiatives under the existing AEP the ability to apply for grant funding.
Funding from this program comes from the interest earned on the administrative fund (20 percent of
collected in-lieu fees). In its first year, the program allocated approximately $30,000 in grant funds to
various local organizations seeking to increase the marketing efforts of area growers. Applicants
must fill out an Agricultural Enterprise Grant Program Application for Funds; Criteria for Award
Eligibility form, available on the City’s website or at City offices at 708 Third Street in Brentwood.
These applications are made available in early January and are due back to the City by February 1st of
each year. The City’s Economic Development Manager then meets with the Agricultural Enterprise
Committee (a standing City Council committee) to review all submitted applications for AEP grants.
Then the Committee makes recommendations for funding to the City Council at the Council’s first
meeting in March. According to the application form, fund recipients are chosen “based on priority
of projects and funds available” in the AEP program. Grant recipients are also required to file
mandatory quarterly and year-end reimbursement reports with the City; these forms require the grant
recipient to describe the accomplishments of their projects.11
B. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The AEP was included as a mitigation measure in the EIR prepared for the General Plan Update in
2001. As noted above, the Brentwood City Council adopted the AEP on August 28, 2001 and
incorporated it into Chapter 17.730 of the Municipal Code (Agricultural Land Conservation). Impact
LU-6 in the General Plan Update EIR12 (and supporting analysis) determined that the General Plan
Update, as proposed, would convert prime farmland, unique farm-land, or farmland of statewide
importance within the City of Brentwood Planning Area. As a result, the City included all of the
AEP’s recommendations in Mitigation Measure LU-6.1 (a component of Mitigation Measure LU-6)
in the General Plan Update EIR as a method to reduce impacts associated with the loss of agricultural
land. The analysis in the EIR determined that implementation of the AEP’s recommendations would
reduce the loss of farmland, but that the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.13 Impact
LU-6 and associated mitigation measures appear in the 2001 General Plan Update EIR as follows:
11
Brentwood, City of, 2008. Agricultural Enterprise Grant Program Application for Funds; Criteria for Award
Eligibility. Website: www.ci.brentwood.ca.us/pdf/new/extra_limited/AgriculturalEnterpriseGrantApplication.pdf. Accessed
September 25, 2008.
12
EIP Associates, Fehr & Peers Associates, Gruen Gruen + Associates, and Moore Iacofano Goltsman, 2001. op. cit.
13
EIP Associates, Fehr & Peers Associates, Gruen Gruen + Associates, and Moore Iacofano Goltsman, 2001. op. cit.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\2-ProjDesc.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 10
REGIONAL LOCATION 113 Sacramento
505
80
Antioch 99
Vacaville
Napa
Fairfield 5
29
12
37
101
Vallejo
Vallejo Suisun
City
780 Benicia
PROJECT LOCATION
San 4
Rafael Pittsburg
242
580 80 Concord Antioch
Clayton
1 Berkeley 24 Walnut
Creek Brentwood
Danville
Rd
San Francisco Oakland
580 680
Vasco
205
880 Tracy
580
Hayward Livermore
580
Brentwood
Discovery
Bay
F I G UR E I I -1
brentwood planning area boundary Amendments to Chapter 17.730 (Agricultural Land Conservation)
0 .5 1.0 contra costa county agricultural core area of the Brentwood Municipal Code Supplemental EIR
miles city of brentwood agricultural conservation area Project Location and Regional Vicinity Map
SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2008
I:\BRE0801 brentwood ag\figures\Fig_II1.ai (1/8/09)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Impact LU-6: The proposed General Plan Update would convert prime farmland,
unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance within the City of Brentwood
Planning Area. (S)
[The following policies, included in the 2001 General Plan Update EIR, were identified as
those that would reduce impacts associated with farmland conversion.]
1993 General Plan
Conservation/Open Space Element
Goal 1. Conservation: Preserve agricultural lands in Brentwood’s Planning Area.
Policy 1.1. Agricultural Production: Support preservation of productive agricultural lands
and provide appropriate programs.
1.1.3. Intergovernmental Cooperation: Cooperate with Contra Costa County, Antioch, and
Oakley in programs that establish community separators and other permanent agricultural
areas.
1.1.4. Secure Agricultural Lands: Establish a program which secures permanent agriculture
on lands designated for agriculture in the City and/or County General Plan. The program
should include joint use concepts (e.g., wastewater irrigation), land dedication (e.g., secured
through development agreements) and a transfer of development/in-lieu fee ordinance. The
program should also create incentives for continuing agriculture (e.g., long-term irrigation
water contracts) and assurances that potential ag-urban conflicts will be mitigated.
1.1.5. Maintain Prime Agricultural Land: Maintain prime agricultural lands south of [the]
ECCID14 main channel and east of Sellers Avenue and direct urban growth to the west and
north.
Community Design
Policy 2.2. Preserve Agricultural Lands: Preserve agricultural lands adjacent to urban
development, along the periphery of the community, and between development projects as
possible.
2001 General Plan Update
Land Use Element
Protect agricultural land from urban development except where the General Plan Land Use
Map has designated the land for urban uses. (Action Program 5.2.3)
Additional Mitigation
The Agricultural Enterprise Program proposed by the City of Brentwood contains several
mitigation measures to help compensate for the loss of agricultural land. The mitigation
measures from the Agricultural Enterprise Program along with changes to the proposed Land
14
ECCID: East Contra Costa Irrigation District.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\2-ProjDesc.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 13
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Use Map would reduce the loss of prime agricultural soils. However, this impact would
remain significant and unavoidable as long as high quality farmland is converted to
accommodate additional urbanization. (SU)
LU-6.1 Implementation of Recommended Measures from the Agricultural Enterprise Pro-
gram. Following is an explanation of the basic mechanism for the mitigation program recom-
mended in the Agricultural Enterprise Program draft report. When farmland is converted to
urban use, mitigation would be required directly by offering conserved land on- or off-site or
indirectly through payment of a mitigation fee that is used to purchase conservation ease-
ments in a designated area of high quality farmland. This compensation, whether it is a
mitigation fee or land, would be used to permanently protect valuable farmland within the
City of Brentwood in Brentwood’s Agricultural Conservation Area and/or the County’s
Agricultural Core Area. Following are specific recommendations for agricultural mitigation
that are excerpted from the City of Brentwood Agricultural Enterprise Program draft report.
• The City should adopt an agricultural mitigation program as identified in Action 1.1.4
of the City’s 1993 General Plan (Conservation/Open Space Element).
• All appropriate developments which cause the loss of productive agricultural land
regardless of soil type and quality affected, should be required to mitigate at the same
level. The City may want to consider whether certain types of parcels are exempted
such as small parcels (less than 1 acre for example) or in-fill parcels, surrounded on
two or more sides by existing development.
• The City should use a mitigation ratio of 1:1 (acre for acre): for every developed acre,
a fee equal to one acre of conserved farmland is required. The Agricultural Advisory
Committee has recommended that the mitigation fee be initially set at $4,000-$6,000
per gross acre, reflecting the projected price range for conservation easements in the
area, and that this fee be adjusted annually to reflect changes in valuation.
LU-6.2 Adopt Changes to the proposed Land Use Map. The following changes to the
proposed Land Use Map would help further reduce the impacts:
• Designate urban reserve areas east and south of the City limits on the proposed Land
Use Map as Agricultural Conservation.
• Designate some land within the current City limits as Agricultural Conservation.15
This Supplemental EIR evaluates the City’s proposed amendments to Chapter 17.730 of the
Municipal Code, which are intended to more fully and effectively implement the AEP. The key
purpose of this review is to determine whether the environmental effects of the proposed
amendments to the Municipal Code, and a change in the implementation of the AEP, would result in
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
environmental effects in the General Plan Update EIR, pursuant to Section 15163 of the CEQA
Guidelines. A Supplemental EIR is required to contain “only the information necessary to make the
previous EIR adequate for the project as revised.”16 As previously noted, the 2001 General Plan
15
EIP Associates, Fehr & Peers Associates, Gruen Gruen + Associates, and Moore Iacofano Goltsman, 2001. op. cit.
16
CEQA Guidelines, 2005. Section 15163.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\2-ProjDesc.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 14
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Update EIR identified the loss of agricultural land as a significant and unavoidable impact, even with
implementation of the AEP’s key recommendations, as incorporated into Mitigation Measure LU-
6.1. The analysis in this document aims to determine whether the proposed amendments to the
Municipal Code would cause the AEP to be more or less effective than the previously adopted AEP
in reducing the loss of prime agricultural soils, and if the proposed changes would be less effective,
whether new or more substantial impacts to farmland would result.
C. PROPOSED PROJECT
1. Project Overview
The City of Brentwood Community Development Department proposes to amend the Municipal
Code and restructure the implementation strategy for the AEP to allow for more flexibility in the use
of mitigation funds and to fund a wider variety of enterprise programs. The project’s goal is to
increase the viability of agriculture around Brentwood. Under the existing program, mitigation funds
are primarily used to purchase conservation easements. However, the City believes that the use of
mitigation funds primarily to purchase conservation easements will ultimately be ineffective at
preserving the critical mass of farmland around Brentwood that is necessary to sustain farming in the
area over the long-term. The City believes that a minimum amount of farmland acreage is required in
the area in order to sustain the businesses that support farming in the area, and to allow Brentwood’s
surroundings to be a viable agricultural area.
Currently, there are approximately 1,500 acres of developable land (i.e., land from which agricultural
conversion mitigation fees could be collected) remaining within the City of Brentwood. If the City
uses in-lieu fees from the development of this land to purchase conservation easements (at current
market rates), it could protect 990 acres of agricultural land, or 7 percent of the City of Brentwood
Agricultural Conservation Area.17 The proposed amendments to Chapter 17.730 of the Municipal
Code are intended to provide the City with more program options that could either preserve
agricultural land or improve the economic viability of agricultural activities in Brentwood (indirectly
protecting agricultural land). The amendments to the Municipal Code would allow the City to more
fully and effectively implement the AEP. As previously noted, under the existing ordinance included
in Chapter 17.730, applicants who seek a discretionary land use entitlement that would permanently
change agricultural land over 1 acre in size to a non-agricultural use are required to grant an
agricultural conservation easement to the City or a City-approved land trust, or pay in-lieu fees to
protect agricultural land. At least 80 percent of collected in-lieu mitigation funds must be used for the
purchase of agricultural land and easements in the City of Brentwood Agricultural Conservation Area
or in the Contra Costa County Agricultural Core Area. A maximum of 20 percent of collected fees
may be used for administrative/monitoring costs. The fees used for administrative/monitoring costs
may also be used for agricultural enterprise programs.
Under the proposed project, at least 80 percent of funds from in-lieu mitigation fees would be used
for a combination of land/easement purchase and incentive-based programs and measures to en-
courage the continuation of agricultural operations around Brentwood. This revised fee allocation
17
Economic & Planning Systems, 2007. City of Brentwood Agricultural Enterprise Program Workshop – Five Year
Review (PowerPoint Presentation). January 23.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\2-ProjDesc.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 15
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
would also apply to mitigation fees already collected under the current AEP (essentially changing the
mitigation measure for these already-approved projects), as well as to all to-be-approved projects that
would require the payment of a mitigation fee. As a result of the project, it is likely that a greater
percentage of mitigation funds would be used to improve existing agricultural infrastructure, attract
new infrastructure, and create incentives for continued farming in the area (and a smaller percentage
of funds, when compared with the current AEP, would be used to purchase conservation easements).
In addition, funds collected from in-lieu fees would only fund enterprise programs that are consistent
with the land use designations and policies included in the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code.
Agricultural enterprise programs that could be funded by the project could include, but are not
limited to, the following:
• place-based agricultural marketing;
• agri-tourism development;
• grants to local co-ops and agricultural organizations;
• community-supported agriculture (CSA) programs, or other direct marketing programs;
• grants and/or loans for needed infrastructure to create value-added products (e.g., commercial
kitchens, canning facilities, wineries, tasting rooms);
• agriculture research and product development; and
• loan programs that promote the planting of permanent crops or develop infrastructure needed for
agriculture (e.g., wells, farm stands).
As under the existing AEP, in-lieu fees would primarily be used in the City Agricultural Conserva-
tion Area or in the County Agricultural Core Area (use of mitigation fees in the Agricultural Conser-
vation Area is prioritized; funds could also be used for select agricultural projects within City limits).
Similar to the current ordinance, up to 20 percent of collected fees may be used for administrative/
monitoring costs. The City would develop an implementation plan that would establish protocols for
identifying, prioritizing, and funding specific enterprise programs.
The amendments to Chapter 17.730 could represent a substantial change to the agricultural preserva-
tion provisions in the General Plan Update EIR (including Mitigation Measure LU-6.1, Implementa-
tion of Recommended Measures from the Agricultural Enterprise Program). The amendments could
influence the effectiveness of the AEP in preserving farmland, and could be argued to result in
secondary environmental effects.
2. Project Location
As shown in Figure II-1, the project area is situated in the eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay
Area, and includes agricultural land both within the City of Brentwood and in Contra Costa County.
Development of land with the City would generate mitigation funds, which would be used to support
enterprise programs on lands that fall within the County’s jurisdiction (including the Brentwood
Agricultural Conservation Area and the County Agricultural Core Area). Agricultural land within
City limits that possesses unique agricultural, visual, historic, or other important values may also be
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\2-ProjDesc.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 16
Agricultural crops - in this case grapes and olives - have been incorporated into certain new
residential developments in Brentwood.
Farm workers in the area typically live in affordable units located within City limits and commute
to their jobs.
F IG U R E I I-2
Amendments to Chapter 17.730
(A gricultural Land Conservation) of the
Brentwood Municipal Code Supplemental EIR
Representative Photos
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2008
I:\BRE0801 brentwood ag\figures\Fig_II2-5.indd (12/11/08)
One of many popular farm stands in Brentwood selling locally-grown produce direct to consumers.
Orchards are plentiful in the Agricultural Conservation Area and Agricultural Core.
F IG U R E I I-3
Amendments to Chapter 17.730
(A gricultural Land Conservation) of the
Brentwood Municipal Code Supplemental EIR
Representative Photos
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2008
I:\BRE0801 brentwood ag\figures\Fig_II2-5.indd (12/11/08)
A roadside farm stand selling strawberries.
In 2000, Brentwood-area sweet corn generated $6 million in revenue.
F IG U R E I I- 4
Amendments to Chapter 17.730
(A gricultural Land Conservation) of the
Brentwood Municipal Code Supplemental EIR
Representative Photos
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2008
I:\BRE0801 brentwood ag\figures\Fig_II2-5.indd (12/11/08)
Stone fruit is common in Brentwood.
Typical summer vegetable crops in Brentwood.
F IG U R E I I-5
Amendments to Chapter 17.730
(A gricultural Land Conservation) of the
Brentwood Municipal Code Supplemental EIR
Representative Photos
SOURCE: LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2008
I:\BRE0801 brentwood ag\figures\Fig_II2-5.indd (12/11/08)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
considered for enterprise programs. Access to the project area is provided by State Route 4 (SR 4)
from both the northwest and the east.
The Brentwood Agricultural Conservation Area and the County Agricultural Core Area are located to
the east and south of Brentwood’s central urbanized area. As previously noted, the Brentwood
Agricultural Conservation Area consists of approximately 15,000 acres of farmland and the County
Agricultural Core comprises 10,000 acres (most of which is located within the Brentwood
Agricultural Conservation Area).
3. Project Objectives
The primary objective of the proposed project is to provide more flexibility in the use of mitigation
funds to ensure the long-term viability of agriculture within and around Brentwood’s planning area
boundary. Other objectives of the proposed project are summarized as follows:
• Support the abilities of growers to market their produce to local and specialty markets.
• Enhance grower-to-consumer relationships.
• Support recent farm stand policies adopted by the County.
• Support value-added development activities.
• Support local agricultural entities and organizations.
• Encourage continued investment in local agriculture.
• Develop agricultural infrastructure necessary for the long-term sustenance of farming around
Brentwood, including cooperative establishments.
• Promote locally-grown food and land conservation.
4. Amendments to the Municipal Code
As previously discussed, the proposed project would amend Chapter 17.730 of the Municipal Code
to allow the City to more fully and effectively implement the AEP (and would thus amend Mitigation
Measure LU-6.1 in the General Plan Update EIR). Chapter 17.730 would be renamed “Agricultural
Preservation Program” (it is currently named “Agricultural Land Conservation”). Proposed
amendments that would substantively refocus the Agricultural Enterprise Program are presented
below. The entire Chapter 17.730, with proposed amendments incorporated, is included as Appendix
Bin this document. Text proposed to be deleted as part of the project appears below as strikethrough,
and proposed new text is underlined.
The project’s amendments to Section 17.730.010 of the Municipal Code would expand the purpose
of agricultural preservation programs to include the improvement of economic viability of agriculture
in Brentwood (in addition to the purchase of conservation easements or fee title purchase of lands).
Section 17.730.010 would be revised as follows:
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\2-ProjDesc.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 21
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Chapter 17.730 AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATIONPRESERVATION
PROGRAM
17.730.010 Purpose and findings.Findings
A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to implement the agricultural enterprise land
conservationpreservation policies contained in the Brentwood general plan General Plan with a
program programs designed to protect and conserve agricultural support preservation, and provide
appropriate programs for lands located within, or adjacent to the Brentwood planning area Planning
Area or its approved sphere of influence. This includes mitigating the loss of productive agricultural
lands converted for urban uses within the cityCity by permanently protecting agricultural lands
planned for agricultural use, by working with farmers who voluntarily wish to place conservation
easements on their land with fair compensation for such easements, through the use of agricultural
conservation easements or fee title purchase of lands and permitting a transfer of agricultural credits
(TAC) from “agricultural donor parcels” within the TAC target area to “receiver parcels.” This also
includes the development of programs that create incentives for the continuation of agricultural
operations. It is the policy of the City that conservation easements and fee title purchase programs
are important for the long term protection of agricultural lands. It is further the policy that additional
incentive-based programs and measures should be taken to encourage the continuation and expansion
of agricultural operations, including but not limited to, place-based marketing to increase the value of
the agricultural crops grown around Brentwood, grants to fund local co-ops and marketing programs,
agri-tourism and agri-business development, as well as loan programs that promote the planting of
permanent crops and value-added production.
