Full EIR Needed For Proposed D'Arrigo Brothers Factory

November 24, 2003

Luis A. Osorio, Senior Planner
[Sent By US Postal Mail and FAX – 831-755-5487]
Monterey County Planning & Building Inspection Department
2620 First Avenue
Marina, CA 93933

RE: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for D’Arrigo Brothers Use Permit

Location: 20911 Harris Road, Spreckels - File Number PLN020069

Dear Luis A. Osorio:

I have had an opportunity to review the Notice of Intent to Adopt A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above noted project, along with the associated Initial Study.

This letter is to object to the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed use permit. I also request that you promptly notify me of any further decisions made in connection with the proposed project, specifically including the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

As you know, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a public agency to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report prior to making any decision that might have a substantial negative impact on the environment. The proposed construction of a 219,000 square foot agricultural processing facility, on twenty-seven acres of commercially productive agricultural land, certainly qualifies.

What follows is a list of our most significant comments on the Notice of Intent To Adopt A Mitigation Negative Declaration, and other documents relating to it:

1. Page 3 of the Initial Study states that the proposed project is “one mile southeast of the Town of Spreckels.” Page 20 says that “the Town of Spreckels…is locate [sic] over _ mile … from the site.” What is the actual distance between the proposed project and the Town of Spreckels? Adequate environmental analysis cannot properly be based on “estimates.”
   
   
2. The “Checklist” found on Page 4 of the Initial Study indicates that Monterey County believes that none of the following environmental factors would be potentially affected by this project: hazards/hazardous materials; public services; cultural resources; land use planning; and population/housing. In fact, as noted in this letter, there are likely to be potential and significant environmental and other impacts in every one of these categories.
   
   
3. Page 7 of the Initial Study outlines (in Section V.) how the County is supposed to evaluate potential environmental impacts. Among other things, the County must “take into account the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The Initial Study and the analysis that is supposed to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration consistently fail this test.
   
   
4. As also noted on Page 7 (in Section V.), when the use of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed, CEQA requires the County to “describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.” The documents circulated for public comment do not include an actual mitigated negative declaration, and do not demonstrate how (or that) all of the identified impacts have been reduced to the point of insignificance. Given this, CEQA requires that a full EIR be prepared.
   
   
5. The Environmental Checklist says, on Page 9, that there are no “potentially significant impacts” with respects to the aesthetics of the proposed project. This is simply not true. While the subject property may not be located within a designated visually sensitive area, CEQA requires that the County independently analyze the possible aesthetic impact of the proposal. Putting a factory into an area largely devoted to field agriculture, and that is nearby the scenic and historic town of Spreckels may have a significant negative impact. There must be a real analysis of what the visual and aesthetic impacts of a huge new industrial facility (and a parking lot) will have in this area. Furthermore, the Initial Study does note that the facility will create a new source of substantial light or glare, and dismisses this (with no analysis) as having “less than significant impact.” CEQA requires a real analysis of these issues, in a full EIR.
   
   
6. Under the “Agricultural Resources” section of the Environmental Checklist the County indicates that the farmland conversion proposed will have a “less than significant impact.” No adequate analysis underlies this claim, particularly when potential cumulative impacts are considered. Page 11 of the Initial Study claims that “development of the proposed facility [on 27 acres] would result in the displacement of less than 1% of the owner’s land under the Farmland Security Zone Contracts (2,312 acres).” Aside from the factual error (27 is more than 1% of 2312), this does not address the concern of using land that is designated as ‘Prime Farmlands’ (under the Greater Salinas Area Plan) for the construction of an agricultural processing plant. These lands are scarce, and an owner like D’Arrigo, who holds about 10,250 acres, may well be able to find twenty-seven acres that are not ‘”Prime Farmlands,” and that can be developed without Monterey County losing yet more of its most commercially productive lands. The discussion of other options is part of a full EIR, and is clearly needed here.
   
   
7. In addition, if this agricultural area is now going to be an area in which factories are permitted, the implications for adjacent lands must be evaluated. Clearly, the agricultural land conversion proposed is a “potentially significant impact,” and a full EIR is required to evaluate this impact.
   
   
8. If the County wishes to claim that the admitted loss of this land is proposed to be “mitigated” in some way, then they need to demonstrate how such mitigation is to be effectuated. Why isn’t a condition proposed requiring the property owner to place binding restrictions on his other land, preventing further factory development? That would be a possible mitigation, but it’s not proposed, or even analyzed. Simply saying that twenty-seven acres isn’t much, which is essentially what the County claims, is absolutely inadequate. The same reasoning would apply to every other twenty-seven acres of land proposed for factory development, and so the “cumulative” impacts could be considerable. A full EIR is required.
   
