Signs of rebellion are in full view at the iconic Red Barn and
its popular Sunday market, which is facing a continued crackdown by
Monterey County officials.
Jim Johnson
Signs of rebellion are in full view at the iconic Red Barn and its popular Sunday market, which is facing a continued crackdown by Monterey County officials.
Three weeks after the Red Barn’s owners and operators were required to shrink the long-running outdoor market back to the boundaries of its 33-year-old use permit, county officials said that still hasn’t happened.
And a cadre of signs has appeared on the Red Barn property along Highway 101 castigating Supervisor Lou Calcagno, in whose district the Red Barn sits, for the impending loss of market vendor jobs that would occur if the market area is reduced. A few of the signs read: “Supervisor Calcagno, Give us back our 700 Red Barn jobs,” “We need money, we need food, we need our 700 Red Barn jobs back,” and “Welcome to: Supervisor Calcagno, Monterrey district, Welcome to Hell.”
Another smaller sign read, “Free voter registration here every Sunday.”
Calcagno, who is facing re-election, said Red Barn supporters would do better to urge the operators to comply with the county’s rules rather than targeting him.
“I understand their frustration, but taking it out on me won’t solve their problems,” he said. “They’ve got some serious problems and if they want to keep their people employed and create a good atmosphere in the community, then they’ll look into solving those issues.”
Last month, a split Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to deny an appeal from Red Barn owner Fran Ellingwood of a Planning Commission decision last year that the market had expanded beyond the use permit boundaries, as well as other zoning code violations. Supervisors Simon Salinas and Fernando Armenta dissented.
According to the board’s decision, the Red Barn was required by March 5 to return the market to the sales area described in the use permit, about half the size of the 15 acres apparently in use for years. An additional 20,000 square feet of sales space would be allowed temporarily while the historic Red Barn building was being brought up to code.
County officials estimated there would be room for about 150 vendors under the use permit boundaries, including about 50 in the temporary expanded area. That would have left up to 250 vendors, each of whom employs at least one helper, out of the mix.
Judging by the signs, supporters seemed to be suggesting even more vendors would lose their jobs, perhaps all of them, if the business were shut down. This despite assurances from Ellingwood that the Red Barn operation was “fine” and was “working it out.”
Ellingwood’s representatives, including attorney Myron Etienne and Christine Kemp, did not return phone calls from The Monterey Herald.
According to Mike Novo, the county’s Planning Department director, county staff has visited the Red Barn market twice since the board’s decision and there has been no sign that the operators are reducing the sales area.
“We went out the last two Sundays and they have not complied with the board’s action,” Novo said, noting that Red Barn representatives had told county officials before March 5 they would have a difficult time moving back to the use-permit boundaries.
Novo said the Sunday market isn’t spread over the entire 15 acres, but said that could be because of seasonal fluctuation in the numbers of vendors.
Salinas said he was told many of the vendors believed they had until June or July before the reduction took effect.
Novo said county officials are considering a number of enforcement actions that could include issuing additional compliance orders, citations and fines, or seeking further modification or revocation of the use permit, or a court order.
While Red Barn representatives took out an application to expand its use permit, and county officials have indicated they would support such an attempt, Novo said no application has been submitted.
Tim McCormick, the county’s Building Services director, said the Red Barn has also failed to comply with an order issued in December to correct a number of code violations, including unpermitted construction inside the barn itself that resulted in the building being shut down. County Counsel Charles McKee said he is not aware of any legal challenge filed by Red Barn representatives, but said his office has been in contact with them regarding the board’s action. McKee said the nature of those communications could signal that the groundwork is being laid for legal action.
Calcagno said he believes the matter will end up in court.
Heightened scrutiny on the Red Barn operation began after a series of complaints from neighbors and other county residents who blamed the Sunday market for increased traffic congestion and accidents in the area. County officials issued a notice of violation in late 2008 after finding the market had more than doubled its allowed size, in addition to other use permit issues.
Last year, after the Planning Commission upheld those allegations, county code enforcement staff inspected the site and found a range of alleged violations.
Red Barn representatives and supporters have argued that county officials are wrong and the market’s operations are, and have been for years, allowed by the county. They said the county is unfairly targeting the Red Barn and market, and that the county shouldn’t put hundreds of mostly low-income vendors and their employees out of work during difficult economic times. Scores of vendors showed up to several county hearings to plead for their jobs.
County officials said they tried to work with Red Barn representatives to avoid further enforcement action, but were rebuffed. Planning commissioners voted to allow the Red Barn market to remain open in its expanded area until an amended use permit application could be filed, but the operators filed an appeal to the supervisors who offered no such deal.
Salinas said he would have preferred allowing all the vendors to remain in business until Red Barn representatives could apply for an expanded use permit. But he said the Red Barn “could have done more goodwill” during the process.