The project would revise Section 17.730.020 to expand the meaning of “agricultural preservation” to
include enterprise programs (in addition to programs to secure agricultural lands). The project would
also expand upon the meaning of “agricultural enterprise” and provide examples of agricultural
enterprise programs. Section 17.730.020 would be revised as follows:
17.730.020 Definitions.
A. “Agricultural donor parcel” means a parcel of agricultural land from which agricultural
credits are transferred.
B. “Agricultural enterprise advisory committee” means a committee appointed by the city
council to assist with the implementation of the city’s agricultural enterprise program and evaluate
the effect of city policies on local growers and agricultural land owners.
A. C. “Agricultural land or farmland” for the purposes of this chapter means those land
areas of the county Contra Costa County specifically designated as agricultural
coreAgricultural Core (AC) or agricultural landsAgricultural Lands (AL) as defined in the
Contra Costa general planCounty General Plan; those land areas near the city designated as
agricultural conservation City designated as Agricultural Conservation (AC) as defined in the
Brentwood general planGeneral Plan; and/or other lands upon which agricultural activities,
uses, operations or facilities exist or could exist at the time of adoption of the ordinance
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\2-ProjDesc.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 22
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
codified in this chapter that contain Class I, II, III or IV soils as defined by the United States
Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service.
B. D. “Agricultural mitigation land” means agricultural land encumbered by a farmland
deed restriction, a farmland conservation easement or such other conservation mechanism
acceptable to the city.“Agricultural preservation” means those activities and programs that
preserve productive agricultural lands in Brentwood’s Planning Area. These activities
include programs to secure agricultural lands, as well as agricultural enterprise programs that
create incentives for the continuation of agriculture.
C. E. “Agricultural operationenterprise” means activities and programs that encourage the
continued use of agricultural lands, including, but not limited to marketing support for area
farmers, and grant and loan programs that reinvest in the agricultural economy, (plantings of
key crops or additional agricultural operations –wholesale and/or retail - to make farming
economically feasible). The following are examples of agricultural enterprise programs:
1. Place-based marketing efforts to increase the value of products grown in
the Brentwood region, such as the certification program “Brentwood
Grown.”
2. Agri-tourism programs and activities that encourage visits to the
Brentwood region and benefit the local economy.
3. Investment in value-added infrastructure programs to promote growth
industries, such as wine and olive oil in Brentwood, including but not
limited to:
a. Funding for City-sponsored tasting rooms, incubators for
processing grapes and olives, and commercial kitchens.
b. Loan programs for the development of private facilities, such
as wineries, commercial kitchens and tasting rooms.
4. Loan programs to area farmers for the planting of permanent crops, such
as orchards and vines.
5. Marketing grants for local cooperatives and organizations.
As previously noted, all proposed amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 17.730 are included in
this document as Appendix B. The amendments noted above are the most substantive and
demonstrative of the project’s proposed amendments to the Municipal Code.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\2-ProjDesc.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 23
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
D. USES OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
The City of Brentwood will use this Supplemental EIR for actions necessary to implement the
project, including the Municipal Code Amendment. The discretionary actions necessary to approve
the project include certification of this Supplemental EIR and adoption of the amendments to the
Municipal Code by the City Council. No other approvals or permits are needed to implement the
project.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\2-ProjDesc.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 24
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
This chapter describes existing land uses and agricultural resources in the Brentwood Planning Area
and evaluates potential land use and agricultural resources impacts that could result from implemen-
tation of the proposed project. The potential impacts of the project as they relate to other environmen-
tal topics are addressed in Chapter IV, CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions. The analysis in this
chapter is based on the following sources: City of Brentwood and Contra Costa County planning
documents; background materials provided by the City; Department of Conservation data; newspaper
and journal articles related to agricultural programs in and around Brentwood; several study area
visits; and interviews with agricultural resources experts and local interested parties conducted by
LSA Associates.
1. Setting
The following section describes the existing land uses and agricultural resources within the City of
Brentwood Planning Area, as well as patterns of land use change in recent years. The City of
Brentwood Planning Area, which encompasses the City plus additional land outside the City
boundaries, is the subject of the City’s 2001 General Plan Update.
a. Farmland Classification. Soils in Brentwood and Contra Costa County have been classified
by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP).1 This classification system was
developed by the State Department of Conservation’s Division of Land Resource Protection and was
based on the system developed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil
Conservation Service Land Inventory and Monitoring System. Classifications are based on a
combination of physical and chemical characteristics of the soil and climate that determine the degree
of suitability of the land for crop production. The FMMP-defined categories are as follows:
• Prime Farmland: Land with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to
sustain long-term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and
moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated
agricultural production at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date.
• Farmland of Statewide Importance: Land similar to Prime Farmland but with minor
shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been
used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping
date.
• Unique Farmland: Land of lesser quality soils used for production of the State’s leading
agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or
vineyards as found in some climatic zones of California. Land must have been cropped at some
time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date.
1
Department of Conservation, 2008. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Website:
http://www.conserv.ca.gov/DLRP/fmmp/county_info_results.asp. Accessed October 6, 2008.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 25
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
• Farmland of Local Importance: Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as
determined by each county’s board of supervisors and local advisory committees. These
farmlands include dryland grains, haylands, and dryland pasture.
• Grazing Land: Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. The
minimum mapping unit for grazing land is 40 acres.
• Urban and Built-Up Land: Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least one
unit per 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel.
• Other Land: Land which does not meet the criteria of any other category.
See Figure III-1 for a map of important farmland in the Brentwood area.
b. Existing Land Uses in the Brentwood Planning Area. According to the 2001 General Plan
Update EIR, there are 34,809 acres within the Brentwood Planning Area. As of 2001, 4,782 acres
(13.7 percent) of the Planning Area were either developed or approved for urbanized uses,
approximately 90 percent of which (4,320 acres) were dedicated to residential use. In 2001, 16,868
acres (48.5 percent) of the Planning area were designated as Agricultural Conservation; all of this
agricultural land was contained within either the City’s Agricultural Conservation Area (15,000 total
acres) or the County Agricultural Core Area (10,000 total acres), both of which are contained within
the Planning Area. As of January 2007, 55 percent of parcels in the County Core were less than 10
acres in size.2 In addition, 10,017 acres (28.8 percent) of the Planning Area were designated as Urban
Reserve, and 3,142 (9.0 percent) were designated as Open Space. In general, the Urban Reserve land
lies just outside the City’s urbanized areas, and helps create a buffer between urban and agricultural
uses.
c. Land Use Patterns in Brentwood. As noted in Chapter II, Project Description, Brentwood has
experienced rapid housing development in recent years; its population more than doubled between
2000 and 2008, rising from 23,300 to 50,614 residents. The majority of new housing development, as
well as planned new development, have occurred in the southwest portion of the Planning Area. A
2003 report by the Greenbelt Alliance noted that Brentwood was at that time the third-fastest growing
city in California.3 This pattern of rapid population and urbanization increases is projected to continue
in the coming decades. The General Plan projects that the City will have a build-out population of
76,226.
Since 2000, the City has converted approximately 1,900 acres of Important Farmland within its
Planning Area. The State Department of Conservation defines Important Farmland as the combination
of Prime Farmland, Farmland of State Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local
Importance. During this period, the majority of this converted land has been used for residential
development, with an additional 2.1 million square feet (240 acres) of retail uses, 337,000 square feet
(23 acres) of commercial/office uses, and 477,000 square feet (33 acres) of industrial uses.
2
Economic & Planning Systems, 2007. City of Brentwood Agricultural Enterprise Program Workshop – Five Year
Review. January 23.
3
Greenbelt Alliance, 2003. Contra Costa County: Smart Growth or Sprawl? An in-depth analysis of the county’s
sprawl threats and opportunities for smarter growth. Winter.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 26
ANTIOCH
OAKLEY
BRENTWOOD
legend FIGURE III-1
prime farmland
farmland of statewide importance
farmland of local importance
unique farmland Amendments to Chapter 17.730
0 1.25 2.5 grazing land (Agricultural Land Conservation) of the
urban and built-up land Brentwood Municipal Code Supplemental EIR
miles water
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, 2007
Important Farmland in the Brentwood Area
I:\BRE0801 brentwood ag\figures\Fig_III1.ai (12/11/08)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
d. Land Use Patterns in Contra Costa County. The County has also experienced high farmland
conversion rates in recent years. Between 1984 and 2006, 22,458 acres of Important Farmland in
Contra Costa County were converted to urbanized uses, 11,243 acres of which consisted of Prime
Farmland (according to Department of Conservation land use categories).4 Between 2000 and 2006,
the County lost 11,978 acres of agricultural land, 9,029 acres of which were Important Farmland, and
7,301 acres of which were Prime Farmland.5 An additional 1,002 acres of Important Farmland in the
County, 202 acres of which are Prime Farmland, are designated to be developed with non-agricultural
uses. Chart III-1 shows the relationship between the development of Urban and Built Up Land and the
decline of Important Farmland in the County between 1998 and 2006.
Chart III-1: Land Use Trends in Contra Costa County, 1998-2006 (in acres)
160,000
150,000
Total Acres in Contra Costa County
140,000
130,000
Important Farmland
120,000
Urban and Built Up Land
110,000
100,000
90,000
80,000
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Source: California Department of Conservation, 2008.
The total number of farms in the area has also declined as agricultural land has been developed.
Between 1987 and 2002, the County lost 248 individual farms, a 29.5 percent drop.6 According to
official Department of Conservation field reports, most of the farmland within the County that was
4
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2006. Contra Costa County 2000-
2002, 2002-2004, and 2004-2006 Land Use Conversion. Website: redirect.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/county_info_
results.asp. Accessed September 29, 2008. Important Farmland includes Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance, as defined by the State Department of Conservation’s
Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP).
5
Ibid.
6
Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust and Contra Costa County Wine Grape and Olive Growers Association, 2007.
Contra Costa County/Brentwood Agricultural Marketing Plan. January.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 29
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
converted to urbanized uses during this period (exact figures are not available) occurred along
Brentwood’s urban periphery and within the Brentwood Planning Area.7
e. Existing Agricultural Enterprise Program. The following section provides background
information on the existing City of Brentwood Agricultural Enterprise Program (AEP), as well as an
assessment of the program’s accomplishments and shortcomings since its introduction in 2001.
(1) Program Background Information. The City originally created the AEP in order to
implement the policies in the Brentwood General Plan aimed at reducing urbanization’s adverse
impacts on the area’s substantial yet rapidly declining agricultural base.8 The four-part AEP was
intended to offer the City, local farmers, and developers a variety of program options that would
address specific challenges for the local agricultural industry and combine to counter the cumulative
loss of farmland in and around Brentwood. However, the AEP was not intended to be a cure-all for
protecting agriculture in Brentwood; it was not expected to reverse the underlying economic realities
– major factors determining profitability, such as the cost of labor and transportation, the costs related
to competing in regional, national, and international markets, and federal and state agricultural and
environmental policies – that have made farming more challenging and less profitable in Brentwood.
The City established the Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust (BALT) to administer the AEP, to
ensure that mitigation fees are collected and used appropriately, and to identify, negotiate, and acquire
easements and land. BALT’s Board of Directors consists of five individuals. The AEP includes the
following key components.
• Farmland Mitigation Program and Fee. Developers who convert more than 1 acre of productive
agricultural land to urban uses are required to pay an Agricultural Conservation Fee established
by the City. As of 2008, the Agricultural Fee is $5,977 per acre. At least 80 percent of collected
fees must be used for the purchase of agricultural lands and easements in the Agricultural
Conservation Area or the Agricultural Core Area. A maximum of 20 percent of collected fees
may be used for administrative/monitoring costs. Developers may also grant an agricultural
conservation easement to the City or a City-approved land trust instead of paying mitigation fees.
• Transferable Agricultural Credits (TAC) Program. The TAC Program allows a parcel with an
agricultural General Plan designation to be assigned “agricultural credits” if a permanent conser-
vation easement is placed on the parcel. These credits can be purchased by developers and used to
increase the density of a residential project on land designated for residential development (within
the City) in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The objective of the TAC Program is to
provide an incentive for the establishment of conservation easements on farmland, particularly
farmland comprising small parcels with good soils.
• Agricultural Enterprise Program. The “Agricultural Enterprise Program” is a specific program
under the umbrella of the AEP adopted by the City that offers City support for activities that will
help local farmers and agricultural businesses, and encourages policies that assist local farmers to
remain in the business and continue making investments in the area. Potential elements of the
7
California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2006. 2006 Field Report;
2004 Field Report; 2002 Field Report; County: Contra Costa. Website: redirect.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/county
_info_results.asp. Accessed September 29, 2008.
8
The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 683 on August 28, 2001, which incorporated the Farmland Mitigation
Program and Fee and the TAC Program into Chapter 17.730 of the Municipal Code. As noted above, the Agricultural
Enterprise Program was not adopted by ordinance.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 30
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
enterprise programs include: operational and financial support to establish conservation
easements on agricultural lands; economic development programs to attract agricultural
businesses to the area; design and implementation of agricultural buffers; marketing and the
encouragement of agri-tourism; and offering administrative assistance to procure State and
federal funds to be used to protect farmland. The Agricultural Enterprise Program was not
adopted by ordinance, and is currently funded with the 20 percent of mitigation fees designated
for administration and monitoring activities.
The AEP Final Report, published on August 28, 2001 (the same day that the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 683, incorporating portions of the AEP into Chapter 17.730 of the Municipal Code),
recommended that the City play a central role in implementing and administering the farmland
mitigation program (one of the three AEP components); in essence, the Final Report encouraged the
City to take on the role of farmland preservation planners, purchasing strategically-located easements
on land that could “create a permanent edge to the City and protect viable blocks of agricultural
land.”9 Although the farming community was generally opposed to the AEP focusing almost exclu-
sively on land preservation (instead of on enterprise initiatives), the City considered conservation
easements to be the most effective use of mitigation funds in its efforts to combat rapid urbanization.
The City also considered land preservation to be the most direct way to reduce significant and
unavoidable farmland impacts identified in the 2001 General Plan Update EIR (in which the AEP is
identified as a mitigation measure, as described in Chapter II, Project Description). At the time, the
City hoped that by establishing a critical mass of farmland with easements, it could leverage
additional funding for agricultural programs from the State or other sources. In particular, the City
thought that it would be able to dedicate a more substantial amount of funding towards enterprise
programs, perhaps through a voter-approved sales tax increase, once the City established a successful
conservation easement program.10 As noted in Chapter II, funding for enterprise projects under the
AEP is included in the AEP’s administrative/monitoring budget, to which up to 20 percent of
mitigation fees can be dedicated.
(2) Program Implementation History. In 2002, the City created the Brentwood
Agricultural Land Trust (BALT) to administer the conservation easement and agricultural marketing
portions of the AEP. The City envisioned BALT as an independent non-profit organization that would
negotiate with farmers to accept conservation easements on their land. The majority of BALT’s staff
time would be funded out of the AEP’s administrative/monitoring budget; the City envisioned this
funding as seed money that would help BALT become financially self-sufficient over time.11 As
noted in Chapter II, funding for conservation easements under the original AEP (as opposed to the
administrative/monitoring costs associated with staffing the easement program) was to consist of at
least 80 percent of funds collected from mitigation fees under the farmland mitigation program. From
its creation in 2002 through the 2006-2007 fiscal year, BALT administration costs to the city
9
EIP Associates, Fehr & Peers Associates, Gruen Gruen + Associates, and Moore Iacofano Goltsman, 2001. op. cit.
10
Rhodes, Winston, AICP, 2008. Planning Manager, City of Pinole Planning Division. Personal communication with
LSA Associates. September 30. Mr. Rhodes was a Senior Planner at the City of Brentwood until September 2008, and was
the project manager for the AEP Final Report.
11
City Council Agenda Item No. 20. Meeting Date: April 10, 2007. Subject/Title: Approve a recommendation from
the Agricultural Enterprise Committee to discontinue the ongoing administrative funding for the Brentwood Agricultural
Land Trust.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 31
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
amounted to $599,901. In the first six years of the easement purchasing program, BALT secured one
conservation easement within the Brentwood Planning Area, totaling 23 acres, at a cost of $305,000
(approximately $13,000 per acre). During this time, the City also preserved 30 acres of farmland
through two transfer of agricultural credits (TAC) transactions.12
According to a 5-year review of the AEP prepared for the City’s AEP Workshop on January 23, 2007,
the City estimated that it would, from that point forward, be able to generate approximately $8.5
million in in-lieu fees (according to the fee level at that time) from the 1,500 acres of remaining
developable land within the Planning Area. Assuming an easement cost of $15,000 per acre,
mitigation fees would be able to fund conservation easements on 990 acres, or less than 7 percent of
the City’s Agricultural Conservation Area.13 The 5-year review also highlighted the uncertain status
of the County-imposed Urban Limit Line as an ongoing and future challenge for the AEP. The
County Urban Limit Line’s potential adjustments14 (the line was last updated in 2006 through the
voter-approved Measure L) have created uncertainty for land owners about the future development
potential of property immediately outside of the Urban Limit Line. In some cases, this uncertainty has
reduced the willingness of farmers to sell conservation easements on their property (based on the
possibility that the Urban Limit Line may one day encompass their property, resulting in higher land
values). The dearth of willing sellers has made it difficult for the City to create an agricultural buffer
along Brentwood’s urban edge through strategic easement purchasing, as evidenced by the small
number of new easements that have been acquired by the City since the AEP’s introduction in 2002.
According to the City, it has pursued only “non-strategic” conservation easements under the AEP,
meaning easements that are either far from the Urban Limit Line or far apart from one another.15
In April 2007, the City Council decided to discontinue ongoing administrative funding for BALT.
Since May 2007, a Council-approved standing Agricultural Enterprise Committee has taken
responsibility for reviewing easement opportunities and for developing a new framework in which to
review and recommend easements to the Council. In September 2007, the Council adopted Resolution
2007-213, which created new conservation easement implementation guidelines for the AEP.16 Since
the AEP’s 5-year review in January 2007, the City has secured two conservation easements totaling
284 acres, including one for Hannah Nicole Vineyards (80 acres), and the Vierra Property (204
acres). As shown in Table III-1, the total amount of acreage conserved to date is 337 acres.
