After months of effort by the agricultural community, it all came down to one afternoon and evening hearing on Seotember 11 at the Marin Board of Supervisors on the contentious content of the 2007 Countywide Plan (CWP). Each of Marin County's Supervisors had stated, privately and publicly, their support of agriculture. So those who grow your food looked forward to finally having the opportunity to present their concerns publicly to a body that would respect and understand them. But, unfortunately, that was not to be.
During the supervisors' deliberations, many of the important issues raised by the Agricultural community were either denied, not examined closely enough for the concerns to be addressed adequately, or omitted from the discussion entirely.

The day was drawn out almost beyond most people's tolerance level. Opportunities for Farm Bureau leaders, for example, to speak were cut short and the deliberations at the end of the evening skipped back and forth to the extent that some of the supervisors couldn't even keep up. The board itself became somewhat punchy after the long day, laughing during the discussion of one of the most sensitive and important issues, that of restricting residences. One board member left before the deliberations on Ag issues even began, and others flippantly remarked that they wished they could go home too.

In its disorderly deliberations, the Board did not even mention several of the ag community's concerns, let alone address them satisfactorily. These included CWP language giving the County complete discretionary power to extract mandatory, perpetual conservation easements, and to require capital investment such as fencing, riparian habitat restoration and water recharge projects in exchange for building a larger house. They didn't discuss the restriction on subdivision that could make intergenerational transfer of property impossible. They didn't touch on the onerous requirement for new agriculturalists to have their personal business plans examined by the government, who would then judge whether or not they could build a house.

Following the board's supportive accolades for agriculture, farmers and ranchers had expected more. After all, they're the only ones who have a whole section of the CWP beating up on them, regulating their lives and businesses. The very existence of agriculture depends on policies outlined in the CWP. Why, then, are farmers and ranchers being treated like second class citizens? These stakeholders should have been given a respectful, manageable, focused hearing. Instead they had to try to make their points in between comments on the future of salmon habitat, the extent of the Baylands Corridor, air quality, airport logistics and global warming.

How did this happen? When Farm Bureau members discovered that the hearing on the Agricultural Element would be combined with testimony on Natural Systems and the Baylands Corridor, they asked for a separate hearing. They were denied. This followed their exclusion from the very Working Group that had drafted the policies for the agricultural element of the plan, and months of hearings at the Planning Commission level where their concerns had actually been belittled and rebuffed.

They finally deserved some focused attention. Instead, the long, drawn-out, six-hour hearing on Sept. 11 was chaotic. Because so many people wanted to speak, time ran out, and Board President Steve Kinsey began giving people less and less time. By the time Farm Bureau's president, Mike Gale, was allowed to speak, his time was cut so short that he was unable to make any of his intended points. Dominic Grossi, Farm Bureau's vice president, was also cut off before making all of his comments. Many farmers and ranchers had taken time off to be there, in spite of the fact that this is an especially busy time of year in their businesses. Because of the lateness of the hour, many Ag representatives had to leave before getting their now-limited opportunity to speak. It felt to many of those interviewed like an intentional action of Kinsey to marginalize the Ag community. They had been blindsided again.

One of the biggest concerns of West Marin Agriculture has been proposed trails on private Ag land. At the hearing, there was overwhelming opposition to these trails, including Robert Berner, Executive Director of MALT, and representatives from all the environmental organizations. But even that consensus wasn't enough to convince Supervisor Kinsey to look anew at this issue.

Kinsey agreed to take out the new proposed trails that had been drawn on the maps with no legitimate basis at all (i.e. from his own desire for hiking trails on private land), but he refused to remove proposed trails on Ag lands that were part of the 1994 Countywide Plan as well as three new regional trails where they crossed ag lands. Although he conceded that trails should be sited on public rights-of-way, and that the County should no longer try to extract trail easements in the development permit process, he made it clear that if the County wants a trail, it intends to get a trail, even if by eminent domain, and regardless of whether or not it is on private land. Anticipating this, new language was offered saying that trails on Ag land should be located "preferably along fence or property lines." Do cattle know the location of property lines? Will foot and mouth disease introduced by a hiker's shoes along a fence line be less likely to cause an economic catastrophe? Obviously the County doesn't understand the nature of a grazing operation. Does the CWP say "we won't put trails on private agricultural property without the landowner's consent?" No, it does not.

The ability to build a house or add residential space didn't fare much better. Although Kinsey has removed the "aggregate cap" and increased the size of any one house to 8,500 square feet, it doesn't really make a difference because new language in the CWP requires that unfair conditions be met in order to build anything, including a room addition. The County will essentially now have the ability to put an "aggregate cap" at zero through the use of vague and arbitrary language requiring that "current or future agricultural use" won't be diminished. What does that mean? By what measure? And who's to be the judge?

All the restrictions related to house size are based on a faulty premise: County officials, including Kinsey and Community Development Agency Director Alex Hinds, are convinced that agricultural lands will be gobbled up by rich "dot.com-ers" to create estate homes, even calling it a "trend" in the CWP, despite the fact that no agricultural land has been lost to this type of residential development in Marin. Only one person from the Ag community (who already has her own big house) spoke in favor of restricting houses with a cap, a position decidedly not shared by Marin County Farm Bureau or any other rancher, farmer or landowner who spoke.

CWP language states that any residential development above 4,000 square feet shall be subject to "discretionary review," a term that sends a shiver down the spine of anyone trying to get a building permit. Any time you have "discretionary review" for a proposed development, meaning "whatever we feel like," you can expect time delays and more money out of your pocket, and the real possibility that your application will be denied.

Supervisors' comments during the hearing would lead one to believe that they and the agricultural representatives were all on the same page. Hal Brown said that "The Board really values agriculture and wants to help." Susan Adams says she supports a "strong agricultural heritage." Charles McGlashan said that the board should do what they can to streamline production to benefit "locavores" (people who only eat food grown locally).

There were a few other "wins" for the Ag community. Kinsey declared that there was no intent to require the removal of all invasive, exotic species from agricultural lands, and the CWP clarifies that clustering of non-ag structures need not be limited to one area.

At the end of the day, though, ranchers and growers felt marginalized once again, and worry that new retooled language will be sprung on them at the last minute without their concerns addressed, and without providing them the time or the forum to respond and to really be heard. They deserve more respect and consideration from the County than this. Let's hope that the Supervisors will finally "walk their talk" and listen carefully to the concerns of West Marin's agricultural representatives.