|
November
28, 2003
Fernando
Armenta, Chair [Sent By Email and FAX: 831-755-5888]
Monterey County Board of Supervisors
240 Church Street
Salinas, CA 93901
RE:
Consent Agenda Item #20 – Meeting of December 2, 2003
Dear
Chairperson Armenta and Board Members:
This
letter is to request that the Board of Supervisors remove Item #20
from the Consent Agenda of your December 2, 2003 meeting, and that
you then take no action to find that the agricultural processing
plant proposed by D’Arrigo Brothers of California is consistent
with the County’s compatible uses within Farmland Security
Zones.
You
have been requested to find that building a major agricultural processing
facility (essentially a factory) on twenty-seven acres of commercially
productive farmland subject to a Farmland Security Zone contract
would be “consistent” with the County’s list of compatible
uses, specifying what sort of developments can be carried out on
properties protected by such contracts.
LandWatch
believes that developing a large scale agricultural factory (including
a major office building) on prime farmland covered by a Farmland
Security Zone contract is not consistent with the purposes of the
Farmland Security Zone, nor is it consistent with the provisions
of the contract. We also think it is clear that the County’s
list of compatible uses does not allow the construction of the proposed
large scale agricultural processing facility and office building
on property subject to a Farmland Security Zone contract.
Even
if it were possible to make a finding of “consistency,”
which we believe it is not, the action proposed on your Consent
Agenda is a discretionary decision that might have a significant
impact on the environment. As such, this is a decision that cannot
be undertaken without adequate review under the California Environmental
Quality Act. No such adequate environmental review has occurred,
and the Board has not been presented with any EIR, or other environmental
document related to the proposed decision.
I
have had an opportunity to review the memo of County Counsel, included
in the Agenda Packet for your December 2, 2003 meeting. The Agenda
Packet also includes a letter from Brian Finegan, attorney for the
D’Arrigo Brothers (asking for a determination of consistency),
and a letter from Dennis J. O’Bryant, Manager of the Williamson
Act Program at the California Department of Conservation.
Please
note that the County Counsel’s memo says, “The Department
of Conservation concurs” with the County Counsel’s recommendation
that development of the proposed agricultural processing plant is
consistent with the County’s approved compatible uses within
Farmland Security Zones. In fact, this is not an accurate representation
of what the Department of Conservation has said in its letter.
The
Department of Conservation letter says that the County has asked
for an “official determination.” It then immediately indicates
that it is providing “the following comments.” In other
words, the Department of Conservation letter is a comment letter,
and is not an “official determination’ Further, and contrary
to what the County Counsel says, the Department of Conservation
does not agree with County Counsel’s recommendation.
Their letter states, “the expanded cooler facility could be
considered a compatible use… (emphasis added).” The discussion
leading up to this comment by the Department of Conservation (again,
this is not either an “official determination” or a “recommendation”)
assumes that the “expanded cooler” will “be used
to process agricultural products grown on land owned by D’Arrigo
Brothers in Monterey County (first paragraph of Department of
Conservation Letter; emphasis added). As the application filed by
D’Arrigo Brothers makes plain, the proposed processing facility
(which is not an “expanded” cooler, but a brand new facility)
will be used for processing products grown throughout the Salinas
Valley—not just products grown on the property itself, and
not products grown only on property owned by D’Arrigo Brothers.
In
other words, far from being a facility that is intended to process
crops from the property on which it is located, this proposed facility
would essentially be a new business, intended to process agricultural
products grown throughout Monterey County. As such, this proposed
facility cannot be constructed on land encumbered with a Farmland
Security Zone contract. Further, the proposed project is not only
for processing facilities. It also includes a 24,000 square foot
office building, and parking to support such office uses.
Please
review closely the language of the County’s list of compatible
uses. The list specifies uses that are “compatible” with
the Farmland Security Zone contract. Unless a use is specifically
included on this list, the use is not compatible. Here is
the language relied upon by D’Arrigo Brothers:
“1.