12
Economic & Planning Systems, 2007. op. cit.
13
The City has already collected fees from 530 acres and anticipates fees from 450 additional acres of developable
land in the future. The total of 990 acres is likely an overestimate because it assumes a ready supply of conservation
easements, and also because land costs could increase relative to the fee amount, reducing the potential for conservation.
14
The Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line was last adjusted in 2006 through the voter-approved Measure L.
However, Brentwood’s Urban Limit Line was not adjusted in this measure, keeping it consistent with the Urban Limit Line
established in 2000. The Urban Limit Line currently lies along the County Agricultural Core’s eastern edge, separating the
urbanized portion of Brentwood (to the west) from the County Agricultural Core and most of the Brentwood Agricultural
Preservation Area (to the east).
15
Economic & Planning Systems, 2007. op. cit.
16
City Council Agenda Item 4, July 22, 2008. Receive and file a process report from the ad-hoc and standing
Agricultural Enterprise Committees. Prepared by: Linda Maurer, Economic Development Manager; Submitted by: Erick
Stonebarger, Councilmember, and Bob Brockman, Vice Mayor.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 32
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Table III-1: Farmland Conserved Under the Agricultural Enterprise Program
Price Per Acre (if
Property Description Acreage Conserved applicable)
Vierra Property 204 $13,276
Cohn Property (Hannah Nicole Vineyards) 80 $9,000
Vrmeer Property 23 $12,918
Discovery Builders and Private Island Homes (Transferable
30 N/A
Agricultural Credit transactions)
Source: City of Brentwood, 2009.
In addition to easement purchasing, the standing Agricultural Enterprise Committee worked with City
staff to develop several new marketing initiatives, such as: relocating the Brentwood Farmers’
Market; creating an agricultural grant program for marketing and related outreach efforts; creating the
“Brentwood Grown” certification program; and providing a key sponsorship of the 2007 Bay Area
Local Food Guide.
As noted in Chapter II, Project Description, a maximum of 20 percent of collected in-lieu fees from
development projects that would permanently change agricultural land to urbanized uses may be used
for administrative/monitoring costs under the existing AEP. The City can also utilize these funds for
agricultural enterprise programs. After the City meets its internal funding needs for agricultural
programs, it allocates funds for enterprise projects to outside parties in the form of grants. To date, the
AEP has dedicated $30,600 to fund several enterprise projects in the Brentwood Planning Area.
(3) Relationship to Contra Costa County Agricultural Policies. Contra Costa County
exercises zoning control over the Contra Costa County Agricultural Core Area, the majority of which
is located within the Brentwood Agricultural Conservation Area, and has the primary authority over
designating land uses in its General Plan. The County is also the entity responsible for demarcating
Urban Limit Lines in the County, which are intended to curb the spread of development into
agricultural areas. However, it should be noted that local jurisdictions may amend their Urban Limit
Line for parcels under 30 acres upon meeting certain qualifications. Parcels over 30 acres in size can
be amended through voter approval.
The County has made several changes in recent years to its agricultural preservation policies (with the
help of the County Agricultural Commission and BALT staff), most notably updating Chapter 88-20
of the County Ordinance Code, Agricultural Farm Stands and Farm Markets. Other County policy
changes directed at the County Agricultural Core Area have included: updating the County zoning
ordinance to allow the production of “value-added” products to occur on farms (value-added refers to
processing of farm products in order to increase farm revenue); revising the roadway development
impact fees for development of agricultural operations in order to reduce development costs for new
value-added infrastructure projects; and allowing wineries.17
Prior to these recent policy changes, the County restricted the size and operation of processing
structures in agricultural areas with the intended result of limiting urban and processing/manufactu-
ring uses on farmland; these restrictions were intended to preserve farmland and prevent land use
conflicts that could encourage agricultural conversion. However, these restrictions limited the ways in
17
City Council Agenda Item 4, July 22, 2008. op. cit.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 33
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
which small farmers, particularly those in the City Agricultural Conservation Area and the County
Agricultural Core Area, could adapt to changing market conditions and explore new means to remain
profitable. For example, growers interested in value-added agricultural products such as olive oil,
jams, or wine were forced to transport their raw farm products to facilities outside the County
Agricultural Core Area for processing. Furthermore, farmers have been more willing to sell their land
to developers, at least in part, as a result of reduced farm profitability.
Other County policies limiting farm revenues have included: limits on the size of roadside farm
stands; limits on products which could be sold at roadside farm stands; limits on processing
agricultural products; and lack of clarity or standardization in regard to permit requirements for
roadside stands.18
The zoning amendments to allow for value-added farm production, revision of the roadway develop-
ment impact fees for development of agricultural operations, and the new farm stand ordinance
(which also allows for farmers to sell products from other farms at their roadside stands) were intend-
ed to encourage farmers to pursue direct marketing, process value-added agricultural products on
their properties, and sell value-added agricultural products in roadside farm stands. The term “value-
added” most commonly refers to raw products (e.g. peaches, tomatoes, olives, etc) that a farmer
modifies or enhances by turning into another product with a higher resale value (e.g., cobblers, jams,
sauces, olive oil, etc).19 Value-added agricultural activities can be divided into three categories:20
• Rewarded (profitable) activities traditionally performed at another stage farther down the supply
chain. This type of activity occurs when farmers bypass external processors or markets and either
process their own farm products or sell their products directly to consumers (e.g. direct
marketing);
• Rewarded activities that have never been performed in a particular supply chain. This type of
activity includes either modifying farm products into a processed product desirable to consumers
(e.g., common “value-added” products such as jams, pies, and olive oil); and
• Rewarded activities that lie outside the traditional agricultural commodity production process,
and which enhance the per-unit price of the commodity sold. The most common example of this
type of activity is agri-tourism.
Processing and selling value-added products can be beneficial to farmers for the following reasons:
they eliminate waste and use excess produce; they add profit and stabilize farm income; and they
provide an opportunity for creativity and an outlet for entrepreneurial spirit.21 Under the old County
ordinance, farmers were only permitted to sell raw and unprocessed products in farm stands that were
18
Contra Costa County Agricultural Advisory Task Force, 2005. Improving the Economic Viability of Farmers in
Contra Costa County: Updating Roadside Stand Regulations and Allowing Value-Added Agricultural Operations in the
County’s Agricultural Core. Report and Recommendations prepared for the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.
Approved February 17.
19
Ohmart, Jeri L., 2003. UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. Direct Marketing with
Value-added Products (or: “Give me the biggest one of those berry tarts!”). January.
20
Evans, Edward, 2006. Value-Added Agriculture: Is It Right For Me? EDIS document FE638, a publication of the
Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. May. Note: Mr. Evans is Assistant Professor, Food and Resource
Economics Department, Tropical Research and Education Center, Homestead, FL.
21
Ohmart, Jeri L., 2003. op. cit.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 34
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
restricted in size. The new ordinances allow farmers to process and package raw agricultural products
in facilities on their property and sell them as value-added products in roadside farm stands and
elsewhere. Specifically, the farm stand ordinance made the following changes:22
• Increase the permitted size of roadside farm stands in all agricultural zoning districts to 1,500
square feet (up from a previous maximum allowed size of 200 to 400 square feet);
• Broaden the range of products allowed for sale, including products in their raw or natural state,
products grown proximate to a farm or ranch property (rather than strictly grown on the
premises), and “value-added” products. In addition, allow for a limited sale of nonagricultural
products;
• Allow for the direct marketing of products from the farm or ranch to the consumer;
• Allow for the processing and sale of “value-added” products;
• Establish an efficient permit review process;
• Allow for the processing of value-added products within the County Agricultural Core Area.
As previously noted, funding for enterprise programs under the current AEP comes out of its
administrative/monitoring budget. The new County farm stand ordinance could expand the use of
these funds to encompass new processing facilities, farm stands, and other agricultural infrastructure
related to farm stands and the creation of value-added products for farms in the City Agricultural
Preservation Area and in the County Agricultural Core Area.
2. Regulatory Framework
Policies relevant to agricultural resources within the Brentwood Planning Area are drawn from the
California State FMMP, the Williamson Act (California Land Conservation Act of 1965), the 2005-
2020 Contra Costa General Plan, Contra Costa County Municipal Code, the 2001-2021 City of
Brentwood General Plan, and the Brentwood Municipal Code.
(1) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). Authority for the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program comes from Government Code Section 65570(b) and Public
Resources Code Section 612. Government Code Section 65570(b) requires the Department of
Conservation to collect or acquire information on the amount of land converted to or from agricultural
use for every mapped county and to report this information to the Legislature. This chapter is due
biennially (every two years) on or before June 30 of every even numbered year. Public Resources
Code Section 612 requires the Department to prepare, update, and maintain Important Farmland
Series Maps and other soils and land capability information. Other legislation related to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program is Government Code Section 51283(d), which provides for
funding, and Public Resources Code Section 21060.1, which defines agricultural land for CEQA
purposes.
(2) Williamson Act. The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or 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
22
Contra Costa County Planning Commission, 2007. Agenda Items 3 and 4: Proposed Zoning Text Amendment and
related General Plan Amendment affecting the sale and processing of Farm Products. April 24.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 35
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
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. Private land within locally designated
agricultural preserve areas is eligible for enrollment under contract. The minimum term for contracts
is 10 years. However, since the contract term automatically renews on each anniversary date of the
contract, the actual term is essentially indefinite unless non-renewal procedures are enacted by the
landowner or county. Under specified circumstances, landowners in Contra Costa County can also
terminate their Williamson Act contracts in exchange for dedicating a permanent agricultural
conservation easement on other land within the County.23
Participation in the program has been steady, hovering at about 16 million acres enrolled under
contract State-wide since the early 1980s. This number represents about one third of all privately held
land in California, and about one half of all the State’s agricultural land. As of 2007, Contra Costa
County had 417 parcels of land under Williamson Act contracts, covering approximately 48,000
acres.24 There are several parcels within the Brentwood Planning Area under Williamson Act
contracts.
(3) Contra Costa General Plan 2005-2020. The Contra Costa General Plan designates the
County Agricultural Core Area as Agricultural Core (AC).25 The General Plan contains numerous
goals and policies encouraging agricultural preservation and maintaining the economic viability of
agriculture, a representative selection of which are included below. The General Plan also contains
policies related to the County Urban Limit Line, which was approved by voters through Measure C in
1990. Voters can approve changes to the Urban Limit Line, which they did most recently in 2006
through Measure L.
Conservation Element
• Policy 8-29: Large contiguous areas of the County should be encouraged to remain in agricultural production, as long
as economically viable.
• Policy 8-33: The County shall encourage agriculture to continue operating adjacent to developing urban areas.
• Policy 8-39: A full range of agriculturally-related uses shall be allowed and encouraged in agricultural areas.
• Policy 8-40: A 40-acre minimum parcel size for prime productive agricultural land (Class I and II Soils per Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) Land Use Capability Classification) shall be established by the County for land outside the
designated Urban Limit Line. To the extent feasible, the County shall enter into preservation agreements with cities in
the County designed to preserve land for agriculture.
• Policy 8-41: The promotion and marketing of locally grown agricultural products shall be encouraged.
• Policy 8-43: The physical and service infrastructure, public and private, which supports agriculture shall be promoted.
23
Department of Conservation, 2008. Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program. Website: contracostaca.net/
DocumentView.asp?DID=877. Accessed November 3.
24
Contra Costa County, 2008. Community Development Department, Advanced Planning Division. Williamson Act
Program. Website: www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/current/advance/williamsonact/index.htm. Accessed October 6.
25
Contra Costa, County of, 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. January. The County provides the
following description of land designated as Agricultural Core (AC): “This designation applies to agricultural lands that are
composed primarily of prime (Class I or II) soils in the Soil Conservation Service Land Use Capability Classifications,
which are considered the very best soils for farming a wide variety of crops… Agricultural operations in the Agricultural
Core shall, in accordance with Measure C – 1990, be protected by requiring a higher minimum parcel size than the
Agricultural Lands designation, to attempt to maintain economically viable, commercial agricultural units. The creation of
small uneconomical units will be discouraged by land use controls and by specifically discouraging minor subdivisions and
“ranchette” housing development...”
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 36
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Land Use Element
• Policy 3-10: The extension of urban services into agricultural areas outside the Urban Limit Line, especially growth-
inducing infrastructure, shall be generally discouraged.
• Policy 3-11: Urban uses shall be expanded only within an Urban Limit Line where conflicts with the agricultural
economy will be minimal.
(4) Contra Costa County Code. As previously noted, the County has recently updated its
Farm Stand Ordinance to encourage larger roadside farm stands, processing and selling value-added
products in roadside farm stands, and direct marketing. Refer to “Relationship to Contra Costa
County Agricultural Policies,” above, for a description of this ordinance.
The County Agricultural Core Area is zoned as A-40 Exclusive Agricultural District, as defined in
Chapter 84-82 of the County Code (Zoning Ordinance).
(5) City of Brentwood General Plan 2001-2021. The City of Brentwood General Plan
designates the Brentwood Agricultural Conservation Area as Agricultural Conservation (AC).26
Applicable land use and agricultural resources goals from the City of Brentwood General Plan are
presented below.
Land Use Element
• Policy 4.1 Minimize Impacts: Minimize and mitigate industrial development impacts on adjacent land.
o Action Program 4.1.3. Agricultural Support: Ensure that adequate land is available for agricultural uses.
• Policy 5.2 Other Environmental Features: Protect those environmental features that make Brentwood an attractive and
desirable place to live, work and visit.
o Action Program 5.2.3. Agricultural Lands: Protect agricultural land from urban development except where the
General Plan Land Use Map has designated the land for urban uses.
Conservation/Open Space Element
• Policy 1.1 Agricultural Preservation: Support preservation of productive agricultural lands and provide appropriate
programs.
o Policy 1.1.1 Consistency with County: Work with the County of Contra Costa to establish consistent policies for
agricultural lands in Brentwood’s Planning Area.
o Policy 1.1.3 Intergovernmental Cooperation: Cooperate with Contra Costa County, Antioch, and Oakley in
programs which establish community separators and other permanent agricultural areas.
o Policy 1.1.4 Secure Agricultural Lands: Establish a program which secures permanent agriculture on lands
designated for agriculture in the City and/or County General Plan. The program should include joint concepts (e.g.
wastewater irrigation), land dedication (e.g. secured through development agreements) and a transfer of
development/in-lieu fee ordinance. The program should also create incentives for continuing agriculture (e.g.
long-term irritation water contracts) and assurances that potential ag-urban conflicts will be mitigated.
26
Brentwood, City of, 2001. City of Brentwood General Plan. Updated to reflect Amendments through January,
2006. The City of Brentwood General Plan provides the following description of the Agricultural Conservation (AC) land
use: “This land use category encompasses lands with continuing commercial agricultural potential. The intent of the
category is to retain primary agricultural use to the greatest extent possible. This is done by focusing public and private
efforts to protect such land from the impacts and pressures of the nearby urban area as well as to enhance the income
potential from agricultural use. In order to protect the Urban Limit Line, no annexations or urban-type development will be
allowed in this area. Allowed uses include orchards, row crops, nurseries, grazing lands, open space, packing and shipping
facilities, wineries, bed and breakfast inns, u-pick stands, farm equipment repair and services, and parks.”
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 37
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
o Policy 1.1.5 Maintain Prime Agricultural Land: Maintain prime agricultural lands south of [the] ECCID main
channel and east of Sellers Avenue and direct urban growth to the west and north.
• Policy 1.3 Development Impacts: Minimize impacts of development on agricultural uses.
o Policy 1.3.2 Right-to-Farm: Adopt a “Right to Farm” ordinance protecting farming uses from encroaching urban
uses.
o Policy 1.3.4. Zoning Ordinance: Amend the zoning ordinance to include criteria addressing the conversion of
agricultural lands.
Economic Development Element
• Policy 2.3 Support Agriculture: Maintain continued agricultural uses and agriculture supportive industries and provide
additional areas for future expansion of the industrial and agricultural base.
o Policy 2.3.1 Maintain Agricultural/Industrial Uses: Establish a program to promote and maintain prime
agricultural lands and locations for continued agricultural uses, or agriculture supportive industries.
(6) Brentwood Municipal Code. The land within the Brentwood Agricultural Conservation
Area is zoned either as Agricultural Conservation, Intensive Agriculture, or Agricultural Preserve (for
land under a Williamson Act contract as defined in Chapter 17.400 of the Brentwood Municipal
Code).27 As previously noted, portions of the current AEP were adopted by ordinance into Chapter
17.730 of the Brentwood Municipal Code, as described in this chapter and in Chapter II, Project
Description.
3. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
As noted in Chapter II, Project Description, the key purpose of this review is to determine whether the
environmental effects of the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code would result in new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
environmental effects in the General Plan Update EIR, pursuant to Section 15163 of the CEQA
Guidelines. Specifically, this analysis focuses on whether the proposed amendments to the Municipal
Code would cause the AEP would be more or less effective than the existing AEP at preserving
farmland, and if determined to be less effective, whether the potential for farmland conversion would
be considered significant. This section discusses potential impacts to land use and agricultural
resources that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the
criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds used to determine whether an impact is
significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts associated with the proposed project
and identifies mitigation measures, if appropriate. Less-than-significant impacts to land use and
agricultural resources are discussed first, followed by significant impacts.
a. Significance Criteria. The following criteria of significance are those used to identify
significant land use and agricultural resources impacts in the General Plan Update EIR. The proposed
project would result in a significant impact to land use and agricultural resources if it would:
• Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community;
• Propose new land uses which would alter the existing character of the community;
• Be inconsistent with existing applicable land use plans and policies;
27
Brentwood, City of, 1987. Brentwood Municipal Code. Website: qcode.us/codes/brentwood. Accessed October 8,
2008.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 38
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
• Result in uses which are substantially incompatible with existing land uses; or
• Result in the conversion of prime agricultural land to nonagricultural use or impair the
agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land.
b. Less-than-Significant Land Use Impacts. The proposed project would result in a less-than-
significant impact (when compared to the impacts identified in the General Plan Update EIR) in the
following topical areas:
(1) Divide an Established Community. The physical division of an established community
typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad
tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility
within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas.
