≡ Menu

Are both District 4 supervisorial candidates really for “smart growth?”

Most of us have a hard time envisioning 15,000 acres because we don’t deal with properties of that size. This should help. The existing Fort Ord National Monument is about 15,000 acres. The fort itself was about twice that size during its heyday. Toro Regional Park between Monterey and Salinas stretches deeper into the hills than you’d expect but still covers only 5,000 acres or so. It would take three Toros to equal 15,000 acres.

Remember the Rancho San Juan proposal? That was one of the big land-use controversies of the last decade. The Rancho San Juan community north of Salinas would have been huge but it would have taken seven of them to cover 15,000 acres.

Need something smaller? Maybe you’ve been to Spreckels, the cute community near Salinas. Set 200 of them side by side and you’d have 15,000 acres.

We’re talking about 15,000 acres here because that’s the amount of good farmland that would be turned over to development purposes under the proposed Economic Development Element to the Salinas General Plan. No, it wouldn’t be developed all at once, of course. It would happen in dribs and drabs, so most of the work wouldn’t set off any Rancho San Juan-style controversies.

Much of that development would be to the southwest and southeast of current Salinas city limits. Significantly, it would spread the city south beyond Blanco Road, which traditionally has been viewed as the firm and final dividing line between urban and ag.

We’re talking about that 15,000 acres now because it is a factor in the current political campaign between Monterey County Supervisor Jane Parker and challenger Dennis Donohue, the former mayor of Salinas. It is a factor, an important factor even, though it has not yet risen to the status of a public campaign issue. That’s because Parker is a quiet sort, not one to shout about things, and Donohue maybe isn’t sure how to play it.

According to a handful of knowledgeable observers, including Supervisor Dave Potter, Donohue’s support for the Economic Development Element is a key reason that former Supervisor Lou Calcagno chose to endorse environmentalist Parker over agriculturalist Donohue in the June contest. It was a big deal, that endorsement.

Calcagno was a major force on the board, often the swing vote. And though he is something of an environmentalist, he was better known as a champion of both agriculture and development, as incompatible as those two industries might seem. What some folks don’t know about Calcagno, however, is that he is a fierce champion of preserving farm land. That’s why he has been active for years now with the Ag Land Trust, which helps provide tax advantages for farmers who agree to easements protecting their land from commercial or residential development.

Anyone who didn’t know about Calcagno’s position on farmland or the Economic Development Element must have been surprised to hear of his endorsement of Parker. By the way, did I mention that some of the 15,000 acres slated for development is currently covered by Ag Land Trusts?


This map details the Economic Development Element of the Salinas General Plan. I do now know why it isn’t more clear. For a better version, click on the LandWatch link below.

So is Donohue really supporting the Economic Development Element, which still faces an environmental impact review before it will be eagerly adopted by the growth-minded Salinas City Council? He says he hasn’t really made up his mind.

“I could not begin to offer an opinion on the reasons behind why Lou endorsed my opponent because he never spoke to me about my candidacy,” Donohue said via email. “Additionally, to comment on the expansion of South Salinas would be completely irresponsible as I have yet to see any plans, formal or otherwise and to offer an opinion would be pure speculation.

“What I can definitively say, is that as the three-term mayor of Salinas and candidate for District 4 supervisor, I am in complete support of the revitalization of Oldtown Salinas, and feel our efforts should be focused on what we can accomplish in the near term.”

I had told Donohue in an email of my own that others believed that he is squarely behind the 15,000-acre plan but he didn’t address that point. He says he hasn’t seen any plans, formal or otherwise, yet the Economic Development Element has been around since 2014, has been unanimously approved by the Salinas City Council and has been the subject of at least one article in the Monterey County Weekly.

To be clear, the Economic Development Element proposes much more than merely gobbling up farmland. It pushes the concept of Salinas as a key player in the intersection of ag and technology, something Donohue had pushed hard during his tenure as mayor. It would provide space for industrial uses and promote significant highway construction and traffic reconfiguration, ending the near gridlock conditions that sometimes occur in and near the ag-related industrial zone near the airport. I figure the promise of change there is a big part of why big ag is supporting Donohue in a big way, campaign contributionwise.

The Economic Development Element makes no secret of its intentions. Its south-of-Blanco ambitions are spelled out in maps and its underlying intent is delineated here:“Lack of available vacant land within city limits and within the city’s sphere of influence is a key constraint to economic development.”

So you might be asking what this has to do with the Board of Supervisors? Good question.

The county comes into the equation at several levels. First, the county government is well-represented at LAFCO. That’s the agency that determines when cities can annex property or even widen what is known as their spheres of influence, the area of probable expansion. A Board of Supervisors that includes Donohue rather than Parker would be a Board of Supervisors more likely to support the annexation effort.

Urban boundaries also represent agreements between the cities and the county because the lines affect the provision of constituent services and the collection of taxes. The city of Salinas would find it easier to negotiate with a board that includes Donohue instead of a board that includes Parker.

