The Monterey County Board of Supervisors has approved every major development project to come before it since January.

These decisions will mean the county will look a little different in the near future. Two reservoirs totaling 430-acre-feet will be built. Almost 400 acres of farmland will be paved over. Wildlife corridors—including a crucial one connecting the Santa Lucia Mountains and the Arroyo Seco drainage with the Gabilan range and the surrounding wilderness areas—will be cut off.

A total of 777 oak trees will be cut down. More than 2,000 additional truck trips will further congest our highways and roads every day.

Air pollution and the existing water overdraft will worsen.

And all of these maladies could become exponentially worse, depending on what kind of growth plan the Supervisors do—or do not—approve.

All of these votes show an alarming pattern. Open space is becoming vineyards or pit mines; farmland is being converted to mini-mansions and office buildings.

More importantly, all are sailing through the County approval process without regard for water, steep hillsides, fertile soil and threatened species—not to mention County codes and regulations, state and federal laws, and the public process.

#1
PROJECT: Gallo Vineyard Expansion

APPLICANT: E&J Gallo, the world’s largest winemaker, sells its wines throughout the US and in 90 foreign countries. Gallo owns thousands of vineyard acres in California, including ranches in Monterey, Sonoma and Napa counties, and the San Joaquin Valley and San Luis Obispo.
Its plans for expansion concerned local conservationists because the company’s environmental record is less than stellar. Last year, Gallo paid $500,000 to settle a multi-agency lawsuit for damage to a Russian River tributary at a vineyard in Sonoma County. In 2001, a Gallo subsidiary working on the same property was ordered to pay $95,000 to settle a Clean Water Act lawsuit for dumping fill in a wetland and for improper creek drainage.

DESCRIPTION: Gallo got a permit to more than double its Soledad-area vineyard on Jan. 27, when the Board of Supervisors approved the expansion—without requiring independent analysis of the project’s environmental impacts—by a 3-2 vote.
Gallo harvests about 330 acres on its 2,100-acre ranch. Following this vote, the company has approval to plant an additional 380 acres of vines, build a 350-acre-foot reservoir (in an area that is part of a wildlife corridor), and remove 321 oak trees.
Both the local Sierra Club and the United Farm Workers union opposed the expansion project, arguing that Gallo should be required to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and that the winemaker’s proposal is not consistent with County laws.
In addition, Gallo’s history of denying health benefits to farmworkers will exacerbate the county’s low-income health care crisis, say UFW officials.
The Supervisors were originally scheduled to vote on the expansion on Jan. 14, but a last-minute e-mail from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, questioning wildlife surveys of the property (conducted by a company consultant) convinced the Board to postpone its decision for two weeks. According to USFW, the Gallo consultant didn’t adequately address “the potential presence of, or effects of the project to, other listed species including the San Joaquin kit fox, California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander,” among others.
Supervisor Butch Lindley voted against postponing the vote.
“I say to hell with Fish and Game, or in this case, the federal Fish and Game,” he told his fellow Supes.

YES VOTES: Lou Calcagno, Edith Johnsen, Butch Lindley

NO VOTES: Fernando Armenta, Dave Potter

LAWSUIT: No

CONSEQUENCES:

• Loss of 321 oak trees, which could result in erosion damage to the hillside
• Potential harm to several endangered species
• Strained labor relations

PRECEDENT: This decision says the County will disregard state and federal wildlife laws and advisory agencies—such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service—and trust the project applicant to determine whether or not a huge expansion project merits a full EIR.

#2
PROJECT: Vegetable Processing Plant

APPLICANT: D’Arrigo Bros., a Salinas-based produce giant specializing in broccoli, mixed leaf lettuce, and Italian specialty products. It grows on more than 28,000 acres and sells products under the “Andy Boy” label. The company—one of the largest vegetable growers in the nation—employs more than 1,500 workers each season.

DESCRIPTION: On March 30, 2004, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors approved the development of a 219,000-square-foot vegetable-processing plant on about 34 acres near Spreckels. The project also includes a vegetable cooler, office space, dry storage space, a fitness room and a truckers’ lounge area. The Supes approved the new buildings without requiring an EIR.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS:

D’Arrigo Bros. contributed:
$2,500 to Lindley
$1,000 to Calcagno
$500 to Steve Collins (who lost
to Dave Potter in March)
$448 to Armenta

YES VOTES: Butch Lindley,
Lou Calcagno, Edith Johnsen

NO VOTES: Fernando Armenta,
Dave Potter

LAWSUIT: The county and D’Arrigo Bros. were both sued by LandWatch Monterey County, which alleged that the Board should have required a full-scale Environmental Impact Report for the proposal. LandWatch also argues that by building on ag land, D’Arrigo Bros. violates both the County’s existing General Plan and the Williamson Act, which forbids converting farmland for most development.