The General Plan Update EIR concluded that the General Plan Update would not result in the division
of an established community; implementation of the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code
would not change this conclusion. The project would allow for a larger portion of collected mitigation
fees under the AEP to be dedicated to funding enterprise programs, which could result in less funding
being directed to purchasing conservation easements on agricultural land. However, the proposed
change in policy would not result in the construction of any new physical features that would impair
mobility within the Brentwood Planning Area. In addition, adherence to existing zoning regulations
and Smart Growth policies in the City of Brentwood and Contra Costa County general plans would
ensure that new agricultural infrastructure (such as expanded roadside farm stands or farm product
processing facilities) funded under the proposed project would not dramatically alter existing
neighborhoods or circulation patterns. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly
divide established communities within the Planning Area.
(2) Alter the Existing Character of the Community. The 2001 General Plan Update EIR
concluded that the General Plan Update would significantly change the existing character of
Brentwood from a “small suburban bedroom community to a more balanced job-rich city,”28 but that
this impact could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level; implementation of the proposed project
would not change this conclusion.
As previously noted, the proposed project would allow for a larger portion of farmland mitigation
fees collected under the AEP to be dedicated to funding enterprise programs, with the aim of
increasing the economic viability of agriculture in the Brentwood Planning Area. The project would
not change or increase land use densities, and would not contribute to substantial changes in the
existing character of Brentwood, including any acceleration in the loss of farmland at the City’s
periphery. In addition, adherence to existing zoning regulations and Smart Growth policies in the City
of Brentwood and Contra Costa County general plans would ensure that new agricultural infrastruc-
ture (such as expanded roadside farm stands or farm product processing facilities) funded under the
proposed project would not alter existing neighborhoods. Therefore, the proposed project would not
alter the existing character of the community.
28
The Planning Center, 1993. City of Brentwood General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for
City of Brentwood Community Development Department. July.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 39
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
(3) Conflict with Land Use Plans and Policies. Conflicts between the project and appli-
cable policies do not constitute significant physical environmental impacts in and of themselves. A
policy inconsistency is considered to be a significant adverse environmental impact only when it is
related to a policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and it is
anticipated that the inconsistency would result in a significant adverse physical impact.
The General Plan Update EIR concluded that the General Plan Update conflicted with the Contra
Costa County Urban Limit Line and with the County General Plan Agricultural Core Land Use
designations, but that it conformed to all other policy documents and regulations. These conflicts
were identified as significant and unavoidable impacts; implementation of the proposed project would
not change this conclusion, although the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code would not
conflict with the Urban Limit Line and would not conflict with the Agricultural Core designations.
The proposed project is itself a change to an existing policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect – the conversion of prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use
– identified in the General Plan Update EIR. As previously noted, the key purpose of this review is to
determine whether the environmental effects of the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code
would result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified environmental effects in the General Plan Update EIR.
The discussion of whether the proposed project would result in new or substantially increased adverse
effects on prime agricultural land is found below (see “Convert Agricultural Land”). This analysis
concludes that the proposed project would not introduce new or more substantial effects on farmland.
Therefore, the project would not increase conflicts with existing applicable land use plans already
identified in the General Plan Update EIR, nor would it lead to other new conflicts.
(4) Result in Incompatible Land Uses. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that the
General Plan Update could result in land use conflicts and incompatibility between existing
agricultural and industrial land and proposed residential development, but that proposed policies
would reduce these effects to less-than-significant levels; implementation of the proposed project
would not change this conclusion.
As previously noted, the proposed project would allow for a larger portion of mitigation fees
collected under the AEP to be dedicated to funding enterprise programs, in order to increase the
economic viability of agriculture in the Brentwood Planning Area. Adherence to existing zoning
regulations and the policies identified as mitigation measures in the General Plan Update EIR would
ensure that new agricultural infrastructure funded under the proposed project would not result in land
use conflicts.
(5) Convert Prime Agricultural Land or Impair Agricultural Productivity. The General
Plan Update EIR concluded that the General Plan Update would result in the conversion of Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (specifically, 1,360 acres of Class
I soils and 3,100 acres of Class II soils) within the Planning Area to non-agricultural uses. In
summary, implementation of the proposed project would not change this conclusion, and a significant
and unavoidable impact would remain.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 40
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed amendments to the Municipal Code would create a new significant impact if they were
to result in a substantial increase in the rate of conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses
compared to the existing AEP. The following discussion analyzes the relationship between the
proposed project and the current AEP specifically in regard to preserving farmland. The first section
of this analysis discusses the ways in which the proposed project could improve agricultural
preservation in the Brentwood Planning Area compared to the current AEP. The second section
discusses ways in which the project could be harmful to agricultural preservation and could contribute
to a higher rate of conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses when compared to the current
AEP. The third section discusses why the proposed project would not likely result in a higher rate of
farmland conversion than exists under the current AEP. The final section offers a list of
recommended agricultural preservation policies that the City of Brentwood could consider as
supplements to the proposed project in order to maximize farmland preservation under the AEP.
Potential Benefits to Farmland Preservation. The proposed project would require that
at least 80 percent of funds from in-lieu mitigation fees be used for a combination of land/easement
purchase and incentive-based programs and measures to encourage the continuation of agricultural
operations around Brentwood. This funding allocation would also apply to mitigation fees already
collected under the current AEP, as well as to all to-be-approved projects that would require the
payment of a mitigation fee.29 As a result of the project, it is assumed that a greater percentage of
mitigation funds would be used for enterprise programs than under the current AEP (under the pro-
ject, 80 percent of the funds could be used for enterprise programs). The following section discusses
the ways in which the proposed project would be result in the AEP being more effective at preserving
farmland than the current AEP.
Increased Profitability for Farmers. The rationale behind offering funding for enterprise
programs is that making farming more profitable will both directly and indirectly lead to the
continuation of agricultural operations (as opposed to conversion to non-agricultural uses), and thus
preserve farmland. Allowing farmers to increase farm revenue could theoretically reduce the
temptation or need to sell land for urban development. All agricultural preservation experts
interviewed as part of background research for this Supplemental EIR agreed that providing funding
for effective enterprise programs in the Brentwood Planning Area would generally contribute to a
farming-friendly environment. In addition, farmers who use enterprise funds for successful new
projects could help put themselves and other local farmers in a position to leverage additional funding
(possibly from sources other than the AEP) for agricultural programs. As noted in Chapter II, Project
Description, examples of enterprise program types that could receive funding under the proposed
project include: place-based agricultural marketing; agri-tourism development; grants to local co-ops;
community-supported agriculture (CSA) programs or other direct marketing programs; grants and/or
loans for needed infrastructure to create value-added products; agriculture research and product
development; and loan programs that promote the planting of permanent crops or develop
infrastructure needed for agriculture (e.g., wells, farm stands). The following case studies provide
examples of farmers that have found ways to remain profitable through the kinds of enterprise
programs that could receive funding under the proposed project; these case studies are focused on
farms marketing, processing, and selling value-added products. In all cases provided below, the
operators of these farms intend to farm their land over the long term.
29
As noted in Chapter II, Project Description, funds collected from in-lieu fees would only fund enterprise programs
that are consistent with the land use designations and policies included in the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 41
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
• Frog Hollow Farm. The 120-acre Frog Hollow Farm is one of the most well-known
agricultural operations in the Brentwood Planning Area. The farm’s successful
marketing of its wide variety of value-added products, as well as its organic stone
fruit (of which it grows 30 varieties) has led to a local, regional, and national
reputation for high quality produce and other farm products. The farm’s managerial
staff – Al Courchesne, Becky Courchesne, and Sarah Coddington – found a way to
connect a growing preference for local, organic food in the Bay Area and elsewhere
to the rich agricultural heritage of the Brentwood area and the Central Valley.
Frog Hollow Farm is an example of one of the most successful value-added product
operations in the Brentwood area. Approximately 25 percent of the farm’s total
revenue comes from selling value-added products, 90 percent of which are sold at
local farmer’s markets. Frog Hollow sells the remaining 10 percent of its value-added
products to specialty stores, including the Dean & Deluca catalogue. It is able to fill
orders from this catalogue (as well as direct orders from its website) within two days
through a process of quick freezing its products. According to Al Courchesne, the
fruit used in the farm’s value-added products couldn’t be sold in stores or markets,
and the quick freezing process allows for year-round fruit spreads and pies.30
Freezing produce that would otherwise be thrown out is one way that value-added
products that are sold year-round can stabilize farm income.
Every value-added product from Frog Hollow Farm is made with fruit grown on the
farm. These products include a range of jams, sauces, preserved fruits, and chutneys,
as well as pastries, cakes, cookies, and galettes.
• Fontana Farms. Sharon Fontana, who owns and runs the 20-acre Fontana Farms in
the Central Valley town of Ceres (near Turlock), has remained profitable by
diversifying her farm products and sales strategies. Fontana’s products include
produce such as table and wine grapes, stone fruits, tomatoes, peppers, and zucchini,
and value-added products such as jam, pear and plum sauce, pepper sauces used for
meat glazes, dessert fruit sauces, dried fruits, and hot sauce. Fontana also boasts a
variety of flavored almonds.31 Sharon Fontana started the farm in 1979 and began the
value-added portion of her operation in 1992.32
At least 50 percent of Fontana’s revenues come from processing value-added farm
products. Fontana leases a commercial kitchen to develop her value-added products.
She also uses this facility to process and package value-added products and develops
labels and recipes for eight other farms, in a “co-packing” agreement. Fontana
purchased a building off her farm, close to Highway 5, which she has turned into
retail space to sell value-added products and other produce.33
30
Ohmart, Jeri L., 2003. op. cit.
31
Fontana Farms, 2008. Website: www.fontanafarmsinc.com. Accessed October 9, 2008.
32
Ohmart, Jeri L., 2003. op. cit.
33
Ibid.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 42
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Fontana sells her products through several different channels, most of which offer her
face-to-face contact with her customers. These marketing outlets have proven
beneficial to her; although Fontana Farms is not certified organic, Fontana has been
able to use direct marketing to explain her growing techniques to skeptical customers
in order to make them more comfortable with her products. In addition to selling her
products at her own facility, she sells to other roadside farm stands, grocery stores
such as Whole Foods and Nugget Market, specialty shops in Carmel and Modesto,
and at year-found farmers markets in several Bay Area and Central Valley cities.
Like Al Courchesne of Frog Hollow Farm, Fontana appreciates that she is able to use
imperfect fruit (not suitable for sale as fresh raw produce in stores or markets) in her
value-added products, thereby increasing her farm income.34
• Good Humus Farm. Jeff and Annie Main started the 20-acre Good Humus Farm in
the Capay Valley (northwest of Davis, CA) approximately 30 years ago. The Mains
helped establish the Davis Farmers Market at the beginning of their farming careers
in the mid-1970s, and now sell at several other Bay Area markets. Good Humus
Farm also sells directly to retail markets and runs a Community Supported
Agriculture (CSA) business, through which the farm provides produce to individual
subscribers.35
Good Humus Farm has experienced both the benefits and roadblocks in developing
value-added products. Annie Main, who is primarily responsible for the value-added
product operation on Good Humus Farm, began producing and selling salsas in the
1970s; however, the salsa market became saturated and Annie was forced to reorient
her value-added product operation. In the 1980s, Annie developed a variety of
chutneys, but the local health department raised concerns about her processing
technique and she was unable to sell them at farmers markets. In the 1990s, Annie
finally found consistent success in value-added products with orange marmalade,
other jams and jellies, dried fruit, and syrup, as well as dried flowers and other herb-
based products. In recent years, Good Humus Farm has successfully integrated these
value-added products into CSA orders, particularly during the winter holiday
season.36
While the County’s former restrictions on value-added production and roadside farm stands func-
tioned as barriers to farmers trying to supplement their incomes, removing these restrictions in the
past years has presented an opportunity for the City to fund new kinds of enterprise programs that
previously would not have been possible. Implementing the proposed project could open up a
significant amount of funding for new enterprise projects that are currently permitted by County
policies.
Helping more local farmers become profitable through enterprise programs could also help the City
address the dearth of new and young farmers in the Planning Area. According to one report, nearly 77
percent of the 592 Contra Costa County farms in 2002 had been operating for more than 10 years.
34
Ibid.
35
Ibid.
36
Ibid.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 43
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Farmers in 2002 had spent an average of over 20 years on their current farm, and the average farmer’s
age in the County rose from 55 to 57 between 1997 and 2002.37 Older farmers have cited the difficult-
ty of remaining profitable as a reason for discontinuing even long-standing agricultural operations,38
or discouraging younger generations within their families from farming.39 Improving the prospect of
profitability through City-sponsored incentive programs under the AEP could help bring new, young-
er farmers to the Brentwood Planning Area (or assist in retaining younger farmers at established
farms).
Finally, the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code could also enhance farmer profitability
through a variety of other programs designed to connect farmers in the Planning Area to local
consumers. Certain programs already exist – for instance, the “Buy Fresh, Buy Local” marketing
campaign and the Brentwood Farmers Market – but an increase in enterprise funding could help
farmers develop and maintain institutional customers (e.g., schools and hospitals) and take advantage
of a large, fast-growing, and affluent Bay Area population with a strong interest in local and organic
produce.40 An example of such a program is the Growers Collaborative (a subsidiary of the
Community Alliance with Family Farmers, based in Davis, CA), an organization that assembles
produce from small, low-income, and family-owned farms all over the state and sells it to grade
schools, colleges, hospitals, and corporate cafeterias that are local to those farms. The Growers
Collaborative is crucial for farmers whose marketing and distribution capabilities are minimal without
the help of a larger organization.41 The City of Brentwood could develop a similar program with
enterprise funds under the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code. Farmers in Brentwood have
also expressed interest in communal resources, such as a commercial kitchen,42 and County officials
are currently working with non-profits to establish a program to sell produce to low-income
communities in Richmond.43 Such programs, if funded by the AEP, could make farming more
economically sustainable in the area.
Conformance with County Policies. As previously noted, Contra Costa County has
recently updated several of its agricultural policies in order to encourage farmers to add facilities to
their properties to process value-added products, construct larger roadside farm stands, and sell value-
added products in these farm stands. When the City first introduced the AEP in 2001, the County had
not yet begun the process of re-evaluating its zoning and other agricultural policies affecting farming
in the Planning Area. However, City officials now acknowledge that the County has taken significant
steps to improve the economic viability of farming in the Planning Area, and that the current
37
Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust and Contra Costa County Wine Grape and Olive Growers Association, 2007.
op. cit..
38
Sherbert, Erin, 2007a. “New rules may help farms blossom” in Contra Costa Times. February 18.
39
Sherbert, Erin, 2007b. “Generation gap a tough row to hoe for families; Children pursue other careers rather than
follow parents’ farming footsteps” in Contra Costa Times. April 29.
40
Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust and Contra Costa County Wine Grape and Olive Growers Association, 2007.
op. cit.
41
The Growers Collaborative, 2008. Website: www.caff.org/programs/growerscollaborative.shtml. Accessed
October 1.
42
Stonebarger, Erick, 2008. Brentwood City Council Member. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc.
October 3.
43
Roche, Patrick, 2008. Principal Planner, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development.
Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. October 2.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 44
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
enterprise program under the AEP is relatively insufficient.44 An accompanying effort under the AEP
to fund enterprise-type projects would make the new County policies more effective, and would
generally make City and County agricultural policies more complementary.
Funding Flexibility. The proposed project would allow City staff administering the AEP
increased flexibility in deciding how to allocate in-lieu mitigation fees. As previously noted, a
significant challenge to the AEP’s conservation easement purchasing program to-date has been an
unwilling market. Selling easements becomes more or less attractive to farmers depending on the
development climate (which affects land values); for this reason and others, the vast majority of
farmers in the Planning Area have resisted selling easements on their land over the last several years
because of the rapid rate of urbanization in and around Brentwood. As a result, agricultural mitigation
funds under control of the City are underutilized because of a lack of farmers willing to sell
easements and tight controls on enterprise funding. Under the proposed project, City staff could
choose to allocate funding collected from mitigation fees to a wider variety of program types,
including conservation easements and enterprise programs. This flexibility could prove to be useful in
future years because the City would be more equipped to adapt agricultural programming to dynamic
market conditions. Over time, a City policy more responsive to farmers’ needs could lead to an
enhanced climate for agriculture, and indirectly to a higher rate of farmland preservation, when
compared to the existing AEP. As noted in the setting section, based on the 5-year review of the AEP,
mitigation fees (if used only for easement purchase) would preserve only 7 percent of the City’s
Agricultural Conservation Area. Therefore, other funding options are needed to sustain agriculture in
the Brentwood Planning Area.
As noted in Chapter II, Project Description, the City would, as part of the proposed project, develop
an implementation plan for the restructured AEP that would establish protocols for identifying,
prioritizing, and funding specific enterprise programs. However, as discussed below (under “Potential
for Insufficient Oversight”), it is possible that increased flexibility in spending could undermine
agricultural preservation without proper oversight and a commitment from the City to continue to
pursue conservation easements and fee title purchase of lands.
Benefits Small Farms. All farmland preservation experts consulted as background
research for this Supplemental EIR generally agree that small farms on the City’s urban periphery,
which are the most susceptible to urbanization pressures, would be the primary beneficiaries of an
increase in the availability of funding for enterprise programs.45,46,47,48,49 Half of all farms in the
County Agricultural Core Area are under 20 acres, and these farms are well-situated to capitalize on
Bay Area markets, which exhibit a high demand for local food. To date, the City has had difficulty
achieving its goal of strategically purchasing conservation easements on agricultural land bordering
44
Maurer, Linda, 2008. Economic Development Manager, Community Development Department, City of
Brentwood. Agricultural Enterprise Program Scoping Session. PowerPoint presentation. July 26.
45
King, Holly, 2008. Director of Agricultural Programs, Great Valley Center. Personal communication with LSA
Associates, Inc. September 30.