   
9. The Initial Study claims on Page 10 that there is no “potentially significant impact” with respect to a “conflict with … a Williamson Act contract.” In fact, as an attachment to the Initial Study indicates (represented as Exhibit B to Farmland Security Zone Contract #00-011), the current contract covering the property would not allow the proposed factory use. The contract says, in Paragraph 1, that [only] the following land uses would be compatible with agricultural use: … “The drying, packing or other processing of an agricultural commodity usually performed on the premises where it is produced….” The proposed factory on the D’Arrigo Brothers property is intended to process materials from all over the Salinas Valley. Such processing is currently being carried out in an industrial facility located in Castroville (an “urbanized” setting). Clearly, the processing proposed is not “usually performed” on the premises where the agricultural commodity is produced, and this proposal is not for processing materials produced on the premises where production occurs. This failure to conform the project to the binding Farmland Security Zone Contract is an independent reason to deny the project. With respect to CEQA review, the Checklist under Agricultural Resources is clearly wrong when it says that there is “no impact” with respect to “conflict with … a Williamson Act contract.” Full EIR analysis would examine the provisions on all Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone contracts now in effect in Monterey County. If (as may be guessed) they all contain similar language, and the same construction could be placed on those contractual provisions as is being placed on these, then mammoth numbers of acres, throughout the County, could be opened to agricultural factory development. This potential cumulative impact needs to be reviewed in a full EIR.
   
   
10. On Page 14, in the “Cultural Resources” section, the County claims that there would be no possible impact whatsoever. The justification for this totally erroneous conclusion is a reference to “Chapter IV of the Initial Study.” In fact, this statement is contained in the Initial Study, which does not have a “Chapter IV.” At any rate, it is clear that there could be a possible substantial adverse change to a significant historical resource. The Town of Spreckels is such a historical resource. The construction of a mammoth agricultural factory nearby, covering 27 acres, might adversely affect the historic character of Spreckels. When the likelihood of massive new truck traffic going through and adjacent to the Town is taken into effect, it is clear that the impacts could be truly huge. These possible impacts deserve full analysis in an EIR.
    
    
11. The section of the Environmental Checklist directed at the possible impacts of Hazards and Hazardous Materials has been left “blank,” with another erroneous reference (to “Chapter V of the Initial Study). The Hazardous Materials Questionnaire prepared by the applicant states that the plant will be using hazardous materials (such as oil, fuel, solvents, compressed gases, acids, corrosives, pesticides, fertilizers, paints or other chemicals, and particularly including ammonia, chlorine, sulfuric acid, formaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, and methyl bromide). The factory will be using them in quantities of 55 gallons/500 lbs/200 cu. ft. and above. It will be generating some quantities of hazardous wastes (such as waste oil, waste solvents, etc.). Yet in spite of all this, the Initial Study does not check “Hazards/Hazardous Materials” as even being potentially affected by this project. The fact that the facility’s operation would be subject to compliance with various laws (Title 19 and Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations and Chapters 6.95 and 6.50 of the California Health and Safety Code) does not mean that the County doesn’t have to do a full CEQA analysis. It does. It is incredible for the County to claim zero potential for impact, given that the plant will be using these hazardous materials. A full EIR is definitely required under state law.
    
    
12. The Environmental Checklist section on “Hydrology and Water Quality” follows the pattern of claiming no potentially significant impacts. Yet, the potential for adverse water quality impacts is obvious even to a layperson Water will be provided by agricultural wells on site. Wastewater, in large amounts, will be sent back to the very same aquifer. What analysis convinces the County that this isn’t going to be a problem for long term water quality? Materials in the project file indicate that the County Health Department has done percolation testing on the property, and found a number of areas that are not adequate or suitable. Again, an analysis of the issues is required. The Initial Study notes a possible alleviation of current groundwater extractions, but does not analyze water quality impacts at all. In order to comply with CEQA, a full EIR is required.
    
    
13. The “Land Use Planning” section of the Environmental Checklist again indicates no potentially significant impacts. However, the cumulative impact of allowing large scale agricultural processing facilities on commercially productive agricultural land, demands a full EIR analysis. The County’s land use plan indicates that this area is to be used for growing crops. Factories related to agricultural use are located in areas like Pajaro and Castroville (where the current D’Arrigo facility is, in fact, located). The land use implications of a project approval for this project are very significant. This is a precedent-setting application. The possible impacts demand analysis in a full EIR.
    