From the text of the lawsuit:
The Board approved the Project and Mitigated Negative Declaration despite a failure to comply with CEQA [the California Environmental Quality Act], the Williamson Act, and California Planning and Zoning laws and regulations. Further, irreparable harm will occur to the environment, agricultural lands, historic and cultural resources, water resources and biotic resources if…the Project is permitted to go forward. The actions of the Board in connection with the Project are not supported by substantial evidence and constitute a failure to proceed in the manner required by law.

CONSEQUENCES:   

• 34 acres of prime farmland will be taken out of production
• Air pollution
• Noise pollution
• Water pollution
• More than 900 truck trips a day around Spreckels

PRECEDENT: There are thousands of acres of similarly zoned farmland in Monterey County, also subject to the Williamson Act. Approving this project on this site means that similar ag operations could be put up on productive farmland throughout the Valley.

#3
PROJECT:  Handley Ranch Open Pit Mine and Rock Quarry

APPLICANT: Watsonville-based Granite Construction Co. is one of the leading purveyors of aggregate rock and materials used for road construction in California. (High-profile land-use attorney Tony Lombardo represented Granite.)

DESCRIPTION: On April 20, County Supervisors approved the largest open pit mine and heavy industrial project in county history—a huge quarry that will operate for 120 years and mine rock from 330 acres of farmland, in the foothills between Chualar and Gonzales.
The project includes an aggregate plant, a hot mix asphalt plant, a cement plant, a recycling plant, four piles of “overburden” (waste rock) covering 75 acres of land, at least nine conveyor belts each 60 feet high, several 70 foot high silos, a 78-foot tower, a 1.5 mile paved off-site truck haul road (through fertile farmland) and almost three trucks every minute during a 12-hour work day.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS:

Granite Construction Co. contributed:
$2,000 to Armenta
$600 to Calcagno
$500 to Potter
$400 to Lindley

YES VOTES: Fernando Armenta, Lou Calcagno, Edith Johnsen, Butch Lindley

ABSENT: Dave Potter

LAWSUIT: A neighbors’ group called Preserve Our Valley and a watchdog organization called The Open Monterey Project sued Granite, the Handley Ranch, and the County on the grounds that the “project would have significant environmental impacts, including those relating to air quality, land use policies, water traffic, future development and others.”
The lawsuit argues that Granite and the County ignored County codes and regulations, as well as state environmental laws, and lowballed—or altogether ignored—important figures like the project’s actual water use, volume of overburden that will be produced, air quality, noise impacts and diesel truck trips.

CONSEQUENCES:

• The County’s own air quality control district told the Supervisors that the pit mine will create significant problems in the Salinas Valley.
• Water pollution
• Noise and light from the blasting and mining operations
• The project will worsen the Salinas Valley overdraft
• Truck trips will contribute to congestion on Highway 101
• 300 oak trees

PRECEDENT: The lawsuit argues that “this project will provide a catalyst for further, future development of a similar nature, and for development with similar rationales without regard for resource and infrastructure constraints and environmental impacts.”
Indeed, it sets a precedent for future projects to ignore the Air Pollution Control District’s input, and permitted pollution levels, as well as State and County laws.
At the public meeting when the Supervisors approved the quarry project, one grower worried that converting grazing land like Handley Ranch to heavy industrial use sets a dangerous precedent. “If that’s the case, I want to stand in line to start converting my farmland,” he told the Supes.

#4
PROJECT: Cathrein Estates Subdivision

APPLICANT: The Don Chapin Company, Inc., has been building in the Central California area since 1975. Chapin’s company specializes in earthwork and paving.

DESCRIPTION: Chapin wants to build 28 luxury homes in the Prunedale area. At a public hearing, North County neighbors opposed the project on the grounds that it would use scarce water, and told Supervisors that the water level in their wells has dropped because of the serious groundwater overdraft. On May 4, the Supes approved Chapin’s project by a 4-1 vote, without requiring an environmental review.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS:

Don Chapin and his construction company contributed:
$3,000 to Armenta
$2,150 to Calcagno
$5,000 to Steve Collins (who was defeated by Dave Potter in March)

YES VOTES: Fernando Armenta, Lou Calcagno, Edith Johnsen, Butch Lindley

NO VOTES: Dave Potter

LAWSUIT: The County, along with Don and Barbara Chapin, were sued by LandWatch Monterey County to stop the subdivision. The County’s existing General Plan prohibits new development in areas “which do not have proven adequate water supplies.” The lawsuit charges the Chapins and the County with violating CEQA, the County’s own General Plan and the North County Area Plan.

From the lawsuit:
The Project will provide luxury homes for upper-income households. The Project does not address the housing needs of the County, but rather increases the stress on the County’s overstretched public services and degrades groundwater quality and quantity in northern Monterey County.

CONSEQUENCES:

• 10.2-acre-feet of additional overdraft in North County
• Harm to fish and wildlife resources, according to Fish and Game
• 156 protected trees

PRECEDENT: There are more than a dozen similar development projects awaiting approval in North County, which would potentially mean at least 432 new homes. This approval sets a precedent to allow developers to build houses without a proven water supply.