46
Loux, Jeff, Ph.D, 2008. Director, Land Use and Natural Resource Program, UC Davis Extension. Personal
communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 29.
47
Stonebarger, Erick, 2008. op. cit.
48
Roche, Patrick, 2008. op. cit.
49
Rhodes, Winston, AICP, 2008. op. cit.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 45
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
the urbanized portion of Brentwood; it is possible that, with the help of new enterprise programs,
farmers in these areas could become more amenable to selling conservation easements, or at least
remain profitable and find new success in farming. In addition, a recent national study of farmers on
the edge of urban areas shows that farmers are more likely to sell their land for development if they
feel that local government typically sides with non-farmers in conflicts between them and farmers.50
According to a marketing report prepared for BALT and the Contra Costa County Wine, Grape, and
Olive Growers Association, there are a number of ways in which farmers in the Planning Area could
increase profitability through a variety of marketing techniques and by producing and selling value-
added products, and such revenue streams would be important to small farms, which may be better
situated than larger farms to exploit agricultural niches.51,52 For the reasons described above, the
proposed project could result in slower urbanization rates on the urban edge. Prior to project
implementation, there is no way to determine conclusively whether small farmers would become
more willing to sell conservation easements if the proposed project were to be implemented.
However, data collected as part of this analysis show that increased farm profitability may reduce
development pressures on working farmland.
Potential Negative Effects on Farmland Preservation. The following section describes
the ways in which the proposed project could cause the AEP to be less effective than the current AEP
at preserving farmland.
Less Funding for Conservation Easements. As described in Chapter II, Project
Description, the project’s proposed amendments to Section 17.730.010 of the Municipal Code would
expand the purpose of agricultural preservation programs under the AEP to include the improvement
of economic viability of agriculture in Brentwood (in addition to the purchase of conservation
easements or fee title purchase of lands). In effect, there would be less funding available for
purchasing conservation easements because a portion of the non-administrative/monitoring funds (at
least 80 percent of mitigation funds) would be made available for enterprise-type projects.
Although the current AEP has not been as successful as anticipated at the start of the program in
purchasing conservation easements on land in the City Agricultural Conservation Area and in the
County Agricultural Core Area, the AEP was still intended to be predominantly a land preservation
program in that it was designed to mitigate the loss of farmland under the General Plan Update. It is
possible that if the proposed project were to be adopted, the City could at some point in the future be
forced to choose between purchasing a conservation easement and funding an enterprise program.
Under the proposed project, the City could still choose to focus primarily on enterprise programs even
if the development climate and other circumstances change in a way that make farmers more willing
to accept conservation easements on their land. Therefore, it is possible that, in the event of a shift in
priorities, the proposed project could result in a farmland mitigation program that is less effective at
preserving farmland over the long-term than the current program.
50
Zurbrugg, Anita (American Farmland Trust) and Dick Esseks (University of Nebraska), 2008. Farm Viability in
DeKalb and Other Urbanizing Counties. PowerPoint presentation at the Dekalb County Farm Bureau, Center for
Agriculture. February 18.
51
Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust and Contra Costa County Wine Grape and Olive Growers Association, 2007.
op. cit.
52
Roche, Patrick, 2008. op. cit.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 46
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Enterprise Programs Do Not Guarantee Long-Term Farming. All farmland preservation
experts consulted as background research for this Supplemental EIR agree that under ideal
circumstances, the City would be able to provide a significant amount of funding to both conservation
easements and enterprise programs. However, most of these experts consider enterprise programs to
be complements to conservation easements in the larger project of preserving agricultural land.
Others noted that enterprise programs are only successful at encouraging long-term farming in areas
that already have a significant amount of land dedicated to permanent agricultural use. All agreed that
enterprise programs would not, on their own, ensure longevity for farming in the Brentwood Planning
Area. Under the proposed project, the possibility exists for farmers to utilize enterprise funds for
some period of time, only to sell their land for development when the opportunity arises.
As previously noted, the proposed project would allow the City to dedicate up to 80 percent of
mitigation funds to enterprise programs even if conservation easements become more available and
affordable for the City. Without a strong conservation program, it is unlikely that enterprise programs
alone would ensure long-term farming in the Planning Area.
Potential for Insufficient Oversight. As noted in Chapter II, Project Description, the City
would, as part of the proposed project, develop an implementation plan for the restructured AEP that
would establish protocols for identifying, prioritizing, and funding specific enterprise programs.
Depending upon how the implementation plan is structured, it is possible that the proposed project
could result in a weaker agricultural preservation program than the current AEP for the reasons listed
above (e.g. reduced funding for conservation easements and lack of long-term farming assurances).
Conclusion. As of January 1, 2009, the AEP has preserved 337 acres of agricultural land
within the Brentwood Planning Area, 30 acres of which came through two TAC transactions. As
previously noted, a 5-year review of the AEP found that the mitigation fees collected from the
remaining developable land within the Planning Area would allow the City to purchase conservation
easements on 990 acres, or less than 7 percent of the City’s Agricultural Conservation Area (based on
an assumption of $15,000/acre).
It is difficult to predict whether the proposed project would make the AEP more effective at preser-
ving farmland. On the one hand, new enterprise programs funded under the AEP could contribute to
an improved environment for farming, and to the long-term economic viability of farming in and
around Brentwood. In addition, the County continues to disallow non-agricultural uses within its
Agricultural Core Area, and farmland beyond the Urban Limit Line cannot be converted to non-
agricultural uses without approval of County voters. However, in the case of a voter-approved change
to the Urban Limit Line, farmland in the Planning Area would likely continue to be converted to non-
agricultural uses in the absence of a strong land preservation component to the AEP. Even a static
Urban Limit Line is not sufficient – in and of itself – to preserve working farmland (and the economic
infrastructure needed to sustain farming) outside of urbanized areas. For the purpose of this analysis,
it is safe to say that the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code would not likely result in a
greater loss of farmland than would occur under the current AEP; this is the case mostly because the
current AEP has not led to a significant number of conservation easements, and the program’s
prospects for success in the future are limited, due to a tight supply of conservation easements, a
relatively low per-acre farmland mitigation fee, and economic pressures that are beyond the influence
of local policies. Nevertheless, while the proposed project would change the course of the AEP away
from a strict land preservation model, it would not result in a substantial increase in the rate of
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 47
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
III. LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses than is currently occurring (and is predicted to
occur) under the current AEP. For this reason, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant
impact on farmland conversion.
c. Significant Land Use and Agricultural Resources Impacts. Implementation of the proposed
project would not result in new significant land use and agricultural resources impacts, nor would it
result in a substantial increase in the severity of land use and agricultural resources impacts previous-
ly identified in the General Plan Update EIR.
d. Cumulative Land Use and Agricultural Resources Impacts. The proposed project would not
result in cumulatively considerable significant impacts relating to the conversion of agricultural land.
The proposed project would not increase the rate of agricultural land conversion in the Brentwood
Planning Area compared to the existing AEP. Looking outward to surrounding cities or counties, the
authors of this Supplemental EIR are unaware of any similar efforts at restructuring land preservation
or farming enhancement programs to which this proposal in Brentwood would contribute in a cumu-
lative manner.
e. Policy Recommendations. Although the analysis in this Supplemental EIR finds that the
proposed project would not result in new significant agricultural resources impacts, it is unlikely that
the proposed amendments to the AEP would dramatically improve farmland preservation over the
existing program. Without concentrated oversight and a long-term commitment to preservation
efforts, farmland in the Brentwood Planning Area would likely continue to be converted to non-
agricultural uses at a fast pace.
As noted in Chapter II, Project Description, the City would develop an implementation plan as part of
the project in order to establish protocols for identifying, prioritizing, and funding specific enterprise
programs. The following policy recommendations could strengthen such an implementation plan and
ensure that the AEP focuses on the long-term continuation of farming in the Planning Area:
• Enterprise funding under the AEP should be in the form of low- or no- interest loans, and the City
should require audits and detailed record-keeping for all loan recipients.
• Create a permanent Agricultural Advisory Committee to serve as a liaison to area growers, and to
provide guidance on the mitigation program and other policy matters concerning agriculture.
• Ensure that all enterprise projects are aimed at the long-term continuation of farming. Develop a
set of criteria to be used to judge loan applications for enterprise projects. The use of funds to
develop permanent, communal, City-owned infrastructure to sustain agriculture (commercial
kitchens, olive presses) should be prioritized.
• Continue to prioritize land preservation (e.g. conservation easements or fee title purchase of
lands) over enterprise programs, particularly if the land market and/or farmers become more
amenable to preservation efforts.
• Consider requiring that conservation easements be sold or granted as a condition of obtaining
enterprise funding.
• Consider increasing the per-acre agriculture land mitigation fee to better reflect the market value
of conservation easements.
• The City should support County efforts to reduce uncertainty in defining and amending the Urban
Limit Line.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\3-LandUse-Ag.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 48
IV. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS
As required by CEQA, this chapter discusses the following types of impacts that could result from
implementation of the proposed amendments to Chapter 17.730, Agricultural Land Conservation, of
the City of Brentwood Municipal Code: growth-inducing impacts; significant irreversible changes;
unavoidable significant environmental impacts; cumulative impacts; and effects found not to be
significant.
A. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
A project is considered growth inducing if it would directly or indirectly foster economic or
population growth or the construction of additional housing.1 Examples of projects likely to have
significant growth-inducing impacts include extensions or expansions of infrastructure systems
beyond what is needed to serve project-specific demand, and development of new residential
subdivisions or industrial parks in areas that are currently only sparsely developed or are
undeveloped.
The proposed project would change the Municipal Code and allow the City to restructure the AEP to
allow for more flexibility in the use of mitigation funds. The project is intended to foster economic
growth; however, new economic activity resulting from the project would occur on already
established farmland. In addition, although the project could result in the construction of new
facilities on agricultural land (to process value-added products, for example), these structural
additions would not likely create a large number of jobs. Any increase in population or demand for
housing that could occur as an indirect result of the project would be minor in the context of
population growth projected to occur in the City of Brentwood.
The project would not result in the extension of utilities or roads into undeveloped areas, and would
not directly or indirectly lead to the development of agricultural land within the Brentwood Planning
Area. There is a small possibility that the project, which is a change in agricultural policy, could
result in an increased rate of farmland conversion to non-agricultural uses; however, as described in
Chapter III of this Supplemental EIR, this scenario is unlikely. The project’s intended purpose is to
make farming more economically viable in and around Brentwood, and to slow the rate of urbaniza-
tion of agricultural areas within the Planning Area.
B. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES
An EIR must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that could result from
implementation of a proposed project. These may include current or future uses of non-renewable
resources, and secondary or growth-inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar uses.
CEQA dictates that irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such
1
CEQA Guidelines, 2005. Section 15162.2(d).
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\4-CEQAAssessment.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 49
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
IV. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS
current consumption is justified.2 The CEQA Guidelines describe three distinct categories of signifi-
cant irreversible changes: 1) changes in land use which would commit future generations; 2) damage
from environmental accidents; and 3) consumption of non-renewable resources.
1. Changes in Land Use Which Commit Future Generations
The proposed project would amend the Municipal Code and allow the City to restructure the AEP to
allow for more flexibility in the use of mitigation funds. The project has the intended purpose of
making farming more economically viable in and around Brentwood, and slowing the rate of
farmland urbanization in the Planning Area; in other words, the project is intended to slow the rate at
which local land use patterns would commit future generations to non-agricultural uses. It is possible
that the project could have the unintended effect of resulting in a higher rate of farmland conversion
to non-agricultural uses; however, as described in Chapter III of this Supplemental EIR, this scenario
is unlikely. Therefore, the proposed project would not commit future generations to a significant
change in land use.
2. Damage from Environmental Accidents
No significant environmental damage, such as that resulting from accidental spills or explosion of
hazardous materials, is anticipated with implementation of the proposed project, which would
restructure the City’s agricultural policies. Should the project for some unforeseen reason indirectly
lead to the transport of hazardous materials, compliance with federal, State and local regulations
would reduce the potential for environmental accidents in these instances to a less-than-significant
level. No other potential irreversible changes are expected to result from implementation of the
proposed project.
3. Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources
Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes conversion of agricultural lands, loss of access to
mining reserves, and use of non-renewable energy sources. As previously noted, the proposed project
has the intended purpose of making farming more economically viable, which could indirectly slow
the rate of farmland conversion to non-agricultural uses within the Brentwood Planning Area. In
addition, the City of Brentwood Agricultural Conservation Area does not contain known mineral
resources and does not serve as a mining reserve; thus, implementation of the project would not result
in the loss of access to mining reserves.
The project would change the City’s agricultural policies, and would not directly require the use of
energy. However, implementation of the project could indirectly lead to new construction (of
structures such as new farm stands, olive presses, and commercial kitchen facilities, which would
require the use of energy, including energy produced from non-renewable resources. However, the
project on the whole would not result in energy demands that would require the development of new
energy sources or affect service to existing customers. Making agriculture more viable on the urban
fringe has the potential to reduce the food-to-consumer pathway, reducing energy use associated with
food production.3 Therefore, the proposed project has the potential to result in reduced energy use on
a per capita basis.
2
CEQA Guidelines, 2005. Section 15126.2(c).
3
Pollan, Michael, 2008. “Farmer in Chief.” New York Times Magazine. October 12.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\4-CEQAAssessment.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 50
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
IV. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS
C. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed project would not result in new significant agricultural resources impacts, nor would it
result in a substantial increase in the severity of land use and agricultural resources impacts
previously identified in the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore, the project would not result in
significant unavoidable impacts.
D. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable significant impacts relating to the
conversion of agricultural land. The proposed project would not increase the rate of agricultural land
conversion in the Brentwood Planning Area compared to the existing Chapter 17.730 of the
Municipal Code and AEP. Looking outward to surrounding cities or counties, the authors of this
Supplemental EIR are unaware of any similar efforts at restructuring land preservation or farming
enhancement programs to which this proposal in Brentwood would contribute in a cumulative
manner.
E. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated for the project beginning on July 16, 2008. Written
comments received on the NOP during the scoping period, which ended August 15, 2008, were
considered in the preparation of the final scope for this document and evaluation of the proposed
project. The environmental topics analyzed in Chapter III, Land Use and Agricultural Resources,
represent those topics which generated the greatest potential controversy and expectation of adverse
impacts.
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to the following topics:
1. Aesthetics
The proposed project could indirectly lead to the construction of new structures in already-established
farmland. Adherence to existing zoning regulations and City of Brentwood and Contra Costa County
design guidelines would ensure that new agricultural infrastructure (such as expanded roadside farm
stands or farm product processing facilities) funded under the proposed project would not block views
of, or otherwise have significant adverse effects on visual resources in the Brentwood Planning Area.
For instance, the size and placement of signs and farm stands are regulated by the County, in part to
reduce visual blight.
2. Air Quality
The proposed project could result in an incremental increase in traffic within the Brentwood Planning
Area. However, it is likely that the majority of new trips would be related to new agri-tourism
programs, and an increase in local and regional trips could be offset by a decrease in the number of
long-distance truck trips within the Planning Area (due to an increased focus on local consumers
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\4-CEQAAssessment.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 51
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
IV. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS
among farmers).4,5 The potential small increase in air pollutants would have less-than-significant
impacts on the reigon’s air quality non-attainment status and would not likely create objectionable
odors in the area.
3. Biological Resources
The project is intended to foster economic growth on already-established farmland, and new farm
structures would be required by County and City regulations to avoid sensitive natural communities
such as wetlands. The proposed project is not expected to result in impacts to biological resources.
4. Cultural Resources
The project is intended to foster economic growth on already-established farmland. The proposed
project is not expected to result in impacts to cultural resources. The proposed project, which may
make local farming more economically viable, could promote the preservation of farmland around
Brentwood, which is a culturally-significant landscape.
5. Geology and Soils
The project would not include activities, such as mineral or water extraction, deep excavation, or
extensive grading, which could destabilize the existing geologic conditions within the Planning Area.
There is not a substantial risk to life or property within the Planning Area due to expansive soils. The
project’s geology and soils impacts would be less than significant.
6. Hazards and Public Safety
The project proposes to refocus the City’s agricultural policies, and is not expected to result in
hazards and public safety impacts. Should the project for some unforeseen reason indirectly lead to
the transport of hazardous materials, compliance with federal, State and local regulations would
reduce the potential for environmental accidents in these instances to a less-than-significant level. No
other potential hazards and public safety impacts would be expected to result from implementation of
the proposed project.
7. Hydrology and Water Quality
The project proposes to refocus the City’s agricultural policies, and is not expected to result in
hydrology and water quality impacts. Compliance with existing regulatory requirements in the design,
approval, and implementation of the grading plan, storm water controls, and best management
practices (BMPs) would ensure that new development funded through the AEP would not violate
water quality standards or violate waste discharge requirements.
8. Mineral Resources
There are no known mineral resources within the City Agricultural Conservation Area. Implementa-
tion of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource.
4
Stonebarger, Erick, 2008. Brentwood City Council Member. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc.
October 3.
5
King, Holly, 2008. Director of Agricultural Programs, Great Valley Center. Personal communication with LSA
Associates, Inc. September 30.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\4-CEQAAssessment.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 52
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
IV. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS
9. Noise
As previously noted, the proposed project could result in an incremental increase in traffic within the
Brentwood Planning Area. However, it is likely that the majority of new trips would be related to new
agri-tourism programs, and an increase in local and regional trips could be offset by an associated
decrease in the number of long-distance truck trips (due to an increased focus on local consumers
among farmers). Project-related construction of new farm structures on existing farmland could cause
temporary noise impacts. However, overall project-related noise impacts would be less-than-
significant.
10. Population and Housing
Implementation of the proposed project could indirectly lead to the creation of a small number of new
agricultural jobs within the Planning Area. It is possible that this amount of job creation could result
in an incremental increase in demand for affordable farm worker housing within the Brentwood
Planning Area. However, farm worker housing supply is not considered a critical problem in the
Planning Area and in Contra Costa County (as it is in Napa County, for instance).6 Any increase in
population or demand for housing that could occur as an indirect result of the project would be
incremental in the context of population growth projected to occur in the City of Brentwood.