    
14. The discussion of possible “Noise” impacts in the Initial Study is woefully inadequate. First, the County claims on Page 20 that there will be only a “slight” increase in traffic volumes. Yet, if the project were approved, almost a thousand large trucks a day would begin driving into and out of the factory, along roads adjacent to (and in) the historic Town of Spreckels, and into the City of Salinas. What analysis indicates that the truck and factory noises are not even “potentially” significant? None. What “mitigations” are proposed? No specific mitigations are included. CEQA demands better, and an EIR undertaking the required analysis should be prepared.
    
    
15. The applicant indicates that up to 200 persons would be employed in the proposed new factory. If so, why is there not going to be a possible housing impact? On Page 21, the Initial Study simply claims, without analysis, that there is no potentially significant impact. CEQA requires that if there might be an impact, a full EIR should be done. That’s what’s needed in this case, particularly in view of the affordable housing crisis affecting all lower income persons in Monterey County (especially farmworkers).
    
    
16. The Initial Study Environmental Checklist claims, at Page 21, that there is no potentially significant impact with respect to “fire protection.” This is a project that, if approved, would bring significant quantities of highly toxic and volatile chemicals (ammonia, as an example) into fairly close proximity to the residential Town of Spreckels, and into a factory environment in which up to 200 persons might be employed. What fire protection response could and would be provided in the event of a hazardous materials emergency, or a fire? What agency is responsible, and what are their current capabilities? A full EIR is needed to evaluate an impact that is definitely “potentially significant.”
    
    
17. Perhaps the most egregious and obvious deficiencies of the Initial Study are found in the section dealing with “Transportation/Traffic.” Massive numbers of new truck trips will occur is the project is approved. Here’s the mitigation measure proposed: “No traffic from the project shall go through the Town of Spreckels.” This is not a “mitigation measure.” This is a completely unsubstantiated and unenforceable assertion. CEQA demands that if the impacts of the project are to be “mitigated,” then a full set of mitigation measures that have a chance of being effective need to be made conditions of the project. As published, the Notice of Intention To Adopt A Mitigated Negative Declaration” is totally inadequate under state law, and a full EIR is legally required.

LandWatch works on land use policy issues, and we do everything we can to insist that local governmental agencies follow the environmental review requirements of state law. This proposed project would cover twenty-seven acres of prime farmland with a new agricultural processing factory. It’s a huge project. It is not an appropriate candidate for a “Negative Declaration.”

Our concern is not only with the direct impacts of the proposed project—which appear considerable—but also in the possibly adverse impact of the proposed project on the future of the Spreckels area. This area contains some of the most productive agricultural land in the world. It also is home to the historic town of Spreckels, and the proposed project would have an extremely and very negative impact on that community.

State Public Resources Code Section 21082.2 is the provision of state law that determines when an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared:

“(a) The lead agency shall determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

“(b) The existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project shall not require preparation of an environmental impact report if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.

“(c) Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment, is not substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.

“(d) If there is [any] substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report shall be prepared. (Emphasis and brackets added.)

“(e) Statements in an environmental impact report and comments with respect to an environmental impact report shall not be deemed determinative of whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment.”

The courts have been very clear that if a proposed project “may” have a significant impact on the environment, a full EIR must be prepared. State law is also clear that “substantial evidence” means “any” substantial evidence. The Initial Study and Notice of Intention To Adopt A Mitigated Negative Declaration do not include an actual mitigated negative declaration, demonstrating that all of the identified impacts have been reduced to the point of insignificance, and do not, in any other way, demonstrate the lack of any possible negative environmental impact. Given this, and as we hope this letter makes clear, CEQA requires that a full EIR be prepared.

Not only do we believe that CEQA requires a full Environmental Impact Report on the proposed project. We also believe, as a matter of policy, that the County of Monterey should not approve a project that would set a precedent for the future conversion of the commercially productive agricultural land surrounding Spreckels, or that would undermine the provisions of Williamson Act contracts designed to protect commercially productive agricultural land throughout the entire county.

Thank you for taking our views into consideration. Again, please promptly notify me of any further decisions made in connection with the proposed project, specifically including the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

cc: Supervisor Butch Lindley
Members, Monterey County Planning Commission
Spreckels Residents Association
City of Salinas
Other Interested Persons

[Return to Spreckels Issues and Actions]

11/25/03