For her part, Parker doesn’t have a lot to say. She’s like that. She has done little so far to trumpet Calcagno’s endorsement. She offered only a short take on the subject.

“As you know, I support smart growth and the preservation of farmland — both of which contribute to our economic vitality.  My understanding is that extending the city limits south of Blanco could violate an agreement between the city and county.  Right now, it’s important to focus on the economic vitality of downtown Salinas.”

Oh, by the way, LandWatch Monterey County has already had something to say about the Economic Development Element. Among other things, it has argued in letters to the city that considerable vacant and underutilized property now exists within city limits, that thousands of acres designated for residential development to the north and east of the city remains open and that development on the fringes of a city tends to discourage healthier and more efficient infill development.

LandWatch’s Amy White also makes a key point about water. Supporters of the Economic Development Element argue that industrial development generally does not require more water than the previous agricultural use. White counters that taking farmland out of production often results in cultivation of rangeland and other untilled acreage, resulting in a net increase in water use, a huge factor in the Salinas Valley.

So, it’s complicated, as you probably have concluded from the length and meandering nature of this missive. That’s partly why, as important as it is, you probably won’t be reading about the issue until well after the election, at which point it may be too late to do anything about it, depending on who wins.


Business fraudThe author of a recent Partisan column proposed stronger transparency rules for state public utilities commissioners, who already are required to publicly report any contacts with utility representatives. The existing rules haven’t stopped commissioners from becoming overly chummy with those they regulate but at least they have helped show ratepayers what they’re up against.

The proposal likely won’t go anywhere, but it raises a thought. If California lawmakers thought such disclosures were needed in the utilities arena, why shouldn’t there be similar rules for other officeholders, starting with county boards of supervisors?

Monterey County’s handling of the Ferrini Ranch development provides real support for the idea and it also raises important questions about the roles of individual supervisors. While making land-use decisions, are they unbiased arbiters making tough calls in the name of the public good, after all sides have had their say? Or are they negotiators, expediters, accommodators, empowered to make private deals even while the public process plays out as though it mattered?

In other words, should they do what then-Supervisor Lou Calcagno did, work behind the scene for months—actually years, it turns out—in order to help a favored developer and campaign contributor win a vote worth millions of dollars? Can a supervisor quietly lobby other government agencies on behalf of a proposed development and then assume a posture of neutrality while voting in favor? Or should there be rules to prevent such a thing?

The proposed 185-lot Ferrini Ranch development straddles Toro Regional Park along Highway 68. Neighbors and environmental groups protested vigorously on several grounds, especially the lack of a sustainable water supply and the impact on Highway 68, easily the most congested roadway in the county.

In the midst of the formal vote on the plans Calcagno announced that he had negotiated a side deal calling for the developer to put money into escrow for potential use in recycling area wastewater if area residents agree to form a community services district for that purpose. Suggesting that he had found a magic solution, Calcagno offered that the arrangement could help ease the project’s impact on the dwindling Salinas Valley water supply.

If anyone in the audience wondered about details of the recycling plan or about the propriety of one supervisor crafting a special deal that had received no public airing of any sort, there was no chance to raise those issues because the public hearing had been closed.

If any of the other supervisors knew about Calcagno’s negotiations over the recycling idea, they didn’t let on. As arranged by Calcagno, the developer is to put $425,000 into an escrow account that would be used toward wastewater recycling if and when residents of the Toro Park and Las Palmas areas agree to form a community services district for that purpose. Chances of that seem remote, however, because such a project would at least double sewer bills for each residence in the area.

If the district isn’t formed, the developer gets the money back—assuming that county officials actually require the money to be deposited in the first place.

That was not the only example of Calcagno’s behind-the-scenes work to accommodate the venture. Newly disclosed county email records indicate that Calcagno’s office organized a July 2013 meeting between the head of the development team, Mark Kelton, and John Laird, director of natural resources for California. Calcagno also attended, along with a biologist working for Kelton, a county planner who is now the chief planner on the Ferrini project, and Sherwood Darington of the Monterey County Ag Land Trust.

As natural resources director, Laird oversees several key state agencies, including Fish & Wildlife. Although the Monterey County supervisors have approved the Ferrini Ranch project, Kelton and state Fish & Wildlife officials are still discussing the ramifications of sensitive clover and salamander habitat on at the project site, the foothills overlooking Highway 68.

At the time of the meeting in Santa Cruz, the environmental impact report for the Ferrini project was still in the works and state Fish & Wildlife officials had raised concerns about how Kelton would mitigate the project’s impact on the salamander and clover. Fish & Game also was concerned about the project’s potential for blocking the movement of other wildlife on the hilly property. Theoretically, the project still could be stopped if Fish & Wildlife declines to issue the appropriate permits.

Laird said last week that he could not recall details of the meeting other than that Kelton expressed concern about the positions of state agencies. The Partisan was unable to determine whether the meeting resulted in any softening of the Fish & Game stance on habitat protection despite Calcagno’s effort.