Therefore, the project is expected to have less-than-significant population and housing impacts.
11. Public Services
The Planning Area is already served by existing public service systems, including police and fire
services, schools and parks. The proposed project would restructure the City’s agricultural policies,
and would not result in the kind of large-scale development that would lead to a significant increase
in demand for the above-mentioned services. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant
impact upon public services.
12. Recreation
As previously noted, the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in housing or
population, and would therefore not lead to a significant increase in demand for recreational facilities
within the Planning Area. The project would not create a need for new parkland, nor would it cause
the deterioration of existing park facilities.
13. Transportation and Traffic
As previously noted, the proposed project could result in an incremental increase in traffic within the
Brentwood Planning Area. However, it is likely that the majority of new trips would be related to new
agri-tourism programs, and these local and regional trips could be offset by an associated decrease in
the number of long-distance truck trips (due to an increased focus on local consumers among
farmers).7,8 It is also possible that the introduction of new agricultural facilities or the expansion of
6
Roche, Patrick, 2008. Principal Planner, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development.
Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. October 2.
7
Stonebarger, Erick, 2008. op. cit.
8
King, Holly, 2008. op. cit.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\4-CEQAAssessment.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 53
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
IV. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS
existing facilities (particularly roadside farm stands or other structures related to agri-tourism) could
lead to parking and traffic impacts. The County would review all permits for new visitor-generating
facilities to ensure that they would not result in traffic hazards. It would be speculative to assess site-
specific traffic and transportation impacts in this Supplemental EIR.9,10
14. Utilities and Service Systems
The proposed project could lead to a small increase in water demand for farmland and new agricultu-
ral facilities. However, this increase would be incremental within the context of the overall growth
projected to occur within the Planning Area. It is also unlikely that the project would increase demand
for wastewater treatment so much that a new treatment facility or the expansion of existing facilities
would be required. The project is also not expected to conflict with applicable solid waste regulations.
Therefore, the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts upon utilities and service
systems.
9
Roche, Patrick, 2008. op. cit.
10
Stonebarger, Erick, 2008. op. cit.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\4-CEQAAssessment.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 54
V. REPORT PREPARATION
All references are available at the offices of the Lead Agency.
A. LEAD AGENCY
City of Brentwood
City of Brentwood
Community Development Department
104 Oak Street
Brentwood, CA 94513
Linda Maurer, Economic Development Manager
B. REPORT PREPARERS
LSA Associates, Inc., Consultant:
2215 Fifth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
David R. Clore, AICP, Principal-in-Charge
Adam Weinstein, AICP, Associate, Project Manager
Daniel Rinzler, Assistant Planner
Patty Linder, Graphics/Document Production
Jennifer Morris, Word Processing
C. REFERENCES
Association of Bay Area Governments, 2006. Projections 2007; Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay
Area to the Year 2035. December.
Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust and Contra Costa County Wine Grape and Olive Growers
Association, 2007. Contra Costa County/Brentwood Agricultural Marketing Plan. January.
Brentwood, City of, 1987. Brentwood Municipal Code. Website: qcode.us/codes/brentwood.
Accessed October 8, 2008.
Brentwood, City of, 2001. City of Brentwood General Plan. Updated to reflect Amendments through
January, 2006.
Brentwood, City of, 2008. Agricultural Enterprise Grant Program Application for Funds; Criteria for
Award Eligibility. Website: www.ci.brentwood.ca.us/pdf/new/extra_limited/Agricultural
EnterpriseGrant Application.pdf. Accessed September 25, 2008
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\5-ReportPrep.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 55
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
V. REPORT PREPARATION
California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2006. 2006
Field Report; 2004 Field Report; 2002 Field Report; County: Contra Costa. Website:
redirect.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/county_info_results.asp. Accessed September 29,
2008.
City Council Agenda Item 4, July 22, 2008. Receive and file a process report from the ad-hoc and
standing Agricultural Enterprise Committees. Prepared by: Linda Maurer, Economic
Development Manager; Submitted by: Erick Stonebarger, Councilmember, and Bob Brockman,
Vice Mayor.
Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California, 2007. CEQA Guidelines.
Contra Costa County, 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020. January 18.
Contra Costa County Agricultural Advisory Task Force, 2005. Improving the Economic Viability of
Farmers in Contra Costa County: Updating Roadside Stand Regulations and Allowing Value-
Added Agricultural Operations in the County’s Agricultural Core. Report and Recommenda-
tions prepared for the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. Approved February 17.
Contra Costa County, 2008a. Community Development Department, Advanced Planning Division.
Williamson Act Program. Website: www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/current/advance/
williamsonact/ index.htm. Accessed October 6.
Contra Costa County, 2008b. Contra Costa Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 88-20 Agricultural Farm
Stands and Farm Markets. Website: http://www.ordlink.com/codes/ccosta/_DATA/TITLE08/
Chapter_88_20_AGRICULTURAL_FAR.html. Accessed October 6.
Department of Conservation, 2008. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Website:
http://www.conserv.ca.gov/DLRP/fmmp/county_info_results.asp. Accessed October 6, 2008.
Department of Conservation, 2008. Williamson Act Easement Exchange Program. Website:
http://contracostaca.net/DocumentView.asp?DID=877. Accessed November 3.
Economic & Planning Systems, 2007. City of Brentwood Agricultural Enterprise Program Workshop
– Five Year Review (PowerPoint Presentation). January 23.
Economic and Planning Systems, 1999. Economic Analysis of Agricultural Land Values and
Mitigation Fee Scenarios.
Einhorb, Catrin, 2008. “Cutting Out the Middlemen, Shoppers Buy Slices of Farms” in The New York
Times. July 10.
EIP Associates, Fehr & Peers Associates, Gruen Gruen + Associates, and Moore Iacofano Goltsman,
2001. Final Environmental Impact Report; City of Brentwood General Plan Update. Prepared
for: City of Brentwood Community Development Department. June 25.
Evans, Edward, 2006. Value-Added Agriculture: Is It Right for me? EDIS document FE638, a
publication of the Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension
Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
May. Note: Mr. Evans is Assistant Professor, Food and Resource Economics Department,
Tropical Research and Education Center, Homestead, FL.
Fontana Farms, 2008. Website: www.fontanafarmsinc.com. Accessed October 9, 2008.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\5-ReportPrep.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 56
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
V. REPORT PREPARATION
Greenbelt Alliance, 2003. Contra Costa County: Smart Growth or Sprawl? An in-depth analysis of
the county’s sprawl threats and opportunities for smarter growth. Winter.
Maurer, Linda, 2008. Economic Development Manager, Community Development Department, City
of Brentwood. Agricultural Enterprise Program Scoping Session. PowerPoint presentation.
July 26.
Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG), 2001. City of Brentwood Agricultural Enterprise Program;
Final Report. Prepared for the City of Brentwood. August 28.
Ohmart, Jeri L., 2003. UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. Direct
Marketing with Value-added products (or: “Give me the biggest one of those berry tarts!”).
January.
Pollan, Michael, 2008. “Farmer in Chief.” New York Times Magazine. October 12.
Roberts, Ruth, 2008. “Trust secures 80 acres for agriculture” in Brentwood Press. February 22.
Sherbert, Erin, 2007a. “New rules may help farms blossom” in Contra Costa Times. February 18.
Sherbert, Erin, 2007b. “Generation gap a tough row to hoe for families; Children pursue other careers
rather than follow parents’ farming footsteps” in Contra Costa Times. April 29.
State of California, Department of Finance, 2008. E-5 City/County Population and Housing
Estimates. Website: www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5_2001-06.
Accessed September 9.
The Growers Collaborative, 2008. Website: www.caff.org/programs/growerscollaborative.shtml.
Accessed October 1.
The Planning Center, 1993. City of Brentwood General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
Prepared for City of Brentwood Community Development Department. July.
VanLandingham, John, 2007. “Roadside farm stands unleashed” in Brentwood Press. July 6.
Zurbrugg, Anita (American Farmland Trust) and Dick Esseks (University of Nebraska), 2008. Farm
Viability in DeKalb and Other Urbanizing Counties. PowerPoint presentation at the Dekalb
County Farm Bureau, Center for Agriculture. February 18.
D. INTERVIEWS
King, Holly, 2008. Director of Agricultural Programs, Great Valley Center. Personal communication
with LSA Associates, Inc. September 30.
Loux, Jeff, Ph.D, 2008. Director, Land Use and Natural Resource Program, UC Davis Extension.
Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. September 29.
Rhodes, Winston, AICP, 2008. Planning Manager, City of Pinole Planning Division. Personal
communication with LSA Associates. September 30.
Roche, Patrick, 2008. Principal Planner, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and
Development. Personal communication with LSA Associates, Inc. October 2.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\5-ReportPrep.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 57
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730 (AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION)
JANUARY 2009 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
V. REPORT PREPARATION
Stonebarger, Erick, 2008. Brentwood City Council Member. Personal communication with LSA
Associates, Inc. October 3.
P:\BRE0801 Brentwood Ag\Products\DEIR\Public\5-ReportPrep.doc (1/8/2009) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 58
APPENDIX A
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
DATE: July 16, 2008
TO: Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and Interested Persons
FROM: Linda Maurer, Economic Development Manager, City of Brentwood
Community Development Department
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A SUPPLEMENT TO THE GENERAL
PLAN UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The City of Brentwood Community Development Department is the lead agency for the
preparation of a Supplement to the General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report
(Supplemental EIR). The Supplemental EIR will evaluate environmental effects associated
with proposed changes to the City of Brentwood Agricultural Enterprise Program. The scope
of the Supplemental EIR has been proposed based upon a determination by the City of
Brentwood. The City of Brentwood has directed the preparation of this Supplemental EIR in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15163, the Supplemental EIR will contain only the information necessary
to make the General Plan Update EIR adequate for the project.
Once a decision is made to prepare an EIR, the lead agency must prepare a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) to inform all responsible and trustee agencies that an EIR will be
prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15082). The purpose of the NOP is to provide agencies
with sufficient information describing both the proposed project and the potential
environmental effects to enable the agencies to make a meaningful response as to the
scope and content of the information to be included in the Supplemental EIR. The City of
Brentwood is also soliciting comments on the scope of the EIR from interested persons.
SCOPING MEETING
A public scoping meeting will be held regarding the proposed Supplemental EIR for the
proposed changes to the Agricultural Enterprise Program on July 28, 2008 at 3 p.m. at the
City Council Chamber, 734 Third Street, Brentwood, California, 94513.
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project would change the City’s Agricultural Enterprise Program via
amendments to Chapter 17.730 of the City’s Municipal Code (Agricultural Land
Conservation) to support the economic viability of agriculture in Brentwood. The changes
would involve permitting a greater percentage of mitigation funds to be used to improve and
attract agricultural infrastructure in Brentwood and to create incentives for continued farming
in the area, such as place-based agricultural marketing, agri-tourism development, grants to
local co-ops, and loan programs that promote the planting of permanent crops. Applicants
who seek a discretionary land use entitlement that would permanently change agricultural
land over 1 acre in size to a non-agricultural use are required to grant an agricultural
conservation easement to the City or a City-approved land trust, or pay in-lieu fees to
protect agricultural land. Under the existing ordinance, at least 80 percent of collected in-lieu
mitigation funds must be used for the purchase of agricultural land and easements in the
City of Brentwood Agricultural Conservation Area or in the Contra Costa County Agricultural
Core Area (see Figure 1). A maximum of 20 percent of collected fees may be used for
administrative/monitoring costs. The fees used for administrative/monitoring costs may also
be used for agricultural enterprise programs.
Under the proposed project, 80 percent of mitigation funds may be used for a combination of
land/easement purchase and incentive-based programs and measures to encourage the
continuation of agricultural operations around Brentwood. These fees are required to be
used in the City of Brentwood Agricultural Conservation Area or in the Contra Costa County
Agricultural Core Area. Similar to the current ordinance, up to 20 percent of collected fees
may be used for administrative/monitoring costs. The objective of the project is to provide
more flexibility in the use of mitigation funds to ensure the long-term viability of agriculture
within and around the City’s planning area boundary.
The amendments to Chapter 17.730 could represent a substantial change to the agricultural
preservation provisions in the General Plan Update EIR (including Mitigation Measure LU-
6.1, Implementation of Recommended Measures from the Agricultural Enterprise Program).
The amendments could influence the effectiveness of the Agricultural Enterprise Program in
preserving farmland, and could be argued to result in secondary environmental effects. The
General Plan Update EIR (State Clearinghouse # 2000122013) was certified in 2002.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The environmental analysis in the EIR is anticipated to focus on: Land Use and Agricultural
Resources. This analysis will characterize farmland and other land use patterns in and
around the City and the environmental consequences of implementation of the proposed
changes to the Agricultural Enterprise Program (particularly as they relate to farmland
preservation). Potential secondary land use impacts, such as an increased need for farm
worker housing and land use conflicts, will also be analyzed. In addition, the Supplemental
EIR will address the project’s compatibility with applicable policies, including those
pertaining to preservation of agricultural land.
2
DISCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
In accordance with Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, an analysis of the project’s
cumulative impacts will be undertaken and discussed. In addition, pursuant to Section
21100(B)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines, the analysis will address the potential for growth-
inducing impacts of the proposed project, focusing on the potential for development of
farmland.
SUBMITTING COMMENTS
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed project is addressed and all
significant issues are identified, written comments are invited from all interested parties.
Written comments concerning the proposed CEQA analysis for the changes to the
Agricultural Enterprise Program should be directed to the name and address below:
Ms. Linda Maurer
City of Brentwood Community Development Department
104 Oak Street
Brentwood, CA 94513
(925) 516-5405
Fax (925) 516-5407
Written comments are due to the City of Brentwood at the location addressed above
by 5:00 p.m. on August 15, 2008.
3
REGIONAL LOCATION 113 Sacramento
80
505
80
99
Vacaville 5
Napa
Fairfield
29
12
37 680
101
Vallejo
Vallejo Suisun
City
780 Benicia PROJECT SITE
San 4
Rafael Pittsburg
242 Antioch
580 80 Concord
Clayton
1 Walnut Brentwood
Berkeley 24
Creek
Danville
Rd
San Francisco Oakland
580 680
Vasco
205
880 Tracy
580
Hayward Livermore
580 5
legend FIGURE 1
city of brentwood agricultural
conservation area
brentwood planning area Supplement to the General Plan Update EIR
county agricultural core area Brentwood Agricultural
0 .5 1
note: the majority of the city of brentwood agricultural conser-
Land Base Map
miles
vation area is also within the county agricultural core area.
SOURCE: ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS, INC.
I:\BRE0801 brentwood ag\figures\Fig_1.ai (07/1/08)
APPENDIX B
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17.730
OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 17.730 AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATIONPRESERVATION
PROGRAM
17.730.010 Purpose and findings.Findings
A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to implement the agricultural enterprise
land conservationpreservation policies contained in the Brentwood general plan General Plan
with a program programs designed to protect and conserve agricultural support preservation, and
provide appropriate programs for lands located within, or adjacent to the Brentwood planning
area Planning Area or its approved sphere of influence. This includes mitigating the loss of
productive agricultural lands converted for urban uses within the cityCity by permanently
protecting agricultural lands planned for agricultural use, by working with farmers who
voluntarily wish to place conservation easements on their land with fair compensation for such
easements, through the use of agricultural conservation easements or fee title purchase of lands
and permitting a transfer of agricultural credits (TAC) from “agricultural donor parcels” within
the TAC target area to “receiver parcels.” This also includes the development of programs that
create incentives for the continuation of agricultural operations. It is the policy of the City that
conservation easements and fee title purchase programs are important for the long term
protection of agricultural lands. It is further the policy that additional incentive-based programs
and measures should be taken to encourage the continuation and expansion of agricultural
operations, including but not limited to, place-based marketing to increase the value of the
agricultural crops grown around Brentwood, grants to fund local co-ops and marketing programs,
agri-tourism and agri-business development, as well as loan programs that promote the planting
of permanent crops and value-added production.
B. Findings. The city councilCity Council finds this chapter is necessary for the
following reasons: (1) to benefit the local economyviable and provide jobs; (2) East Contra Costa
County farmland active agricultural operations around the City’s urban edge provide unique
visual and economic benefits to the City; (2) agricultural land around Brentwood is of highly
productive quality; (3) the city is surrounded by productive farmland on the north, east and south
sides; (4) the continuation of agricultural operations preserves the existing landscape,
environmental and aesthetic resources of the area; (5) the Brentwood general planGeneral Plan
sets forth policies to preserve productive farmland, including the development of a program to
secure permanent agriculture on agricultural lands designatedand provide for agriculture in the
city and/or county general plan; (6) California is losing farmland at a rapid rate; (7) appropriate
programs; (4) loss of agricultural land is consistently determined to be a significant impact under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in development projects; (8) ); and (5) loss of
farmland to development is irreparable and agriculture is an important component of the regions
economy and rural community character; and (9) losing productive agricultural land will have a
cumulatively negative impact on air quality, traffic, noise, public services demands, and
aesthetics in the cityCity and in the countyCounty of Contra Costa.
It is the policy of the city to work cooperatively with Contra Costa County to preserve
agricultural land within or adjacent to the Brentwood planning area and its adopted sphere of
influence, beyond that land deemed necessary for development. It is further the policy of the city
to protect and conserve agricultural land in its vicinity, especially in its Agricultural
Conservation Area and Contra Costa. County core agricultural area south and east of the city’s
boundary. (Ord. 683 § 3 (part), 2001)
17.730.020 Definitions.
A. “Agricultural donor parcel” means a parcel of agricultural land from which agricultural
credits are transferred.
B. “Agricultural enterprise advisory committee” means a committee appointed by the city
council to assist with the implementation of the city’s agricultural enterprise program and
evaluate the effect of city policies on local growers and agricultural land owners.
A. C. “Agricultural land or farmland” for the purposes of this chapter means those land
areas of the county Contra Costa County specifically designated as agricultural
coreAgricultural Core (AC) or agricultural landsAgricultural Lands (AL) as defined in
the Contra Costa general planCounty General Plan; those land areas near the city
designated as agricultural conservation City designated as Agricultural Conservation
(AC) as defined in the Brentwood general planGeneral Plan; and/or other lands upon
which agricultural activities, uses, operations or facilities exist or could exist at the time
of adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter that contain Class I, II, III or IV soils
as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource
Conservation Service.