#5
PROJECT: Spreckels Subdivision

APPLICANT: Tanimura & Antle is the largest independent lettuce grower and distributor in the US. It’s based in Spreckels, a bucolic, historic town of 485 people.

DESCRIPTION: About 180 ranch-style homes inhabit a tiny cluster of development in the middle of acres and acres of some of the best farmland in the world. Claus Spreckels, the “Sugar King,” first developed Spreckels as a company town in 1899. In 1907, the county approved an additional 73 buildable lots for the company, but Spreckels never built on those lots.

Some 97 years later, T&A wants to build homes on the lots. If built, the new, 72-home subdivision would have a dramatic impact on the character of the tiny town.

Last year, a group called the Association of Spreckels Residents asked the County to determine whether or not those lots are legal. The residents’ group contends they are not—because the map was created in 1907 and new laws govern subdivisions in California, and because the new homes will pave over farmland and damage Spreckels’ small-town charm.

In May, the Residents filed legal papers in Superior Court, asking the court to determine if the lots are valid. About a month later, on June 9, the Board of Supervisors ruled that the Spreckels Residents are not “interested persons” and therefore can’t file a request with the County to determine the legal status of the lots in question.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS:

Tanimura & Antle, Inc. contributed:
$5,000 to Armenta
$1,000 to Calcagno
$1,000 to Lindley

Bob Antle contributed:
$3,000 to Calcagno
$1,000 to Lindley
$5,000 to Steve Collins (who lost to Dave Potter in March)

Karen Antle contributed:
$1,000 to Lindley

Mike Antle contributed:
$1,000 to Collins

YES VOTES: Fernando Armenta, Lou Calcagno, Edith Johnsen, Butch Lindley

NO VOTES: Dave Potter

LAWSUIT: Prior to the Supes’ decision in June, the Association of Spreckels Residents challenged the county in Superior Court. The Residents argued that they are, in fact, “interested persons” under the law, and cited other Supreme Court decisions ruling that antiquated subdivision maps did not guarantee a property owner’s right to build.
The court papers also ask the judge to overturn the County Supervisors’ denial of the Residents’ fee waiver request, and refund the Residents the $5,034 they have paid in fees to appeal the County’s denial of their legal standing.

CONSEQUENCES:

• 16 acres of productive farmland lost
• Neighbors’ rights ignored
• Due process ignored
• Residents out $5,034

PRECEDENT: This Board decision denies citizens due process and discourages other residents’ groups from appealing County decisions. It also allows houses to be built on farmland based on outdated maps. According to the court documents, denying the Spreckels Residents legal standing as “interested persons” will “set a precedent by allowing development of agricultural land based on illegal antiquated subdivision maps without citizen participation.”

#6
PROJECT: General Plan Update

DESCRIPTION: On May 18—after five years, hundreds of public meetings, three re-writes resulting in a draft document that had finally been approved by the County Planning Commission, and nearly $5 million spent—three of the five Supervisors voted to “stop the process,” essentially killing the growth-plan document affectionately known as GPU3.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS:

Property Owners Who Want To Rezone Their Land:
Amaral family: $11,000
Albin Morisoli: $3,675
Don Nucci: $2,749
Ferrasci family: $2,450
Rancho Cañada: $1,445
Sala Family: $965
Tanimura family: $7,200
Neubert & Tarp families: $600
Bunn family: $448
Jay Brown: $250

Land Use Attorneys:
Noland, Hamerly, Etienne & Hoss
law firm: $1,849
Michael Cling: $950
Tony Lombardo: $750
Jeff Gilles: $120
Lombardo & Gilles law firm: $400
Myron E Etienne, Jr.: $650
Brian Finegan: $548
Mark Blum: $100

YES VOTES: Fernando Armenta,
Edith Johnsen, Butch Lindley

NO VOTES: Lou Calcagno, Dave Potter

LAWSUIT: No lawsuits were filed; however, at the Board’s May 4 meeting, County Counsel Charles McKee told the Supervisors about a “threat of litigation” coming from a group called “Plan for the People,” a group of pro-development types who have called themselves by different names throughout the five-year process—Common Ground, 21st Century Solutions and the Refinement Group, among others—but haven’t changed their message: Kill the plan, and replace it with one written by the agriculture and development communities.

CONSEQUENCES:

• Still no master growth plan for
the County.
• No rules to govern where and
how to build
• An alienated public

PRECEDENT: By killing the General Plan Update process, the Supes caved to a small group of would-be developers and their attorneys and threw five years of public input—and the Board’s own Planning Commission’s input—in the trash.
This sends two messages to county residents: It says the Board doesn’t care about the democratic process. And it says our elected leaders don’t have the courage to make tough, controversial decisions. It makes a mockery of open, public debate.