The drying, packing or other processing of an agricultural commodity
usually performed on the premises where it is produced
but not including slaughter houses, fertilizer yards, bone yards
or plants for the reduction of animal or vegetable matter (emphasis
added).”
It
is obvious that the processing proposed is not “usually performed
on the premises.” In fact, as the application materials submitted
to the County show, processing of commodities produced on the premises
is now (usually) performed in Castroville, an urban and industrial
area—and just the kind of area in which agricultural processing
facilities are appropriate, and permitted. Not only are the products
grown on the premises not now processed on site, but the proposal
is to process commodities grown throughout Monterey County, and
specifically from properties not owned by D’Arrigo Brothers.
If
the County contract were construed to say what D’Arrigo wants
it to say, then this would mean that all agricultural lands located
in Monterey County on which a Farmland Security Zone contract has
been recorded would be deemed appropriate for large scale agricultural
processing. The requested determination would also mean that farmland
owners could build large office buildings on lands subject to a
Farmland Security Zone contract. Such an interpretation would fundamentally
change the nature of land uses throughout the County. The possible
impacts of this change (one not legally supportable under the current
contract) would be extremely significant, and must be analyzed in
a full Environmental Impact Report, prior to any decision that could
have this result.
Should
the Board of Supervisors actually want to turn all of its Farmland
Security Zone properties into sites that could be used for the processing
of commodities grown off site (which is what the decision asked
for would accomplish), we believe that the Board would need to amend
its list of compatible uses, and the State Department of Conservation
would need to approve this new use in such zones.
As
the Board must be aware, D’Arrigo Brothers has received significant
property tax benefits by promising to abide by the provisions of
state law relating to a restriction of possible uses in Farmland
Security Zones. The letter from the Department of Conservation properly
cites what the state and the county are supposed to receive in return
for the tax benefits provided. As state law has been cited by the
Department of Conservation, ”compatibility” exists only
when “(a) the use will not significantly compromise long term
productive agricultural capability of the subject contracted parcels
or other contracted land in preserves; 2) obstruct or displace potential
agricultural operations, or 3) induce non-agricultural development
of prime farmland.” These principles are to achieve the original
purpose of Williamson Act contracts to “preserve the maximum
amount of the limited supply of agricultural land [Government Code
Section 51220(a)].”
Allowing
the placement of the proposed processing facility and office building
on the D’Arrigo lands, which are encumbered by a Farmland Security
Zone contract, would violate each one of the above principles. Approval
would immediately displace existing agricultural production on the
contracted parcels. It would displace future agricultural use of
this prime land. And the interpretation recommended by County Counsel
would “induce nonagricultural development of prime farmland.”
The
comments of the Department of Conservation are clearly not a statement
determining that what is proposed is acceptable, or consistent with
either state law or the existing contracts. Furthermore, it is clear
that the Department’s comment letter was based on an erroneous
or partial understanding of what is being proposed.
LandWatch
urges the Board to make no finding that the proposed use is “compatible”
with the Farmland Security Zone contract. Simply stated, it isn’t.
Very
truly yours,
Gary
A. Patton, Executive Director
LandWatch Monterey County
| cc: |
Monterey
County Counsel
California State Department of Conservation
Monterey County Planning Department
Brian Finegan
Other Interested Persons |
LandWatch
Memo
To:
Board of Supervisors
From: Gary A. Patton
RE:
Decision on D’Arrigo Farmland Security Zone Contract
Date:
November 28, 2003
The
attached Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
substantiates the facts cited in our letter: (1) The proposed project
would eliminate agricultural production on 27 acres of farmland;
(2) The agricultural commodities proposed for processing would come
not only from the subject property, but also from lands owned by
other persons, and from throughout the Salinas Valley; (3) The proposal
is not only for agricultural processing facilities, but also includes
a large structure proposed for general office uses.
Neither
state law nor the County’s list of “compatible uses”
contemplates the construction of such facilities on property encumbered
with a Farmland Security Zone contract.
[Return
to Spreckels Issues and Actions]
11.30.03
|