B. D. “Agricultural mitigation land” means agricultural land encumbered by a farmland
deed restriction, a farmland conservation easement or such other conservation mechanism
acceptable to the city.“Agricultural preservation” means those activities and programs
that preserve productive agricultural lands in Brentwood’s Planning Area. These
activities include programs to secure agricultural lands, as well as agricultural enterprise
programs that create incentives for the continuation of agriculture.
C. E. “Agricultural operationenterprise” means activities and programs that encourage
the continued use of agricultural lands, including, but not limited to marketing support for
area farmers, and grant and loan programs that reinvest in the agricultural economy,
(plantings of key crops or additional agricultural operations –wholesale and/or retail - to
make farming economically feasible). The following are examples of agricultural
enterprise programs:
1. Place-based marketing efforts to increase the value of products grown
in the Brentwood region, such as the certification program “Brentwood
Grown.”
2. Agri-tourism programs and activities that encourage visits to the
Brentwood region and benefit the local economy.
3. Investment in value-added infrastructure programs to promote growth
industries, such as wine and olive oil in Brentwood, including but not
limited to:
a. Funding for City-sponsored tasting rooms, incubators for
processing grapes and olives, and commercial kitchens.
b. Loan programs for the development of private facilities, such
as wineries, commercial kitchens and tasting rooms.
4. Loan programs to area farmers for the planting of permanent crops,
such as orchards and vines.
5. Marketing grants for local cooperatives and organizations.
D. “Agricultural operations” means normal and customary farming and agricultural
activities which may occur during any twenty-four 24-hour period of the day. Normal and
customary farming and agricultural activities include, but are not limited to, the
cultivation and tillage of the soil, the productions irrigation, cultivation, growing,
harvesting, and processing of any agricultural commodity for wholesale or retail markets,
including viticulture, horticulture, the keeping and raising of livestock, fur bearing
animals, fish or poultry, and any commercial agricultural practices, including value-
added production of an agricultural commodity, performed as incident to or in
conjunction with such activities including preparation for market, delivery to storage or
to market, or to carriers for transportation to market, or for retail sales allowed by zoning
on site.
E. F. “Farmland “Agricultural conservation easement” means an easement over certain
agricultural landlands designated in this chapter for the purpose of restricting its use to
agriculture.agricultural operations. The interest granted pursuant to a farmland an
agricultural conservation easement is an interest in land which is less than fee simple.
FarmlandAgricultural conservation easements shouldcan be permanent. However,
mitigation funds should be available to fund term easements at minimum lengths to be
determined by a new local land trust subject to the approval of the citythe City Council.
F. G. “Farmland deed restriction” means a recorded deed restriction, covenant or
condition which precludes the use of the agricultural land subject to the restriction for any
nonagricultural purposes1 use, operation or activity. The deed restriction shall provide
that the land subject to the restriction will permanently remain agricultural land unless
specified as a term easement as mentioned in this section“Fee title purchase” means a real
estate transaction in which the City or a qualified entity purchases the entire property fee
simple.
H. “Qualifying entity” means a nonprofit public benefit 501(c)3 corporation operating in
Contra Costa County for the purpose of conserving and protecting land in its natural, rural or
agricultural condition. The following entities currently are qualifying entities Contra Costa Land
Trust, John Muir Heritage Land Trust and American Farmland Trust. Other entities may be
approved by the city council from time to time.
G. I. “Receiver parcel” means a residentially zoned parcel within the city’s
jurisdiction to which agricultural credits are transferred.
H. J. “Transferable agricultural credit” means a potential transferable credit to
construct dwelling unit(s) in a city residential zoning district, which can only be exercised
when the agricultural credit has been transferred pursuant to the provisions of this section
from a donor to a receiver parcel and all other legal requirements are fulfilled. (Ord. 683
§ 3 (part), 2001)
I. “Qualified land trust” means a nonprofit public benefit 501(c)3 corporation operating in
Contra Costa County for the purpose of conserving and protecting land in its natural,
rural or agricultural condition. All land trusts or conservation groups must be approved
by the City Council or its designee to hold, administer or steward lands acquired by the
City.
J. “Qualified entity,” means any individual or group representing a property owner in the
agricultural areas identified for conservation. All entities must be approved by the City
Council or its designee to receive any financial benefits associated with an agricultural
easement or fee title purchase transaction.
17.730.030 Agricultural land mitigation requirements.
A. In order to mitigatePreservation Program and offset the loss of valuable farmland
resources, the cityRequirements
A. The City shall require agricultural land mitigationpreservation by any applicant
for a subdivision or any other discretionary land use entitlement which will permanently change
agricultural land over one acre in size within the city’s jurisdiction to any nonagricultural use.
The City shall impose a condition of approval requiring the applicant to comply with this
chapter.
B. Agricultural land mitigationpreservation shall be satisfied by one of the following
mechanisms:
1. Granting a farmland an agricultural conservation easement, a farmland deed
restriction or other farmland conservation mechanism (including fee title purchase by the city or
qualifying entity) to or for the benefit of the cityCity and/or a qualifying entityqualified land trust
approved by the cityCity on lands agricultural land deemed acceptable by the city. The
mitigation shall be required for agricultural land that is permanently converted to an urban use,
including any portion of the land used for park and recreation purposes, on a one to one land area
ratioCity. The easement shall encumber the exact acreage of the proposed entitlement,
including any land used for park and recreation purposes and may encumber land acquired by the
City and/or qualified land trust in fee; or
2. By payment Payment of an in-lieu fee based upon a formula for a one to one
land area ratio. The fee shall be established by city councilCity Council resolution and shall be
reviewed and adjusted periodically to ensure that the fee is adequate to offset the cost of
purchasing farmland conservation easements on a one to one ratio.. The fee shall be fixed for a
thirty-six-month period after enactment of this chapter. Thereafter the fee may be adjusted
annually but may not be increased by more than ten percent during any twelve-month period. For
non-residential projects, that the city council determines are important for economic
development purposes, some or all of the mitigation requirements of this chapter may be waived.
The in-lieu fee, paid to the city, shall be placed in a trust account and used solely for farmland
mitigation purposes. The interest from funds in this account shall also be used for farmland
protection purposes. 17.730.040 Eligible Land for Agricultural Conservation Easement
A limited portion, not to exceed twenty percent of the fees collected, may be used by the
city or city-approved qualifying entity for administrative costs associated with establishing,
monitoring, and managing farmland conservation easements. (Ord. 722 § . In the establishment
of any agricultural conservation easement, the City shall avoid the creation of any situation in
which a property owner who does not participate in the program, would have any access, utility
or infrastructure easements negatively impacted, unless the nonparticipating property owner
consents. In addition, any nonparticipating property owner shall not have their land unduly
impacted as to present or future development potential, by the creation of nonparticipating land
“islands” (where the nonparticipating land is completely surrounded by properties participating
in the program), unless the nonparticipating property owner consents.
B. The following minimum criteria shall be met for a property to be eligible for
placement in an agricultural conservation easement:
1. The property shall have adequate water supply to support viable agricultural use
on the land. The water supply for the land shall be protected in the agricultural conservation
easement;
2, 2002: Ord. 683 § . The property shall be of adequate size, configuration and location
to be viable for continued agricultural use; and
3 (part), 2001). The property must meet at least one of the following criteria:
a. The property must be located along a roadway and contain unique visual values;
or
b. The property must be contiguous with other areas sought for agricultural
protection which comprise a minimum of ten acres.
4. The property must be located in the following areas:
a. The Brentwood Agricultural Conservation Area as defined on the Brentwood
general plan land use map, which area shall be given first priority; or
b. The Contra Costa County Agricultural Core lands as defined by the Contra Costa
County General Plan; or
c. Agricultural land within the city limits that possess unique agricultural, visual,
historic or other important values may also be considered.
C. A property is ineligible for an agricultural conservation easement if one or both of
the two circumstances below apply:
1. The property is already subject to easements or physical conditions that legally or
practicably prevent modification of the property’s land use to a nonagricultural use; or
2. The property is currently encumbered by a conservation easement of any nature or
kind.
17.730.040 Procedure for establishment of transferable agricultural credits.
A. Transferable agricultural credits are eligible to be allocated to the property
owners of record of agricultural land within the approximately two thousand one hundred sixty
acre portion of the established Contra Costa County Agricultural Core Area, that is bounded by
Marsh Creek on the west, the East Contra Costa Irrigation District Main Canal on the north,
Sellers Avenue on the east, and Marsh Creek Road on the south except as noted in Exhibit 1 for
approximately one hundred sixty acres south of Marsh Creek Road. This area consists of donor
parcels and is identified in Exhibit 1 which is hereby attached and made part of the ordinance
codified in this chapter.
B. Transferable agricultural credits shall run with the land. Existing agricultural parcels in
the subject area, and over an acre in size are eligible to transfer two credits for each one acre of
agricultural land which is placed in a permanent conservation easement. In For parcels of land
that include fractional acreage, the calculation of agricultural credits, a fraction which is above
0.5 or larger shall be considered a full agricultural credit. (Ord. 683 § 3 (part), 2001)
17.730.050 Eligible lands to satisfy agricultural land mitigation requirements.
A. In the establishment of any conservation easements, the Agricultural Land Trust shall
avoid the creation of any situation in which a property owner who does not participate in the
program, would have any access, utility or infrastructure easements negatively impacted, unless
the nonparticipating property owner consents. In addition, any nonparticipating property owner
shall not have their land unduly impacted as to present or future development potential, by the
creation of nonparticipating land “islands” (where the nonparticipating land is completely
surrounded by properties participating in the program), unless the nonparticipating property
owner consents.
B. The following minimum criteria shall be met for a property to be eligible for placement
in an agricultural conservation easement or satisfy agricultural land mitigation requirements
identified within this chapter:
1. The property shall have adequate water supply to support the historic agricultural use on
the land. The water supply for the land shall be protected in the farmland conservation easement,
the farmland deed restriction or other document evidencing the agricultural mitigation; or
2. The property is of adequate (Example: Parcel size, configuration and location to be
viable for continued agricultural use.
C. In addition, a property that meets any or all of the following criteria can be considered as
agricultural mitigation land:
1. The mitigation land is located along a roadway and contains unique visual values;
2. The mitigation land is not strategically located for other economic development
purposes;
3. The mitigation land is contiguous with other areas sought for agricultural
protection which comprise a minimum of ten: 19.8 acres; and x 2 = 39.6 credits, rounded to 40
credits; Parcel size: 19.6 acres x 2 = 39.2 credits, rounded to 39 credits). (Ord. 683 § 3 (part),
2001)
4. The mitigation land provides open space and wildlife habitat values.
D. The lands to be conserved are to be located in the following areas:
1. First priority will be given to the Brentwood 17.730.050 Terms of Agricultural
Conservation Area as defined on the Brentwood general plan land use map.Easement
2. Lands to be conserved may also be located in the following areas: the Contra Costa
County agricultural core lands as defined on the Contra Costa County general plan urban limit
line map.
3. Agricultural land within the city limits that possess unique agricultural, visual, historic or
other important values may also be considered.
E.
A property is ineligible to serve as agricultural mitigation land if one or both of the two
circumstances below apply.
1. The property is already subject to easements or physical conditions that legally or
practicably prevent modification of the property’s land use to a nonagricultural use.
2. The property is currently encumbered by a conservation easement of any nature or kind.
(Ord. 683 § 3 (part), 2001)
17.730.060 Requirements of easements or other instruments.
A. To preserve agricultural land, all. All owners of the land property shall
execute the appropriate an agricultural conservation easement or other legal instrument. The
instrument shall be in recordable form and contain an accurate legal description setting forth the
description of the land. The instrument shall prohibit any activity that substantially impairs or
diminishes the agricultural productivity of the land. The instrument shall protect the existing
water rights and retain them with the agricultural mitigation land.
B. The cityCity or a qualifying entity approved by the cityqualified land trust shall
pay the costs of administering, monitoring and enforcing the instrument. The cityCity shall be a
named beneficiary under any instrument conveying the interest in the agricultural mitigation land
to a qualifying entityqualified land trust, unless waived by the city councilCity Council.
C. Interests in agricultural mitigation land the property shall be held in trust by a
qualifying entity and/or the city in perpetuityqualified land trust and/or the City.
D. If judicial proceedings finda court of law finds that the public interests described
in this section of this chapter can no longer reasonably be fulfilled as to an interest acquired, the
interest in the agricultural mitigation land may be extinguished through sale, and the proceeds
shall be redeposited into the City’s mitigation fund account, and be used to acquire interests in
othercontinue agricultural mitigation land in Contra Costa County,preservation programs as
approved by the cityCity and provided in this chapter.
E. If any qualifying entityqualified land trust owning an interest in agricultural
mitigation land ceases to exist, the duty to hold, administer, monitor and enforce the interest shall
pass to the city. (Ord. 683 § 3 (part), 2001)City.
17.730.070 Procedure for transfer of agricultural credits.
Agricultural credits may be transferred to any residential zone within the city. Approval by
the city must be based on findings that the transfer is consistent with the general plan and
provides for the permanent conservation of the donor parcel as farmland. The transfer of
agricultural credits shall be authorized as part of a development agreement and shall be subject to
all city policies, regulations and codes, including the requirement to obtain development
entitlements for the receiver parcel. A development agreement application shall include both the
donor and receiver parcel.
B. When agricultural credits are transferred from a donor site, the corresponding acreage
generating the transferred credits shall be maintained as farmland subject to conditions specified
in the farmland conservation easement deed restriction. Partial transfer of allocated credits for
donor parcels may be allowed and any remaining credit allocation balance shall be monitored
until all credits are transferred.
C. The number of agricultural credits which may be transferred to a receiver parcel shall
not exceed the maximum density range specified in the general plan.
D. The city council may adopt rules and procedures it considers necessary to implement
these provisions to facilitate the transfer of allowable development. Such rules and procedures
shall be adopted by resolution. (Ord. 683 § 3 (part), 2001)
17.730.080 City of Brentwood agricultural enterprise program advisory committee.
The city council should consider creating an agricultural enterprise advisory committee to
advise the council on how city policy affects local growers and landowners. (Ord. 683 § 3 (part),
2001)
17.730.090 Formation of local land trust.
A new local land trust should be formed pursuant to Sections 1.12, 1.13, 1.14, 1.15 and any
other relevant sections of the Agricultural Enterprise Program Final Report, dated August 16,
2001. (Ord. 683 § 3 (part), 2001)
17.730.100 17.730.060 Use of In-Lieu Fees
The in-lieu fee paid to the City shall be placed in a separate account, and funds from this
account, as well as interest earned shall be used to fund conservation easements, fee title
purchases by the City, as well as the agricultural preservation and enterprise programs that are
consistent with the land use designations and policies included in the City’s General Plan and
Municipal Code. Twenty percent of the fees collected may be used for administrative purposes
and be placed in a separate account.
17.730.070 Precedence
This chapter shall take precedence over any other provision of the Brentwood Municipal
Code in conflict with this chapter.
17.730.080 Monitoring
On a periodic basis the community development director shall publish a report
delineating the activities undertaken pursuant to the requirements of this chapter and an
assessment of these activities. The report shall list and report on the status of all lands and
easements acquired under this chapter. (Ord. 683 § 3 (part), 2001)
17.730.110 090 Violations and enforcement.; Enforcement
Any person or entity who violates any provision of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of
an infraction and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding the
maximum prescribed by law. In addition, any person or entity who violates any provision of this
article shall be liable to the transferee of the property for actual damages. In an action to enforce
such liability or fine, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees. (Ord. 683
§ 3 (part), 2001)
17.730.120 Precedence.
This chapter shall take precedence over all ordinances or parts of ordinances or resolutions or
parts of resolutions in conflict herewith. (Ord. 683 § 3 (part), 2001)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. CARLSBAD PALM SPRINGS SAN LUIS OBISPO
2215 FIFTH STREET 510.540.7331 TEL FORT COLLINS POINT RICHMOND SEATTLE
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94710 510.540.7344 FAX FRESNO RIVERSIDE S. SAN FRANCISCO
IRVINE ROCKLIN
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 26, 2009
TO: Casey McCann, Community Development Director, City of Brentwood
FROM: Adam Weinstein, Daniel Rinzler, and David Clore
SUBJECT: Response to Comments on the Amendments to Chapter 17.730 (Agricultural Land
Conservation) of the Brentwood Municipal Code Supplemental EIR
This memorandum provides a response to written comments received on the Amendments to Chapter
17.730 (Agricultural Land Conservation) of the Brentwood Municipal Code Supplemental EIR
(SEIR). The formal public review period for the Draft SEIR extended from January 12, 2009 to
February 26, 2009. The agencies and organizations that submitted comments on the Draft EIR, and
the public hearing held before the Brentwood Planning Commission on February 3, 2009 at which
individuals and commissioners submitted comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR, are listed
below.
Letter A: Greenbelt Alliance (February 26, 2009)
Letter B: Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust (February 3, 2009)
Letter C: Brentwood Planning Commission Public Hearing Comments (February 3, 2009)
This memorandum, together with the Draft SEIR, constitute the Final SEIR for the Amendments to
Chapter 17.730 (Agricultural Land Conservation) of the Brentwood Municipal Code.
The comments contained within the following letters are enumerated and discussed below. These
comments are numbered in the margin of the letters.
PLANNING | ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES | DESIGN
Letter
A
1
2
3
Letter
A
cont.
3
cont.
4
5
6
Letter
A
6
cont.
7
8
Letter
A
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Letter A: Greenbelt Alliance (February 26, 2009)
Response A-1: This introductory comment is noted. The issues that this comment raises are
expanded upon in the body of the letter.