Mike Novo, head of the county department, said Friday that planner John Ford of his staff attended the meeting in order to discuss Fish & Wildlife issues on the Ferrini property and elsewhere.

Derrington, a managing director of the Land Trust, said he was looking for help obtaining a state grant to help the trust pay for Kelton-owned land that could qualify for protection under an agricultural easement. Discussions about that possibility continue even now that the subdivision plans have been approved.

“There were other discussions that day that I was not involved with,” Derrington said.

Calcagno declined to comment on the meeting. Over the telephone, his wife told the Partisan, “He says he is out of politics now and doesn’t want to talk to you.”

Supporters of Calcagno and the Ferrini Ranch project will say he did nothing wrong, and it is almost certainly true that he broke no laws. But in these instances, and who knows how many others, he certainly stretched the definition of representative government. Getting the Ferrini Ranch project this far has required discussions, negotiations, with highway officials, parks officials and many others. It would be a surprise if Calcagno let the county staff handle all that without his hands-on guidance.

“I don’t think county supervisors should lobby on behalf of private interests at the expense of community interests,” said Chris Fitz, the former director of LandWatch Monterey, which is suing to stop the project.

“The Department of Fish & Wildlife is charged with protecting the public interest. If Calcagno participated in lobbying Fish & Wildlife to go easy on the developers of Ferrini Ranch, he put the interests of the landowners above those of the public. It appears that Lou Calcagno made up his mind to support this project before the environmental analysis was complete. Indeed, it looks as if he wanted Fish & Wildlife to go easy on the project so that his support of the project would not look so egregious.”

Throughout his three terms on the board, Calcagno was known as a backroom negotiator, something that brought him both praise and criticism. Over time, the public and other officials seemed to accept his role as a dealmaker, even when it clashed with widely accepted government practices. However, his backroom dealings on the Ferrini matter raise serious questions about the private actions of public officials acting in a quasi-judicial role. The Ferrini project had been narrowly approved by the county Planning Commission but that recommendation had been formally appealed to the Board of Supervisors, by a planning commissioner, no less.

It has long been considered a legal requirement that local governing bodies avoid “pre-judging” any issues until the public has had its say. For Calcagno, any pretense of abiding by that basic principle evaporated well before the Ferrini Ranch project came up for a vote.

What good would it do if supervisors were required to publicly declare their contacts with developers or their representatives, or representatives of companies wanting county contracts? Directly, probably not much. But if a supervisor had to disclose repeated private meetings and communications with the same interests, one of two things would likely occur. Fewer private discussions would come about, or disclosure of the contacts would make it obvious that the supervisor had a conflict of interest and should not vote.

In fairness to Calcagno, the roles of county supervisors are not nearly as clear cut as the roles of city council members and some other elected officials. City council members are supposed to act solely as legislators, adopting policies and making decisions but staying out of administrative matters at City Hall. Technically, similar restrictions apply to county supervisors, but they receive full-time salaries and often work at their county roles full-time. It is not unusual for them to insert themselves into administrative matters despite the presence of professionals assigned to those duties.

Not surprisingly, Calcagno received a series of campaign contributions over the years from Kelton and related parties, who also contributed to the other two supervisors supporting the project, Simon Salinas and Fernando Armenta. Calcagno’s take topped $10,000. The others received smaller amounts.

Kelton contributions also went to Supervisor Dave Potter, who voted against the project, which is in his district. Project opponents have criticized him, however, for not doing more to block it. Some have even characterized his no vote as a sham. Glen Robinson, former president of the Carmel Valley Association, accused Potter in a letter to the editor of voting against the development only after being assured by his colleagues that it would be approved no matter how he voted.

The developers also contributed to the campaign of Calcagno’s successor, John Phillips. There is no record that they ever contributed to any of Laird’s campaigns but they did make a series of contributions to the legislative campaigns of a Laird ally, former Salinas Mayor Anna Caballero. She is now secretary of the California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency.

Coincidentally, the Ferrini developers are represented by well-known land-use attorney Tony Lombardo, who also has done private legal work for Calcagno and Potter.

Two groups, LandWatch Monterey County and the Highway 68 Coalition, have filed lawsuits aimed at blocking the project. The litigation challenges the adequacy of the environmental impact, particularly as it pertains to traffic, and challenges the county’s decision to approve the project under provisions of the county’s 1982 general plan rather than the 2010 plan.

Two supervisors, Potter and Salinas, announced late last year that they planned to pursue tighter limits on campaign contributions to supervisorial candidates. It’s an idea that seems overdue. At the same time, though, it could prove to be an even better idea to consider regulations barring supervisors from voting on matters affecting contributors, like the rule in place for members of the Pacific Grove City Council. And, better yet, activities surrounding the Ferrini Ranch project suggest that rules should be put into place requiring supervisors to tell the public what’s really going on and requiring them to stop pretending that it’s a level playing field.