Response A-2: This comment indicates support for the policy recommendations on page 48
of the Draft SEIR, which are intended to provide additional oversight of the
City’s Agricultural Enterprise Program (AEP). However, it should be
emphasized that these policy recommendations (which are based on
independent research by LSA and interviews with agriculture and land use
experts) are not necessary to reduce the impacts of the project on farmland
preservation. As discussed on page 48 of the Draft SEIR, the project would
not result in new significant impacts to farmland protection or increase the
severity of impacts to farmland previously identified in the General Plan
Update EIR. Therefore, no mitigation is required pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, City decision makers will
consider incorporating these policy recommendations into the project when
they evaluate the project.
Response A-3: This comment states that the potential redirection of farmland mitigation
funds away from the purchase of conservation easements and towards the
development of agricultural enterprise programs would be considered a new
significant impact under CEQA.
The comment is correct in suggesting that the proposed project could allocate
additional funds to enterprise programs compared to the City’s existing
farmland mitigation program. However, the Draft SEIR concludes that this
re-allocation of resources would not result in new significant environmental
effects to farmland protection. As noted on page 47 of the Draft SEIR, the
current AEP has not resulted in the purchase of a significant number of
conservation easements, and its prospects for success in the future are limited
due to a tight supply of conservation easements, a relatively low per-acre
farmland mitigation fee, and economic pressures that are beyond the
influence of local policies.
A 5-year review of the AEP found that the mitigation fees collected from the
remaining developable land within the Planning Area would allow the City to
purchase conservation easements on less than 7 percent of the City’s
Agricultural Conservation Area. Protection of this relatively small acreage
would not ensure the continued viability of farming around Brentwood. This
finding suggests the need for changes to the existing farmland preservation
program to ensure the continued viability of local agriculture through means
beyond the purchase of conservation easements. Research conducted by LSA
and the City concludes that greater investment in enterprise programs (in
conjunction with the continued acquisition of conservation easements) has
the potential to expand the effectiveness of the City’s limited farmland
protection program. In the context of an existing program that is not expected
to be successful in sustaining working farmland around Brentwood in the
6
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
long-term, the Draft SEIR finds that the proposed project would not result in
new significant farmland conversion impacts, nor would it result in a
substantial increase in the severity of farmland conversion impacts
previously identified in the General Plan Update EIR. It is also important to
note that the farmland protection policies in the 2001 General Plan Update
require the preservation of working agricultural lands, not simply open space
with agricultural value. Therefore, the purchase of conservation easements
over land that functions as open space but is not working farmland would not
be considered adequate mitigation of impacts to farmland.
Response A-4: Please refer to Response A-3. As noted on page 2 of the Draft SEIR, a
Supplemental EIR is intended to evaluate changes to a project that was
evaluated in a certified EIR, in this case the 2001 General Plan Update EIR
(State Clearinghouse # 2000122013), when these project changes could
result in new or more substantial impacts – or require new or altered
mitigation measures or project alternatives – beyond those already identified
in the certified EIR. As noted in Response A-3, the proposed changes to the
Municipal Code have the potential to increase the effectiveness of farmland
protection compared to the City’s existing farmland protection program.
However, the impact to farmland protection identified in the 2001 General
Plan Update EIR would remain significant and unavoidable. The finding in
the Draft SEIR is not that development in Brentwood would not continue to
result in a significant impact to farmland, but that the proposed changes to
the Municipal Code would not exacerbate the existing significant unavoid-
able impact. As noted above, the redirection of funds to enterprise programs
would not substantially worsen the already-identified impact in the context of
the relative ineffectiveness of the existing program and independent research
that shows the importance of enterprise programs in sustaining long-term
farming operations.
Response A-5: Please refer to Responses A-3 and A-4.
Response A-6: Please see Responses A-2 and A-4, regarding the impact findings in the Draft
SEIR. This comment also makes a series of recommendations for mitigation
measures to reduce the project’s impacts on farmland. As noted in Response
A-2, the project would not result in new or more severe impacts to farmland
beyond the impact to farmland identified in the General Plan Update EIR.
Therefore, no mitigation is required by CEQA.
The suggestions made in the comment for improving the project will be
considered by City decision makers when they evaluate the project. No
explanation or rationale is offered for the comment’s suggestion that at least
70 percent of mitigation funds be directed to conservation easements. City
staff and decision makers, who have the most thorough understanding of
local agricultural conditions and constraints to farming, would be best suited
to identifying the relative allocation of mitigation funds between enterprise
programs and conservation. The SEIR’s authors agree that land preservation
7
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
should be prioritized, as noted under “Policy Recommendations” on page 48
of the Draft SEIR.
The SEIR’s authors also agree with the intent of the other suggestions listed
in the comment. Page 48 of the Draft SEIR is hereby modified to incorporate
select suggestions (not already included in the recommended measures), as
shown below. Underlined text indicates added language. These changes do
not involve the identification of new or more severe environmental impacts,
or mitigation measures; therefore, recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not
required:
As noted in Chapter II, Project Description, the City would develop
an implementation plan as part of the project in order to establish
protocols for identifying, prioritizing, and funding specific enterprise
programs. The following policy recommendations could strengthen
such an implementation plan and ensure that the AEP focuses on the
long-term continuation of farming in the Planning Area:
• Enterprise funding under the AEP should be in the form of
low- or no- interest loans, and the City should require audits and
detailed record-keeping for all loan recipients.
• Create a permanent Agricultural Advisory Committee to
serve as a liaison to area growers, and to provide guidance on the
mitigation program and other policy matters concerning agriculture.
• Ensure that all enterprise projects are aimed at the long-term
continuation of farming. Develop a set of criteria to be used to judge
loan applications for enterprise projects. The use of funds to develop
permanent, communal, City-owned infrastructure to sustain
agriculture (commercial kitchens, olive presses) should be
prioritized.
• Continue to prioritize land preservation (e.g. conservation
easements or fee title purchase of lands) over enterprise programs,
particularly if the land market and/or farmers become more amenable
to preservation efforts.
• Consider requiring that conservation easements be sold or
granted as a condition of obtaining enterprise funding.
• Consider increasing the per-acre agriculture land mitigation
fee to better reflect the market value of conservation easements.
• The City should support County efforts to reduce uncertainty
in defining and amending the Urban Limit Line, and the AEP should
be crafted to avoid fragmentation of agricultural land and the exten-
sion of urban services beyond the Urban Limit Line.
• Define “place-based marketing” and “value-added infra-
structure” as part of the Municipal Code amendments.
• Create a monitoring plan with specific goals, conservation/
preservation priorities, benchmarks, and timing to ensure the success
8
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
of the AEP. A protocol should be established for modifying the
implementation plan if its subsequent effectiveness is insufficient.
Response A-7: This comment states that the cumulative analysis in the Draft SEIR must
consider that the proposed project could set a precedent for farmland
mitigation programs in other jurisdictions throughout northern California.
CEQA Guidelines section 15355 defines cumulative impacts as “two or more
individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or
which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” The cumulative
analysis must consider the proposed project in light of other past, current, or
probable future projects. As noted on page 48 of the Draft SEIR, the authors
are unaware of any similar efforts at restructuring land preservation or
farming enhancements to which the proposed project would contribute in a
cumulative manner. It would be speculative to assume that other farmland
preservation programs in northern California would be modified in response
to the proposed project (i.e., that it would – to use the comment’s
terminology – be “precedent-setting”). Our research suggests that most
programs are customized to local conditions and respond specifically to local
constraints to agricultural operations and land conservation. Therefore, it is
not expected that other programs would adopt the changes proposed as part
of the project without evaluating the potential effectiveness of these changes
in the context of local conditions. For this reason, the cumulative analysis in
the Draft SEIR concludes that the proposed project would not result in cumu-
latively considerable significant impacts relating to the conversion of
agricultural land.
Response A-8: This comment suggests that new language proposed to be included in
Chapter 17.730 of the Brentwood Municipal Code as part of the proposed
project would be overly restrictive, and would weaken the City’s farmland
preservation program. The comment notes that new restrictions would
include a requirement that lands for which a conservation easement is
purchased must be located on a major roadway and contain unique visual
values, and be contiguous to properties with easements, and that the
easement would not result in undue impacts to present or future development
potential unless the property owner consents.
The City has decided to rescind the language to which the comment refers
and replace it with language previously included in Chapter 17.730 of the
Municipal Code. Specifically, Chapter 17.730.040, “Eligible Land for
Agricultural Conservation Easement,” will be deleted from the proposed
revisions, and the previously-included Chapter 17.730.050, “Eligible lands to
satisfy agricultural land mitigation requirements,” will be returned to the
Code. Thus, the language that the commenter believes would be overly
restrictive would be removed, and the City would continue to use existing
eligibility requirements to evaluate the suitability of land for conservation
easements.
9
Letter
B
1
2
Letter
B
cont.
3
4
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Letter B: Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust (February 3, 2009)
Response B-1: This introductory comment, which explains the purpose, history, and
achievements of the Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust, is noted.
Response B-2: The comment, which supports the idea that the AEP should include both land
conservation and enterprise programs, is noted.
Response B-3: The comment recommends that the City create a committee of various
agricultural stakeholders to oversee the appropriation of funds for enterprise
projects under the AEP. This comment is noted. The Draft SEIR authors
agree that such a committee would be helpful in effectively implementing the
AEP. The Policy Recommendations on page 48 of the Draft SEIR include a
similar suggestion: the creation of a permanent Agricultural Advisory
Committee to provide guidance on policy matters concerning agriculture.
Although the proposed project does not specifically call for the creation of
such a committee, the City would develop an implementation plan that would
establish protocols for identifying, prioritizing, and funding specific enter-
prise programs as part of the project. City decision makers will consider the
particular ways that it wishes to ensure proper oversight of enterprise funding
allocation – possibly including the creation of an oversight committee, as
recommended in the Draft SEIR – when the project is evaluated.
Response B-4: Please see Response A-8.
12
Letter
C
See Agenda
Item 4 on p. 5
Letter
C
cont.
Letter
C
cont.
Letter
C
cont.
Letter
C
cont.
1
2
3
Letter
C
cont.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Letter
C
cont.
11
12
13
14
15
Letter
C
cont.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
End of Agenda
Item 4
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Letter C: Brentwood Planning Commission Public Hearing Comments (February 3, 2009)
Response C-1: Commissioner Weber asked if fees collected by the East County Fee and
Finance Authority from agricultural operations could be used to support
agricultural infrastructure through the AEP. Linda Mauer, Economic
Development Director for the City, responded to the comment as part of the
public hearing. This comment concerns the policy framework of the
proposed project, and does not address the adequacy of the Draft SEIR. City
decision makers will consider this and other policy issues when the project is
evaluated.
Response C-2: This comment is a continuation of the previous comment. Please see
Response C-1.
Response C-3: Commissioner Stirling asked if the City would impose standard infrastructure
requirements for agricultural enterprise projects located outside the City’s
Sphere of Influence (SOI). Ms. Mauer responded to the comment, explaining
that the proposed project is intended to be consistent with Contra Costa
County’s agricultural enterprise initiatives outside the SOI, particularly
improvements to agricultural zoning.
Response C-4: Commissioner Bristow referred to a recommendation contained in the letter
that the Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust (BALT) submitted (referred to as
Letter B in this memo) to form a committee made up of agricultural
stakeholders to oversee the appropriation of funds for enterprise projects
under the AEP. Please see Response B-3, which addresses this comment.
Response C-5: This comment refers to a concern raised in Letter B, which is addressed in
Response A-8.
Response C-6: This comment is a continuation of the previous comment. Please see
Response A-8.
Response C-7: Commissioner Bristow asked about a policy recommendation on page 48 of
the Draft SEIR to “consider requiring that conservation easements be sold or
granted as a condition of obtaining enterprise funding.” Ms. Mauer
responded to the comment. This recommendation was included in the SEIR
to ensure that the preservation of farmland is prioritized as part of the AEP.
As noted in Response A-2, the policy recommendations in the Draft SEIR are
not necessary to reduce the impacts of the project on farmland preservation.
However, City decision makers will consider incorporating these policy
recommendations into the project when they evaluate the project.
Response C-8: This comment is a continuation of the previous comment. Ms. Mauer
responded to the comment. Please see Response C-7.
Response C-9: Commissioner Bristow asked whether the AEP would restrict funding for
enterprise projects to farmers. Ms. Mauer responded to this comment, noting
21
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
that City decision makers will consider this issue when they evaluate the
project.
Response C-10: Commissioner Bristow asked why the proposed project would remove
restrictions placed on fees already collected under the City’s farmland
mitigation program. As noted on page 15 of the Draft SEIR, the existing AEP
requires that at least 80 percent of collected in-lieu mitigation funds be used
for the purchase of agricultural land easements, and that a maximum of 20
percent of collected fees may be used for administrative/monitoring costs.
Under the proposed project, at least 80 percent of funds from in-lieu
mitigation fees would be used for a combination of land/easement purchase
and incentive-based enterprise programs. In addition, this revised fee
allocation would also apply to mitigation fees already collected under the
current AEP, essentially changing the mitigation measure for already-
approved projects.
Ms. Mauer noted that removing the existing program’s restriction on already-
collected farmland mitigation fees would allow the revised AEP to be as
effective as possible at preserving agriculture in Brentwood.
Response C-11: Commissioner Cushing asked if other local governments have adopted other
measures similar to the AEP. Ms. Mauer responded to this comment,
describing the surveys of other local agricultural preservation programs that
that the City undertook when considering changes to the AEP.
Response C-12: Commissioner Cushing asked for further explanation of the City’s vision for
the AEP. Ms. Mauer responded to this comment, noting that BALT had
helped secure two recent conservation easements and discussing how the
proposed changes to the Brentwood Municipal Code could help farmers
respond to challenges in the local economic climate for agriculture.
Response C-13: Commissioner Cushing asked if the proposed project would conflict with
County regulations. Ms. Mauer noted that the project would not conflict with
County policies or regulations, and that the City continues to work with
County staff on agricultural issues.
Response C-14: Commissioner Cushing asked if the City had pursued lobbying efforts to
support local agriculture. Ms. Mauer indicated that Kathryn Lyddan,
executive director of BALT, could better answer questions about marketing
and lobbying efforts on behalf of Brentwood farmers.
Response C-15: Commissioner Bristow expressed concern over the potential for farmers to
stop farming activities after they accept a conservation easement on their
land. Ms. Mauer responded to this comment, noting that the existing standing
committee that oversees the conservation easement program considers this
issue when reviewing applications for potential easements. As noted in
Response A-3, the farmland protection policies in the 2001 General Plan
Update require the preservation of working agricultural lands, not simply
22
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
open space with agricultural value. Therefore, the purchase of conservation
easements over land that functions as open space but is not working farmland
would not be considered adequate mitigation of impacts to farmland. City
decision makers will consider this issue the when they evaluate the project.
Response C-16: Commissioner Weber asked whether the City included nonprofit advocacy
groups such as the Greenbelt Alliance on the Draft SEIR distribution list. Ms.
Mauer responded to this comment, noting that the City had included the
Greenbelt Alliance as well as other local, regional, and national land
conservation groups on the Draft SEIR distribution list. A letter submitted by
the Greenbelt Alliance is included as Letter A of this memo.
Response C-17: Commissioner Weber asked if the proposed project would include a
provision to support farmers that produce organic fruits and vegetables. Ms.
Mauer replied that City decision makers would consider this
recommendation when they evaluate the project.
Response C-18: John Harvey, a board member of the Greenbelt Alliance, summarized several
comments which were included in the Greenbelt Alliance’s comments on the
Draft SEIR in Letter A. Please see Responses A-1 through A-8, which
address these comments.
Response C-19: Commissioner Stirling recommended that the City work with farmers and
developers to preserve the rural character of Brentwood. The comment,
which does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR, is noted.
Response C-20: Commissioner Bristow supported the aspect of the proposed project that
would allow farmland mitigation fees to be available for enterprise projects
for small farmers. City decision makers will consider these policy issues
when the project is evaluated. Commissioner Bristow also recommended that
Planning Commissioners be added to the ad hoc Agricultural Enterprise
Committee. The comment is noted.
Response C-21: Commissioner Cushing made a series of recommendations regarding how the
City should administer the AEP and improve the viability of agriculture in
Brentwood. These comments are noted. City decision makers will consider
these policy issues when the project is evaluated.
Response C-22: Commissioner Cushing noted that the examples of value-added agricultural
programs included on pages 42 and 43 of the Draft SEIR were from farms
that have been operational for many years. The comment, which does not
pertain to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR, is noted.
Response C-23: Chairperson Gildersleeve recommended that Planning Commissioners be
added to the ad hoc Agricultural Enterprise Committee. City decision makers
will consider these policy issues when the project is evaluated. Commission-
er Gildersleeve also indicated support for agricultural tourism that introduces
children from cities to farming in Brentwood. The comment is noted.
23
Agriculture Survey (conducted July 2009)
Surveys Mailed: 1,255
Surveys Returned: 120
Surveys Used in Tally: 102 (18 were irrelevant to the data being collected)
Executive Summary
Under direction from the Agricultural Enterprise Committee, the Economic Development Division mailed out 1,255 surveys to residents in the Agricultural Core. The survey advised residents that funds may
be used to provide loans and grant programs to farmers to ensure their operation remains sustainable. The survey was primarily focused on seeking information from the farming community on what types
of items would be of value to the agricultural economy.
Questions Asked Tally Ranked
Well Repair or Replacement 54/102 1
Green Energy Technology (e.g. solar) 51/102 2
Barn or Other Ancillary Structures 48/102 3
Wineries or Tasting Rooms 47/102 4
Place Based Agricultural Marketing (Brentwood Grown)
Place Based Agricultural Marketing (Brentwood Grown) 46/102 5
Farming Equipment 40/102 6
Agriculture Tourism Development 40/102 6
Market Development for Local Products (schools, restaurants, hospital, etc.) 40/102 6
Permanent Crop Funding 37/102 7
Farm Stand Construction or Renovation 34/102 8
Agriculture Research 34/102 8
Grants to Local Organizations (e.g. Harvest Time Map) 34/102 8
Farming Co‐ops 34/102 8
Direct Marketing Programs 32/102 9
Soil Amendments 29/102 10
Commercial Kitchen Co‐op 28/102 11
Retail Venue for Value‐Added Products 22/102 12
Labeling Equipment 20/102 13
Product Development 20/102 13
Canning Equipment 16/102 14
