Lena Spilman

From: Sent: To:

Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Haines Jane [envirlaw@mbay.net] Friday, December 14, 2012 7:58AM Supervisor Potter; Edelen Mayor Jerry; Parker Supervisor; Supervisor Calcagno; Mayor Pendergrass; Mayor Burnett; Donohue Mayor Dennis; Kampe Mayor Bill; Rubio Mayor Ralph; Councilmember Selfridge; Councilmember Brown; Councilmember Oglesby; Mayor Pro-Tem O'Connell; Morton Councilmember Gail Michael Houlemard; board December 14, 2012 FORA Board meeting-- Agenda items 7.b and 8.b FORA Letter 13 Dec 2012.pdf; ATT00001.htm

Dear FORA Board members:

The attached letter from the Sierra Club addresses the "Guiding Principles" and Final Reassessment Report on the agenda for today's Board meeting.

Sincerely, Jane Haines

1

SIERRA

Board of Directors Fort Ord Reuse Authority 920 2nd Avenue, Suite A Marina, CA 93933

VENT ANA

December 13, 2012

Re: December 14, 2012 FORA Board meeting-- Agenda items 7.b and 8.b

Dear FORA Board of Directors:

The Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club is deeply concerned that the "Guiding Principles" document being received at the December 14 Board meeting (item 8b.on the agenda) directly conflicts with the Reassessment Report that is up for final approval at the same meeting. In particular, we protest four of the principles in the "Guiding Principles": 2.c, 2.d, 3.b. and 3.d. These four principles significantly undermine what the 2011-2012 reassessment process achieved, including the disclosure of the extent to which the jurisdictions' and FORA have yet to implement the policies and programs in the 1997 BRP.

The following paragraphs explain why we object to these four principles. We also suggest principles to replace them, principles which would be in accord with the Reassessment Report.

Principles 2.c, 2.d, 3.b. and 3.d

The first principle that Sierra Club protests is principle 2.c: "Voting structure on FORA Board should reflect land use decisions i.e. only Land Use Jurisdictions would vote on land use matters." Does this mean, for example, that only Seaside would be allowed to determine whether or not a Seaside project would be compatible with the educational mission of nearby CSUMB, significant parts of which are located in Marina and the County?

If that is what principle 2.c means, it completely undermines the framework for the BRP. Page 8 of Chapter 1 of Volume 1 of the 1997 BRP describes the framework of the BRP. It states that the BRP is to "establish the broad development considerations that link the various Reuse Plan elements for each of the land use jurisdictions into an integrated and mutually supporting structure." The plain meaning of the quoted passage is that each FORA member must consider how its own land use decisions will affect the rest of the former Ft. Ord. Principle 2.c would displace what the BRP says and replace it with the principle that each jurisdiction can ignore the impact of its land

use decisions on achieving the overall framework of an integrated and mutually supporting redevelopment of the former Fort Ord.

The second principle that Sierra Club protests is principle 2.d. It states that: "BRP modifications/amendments should reflect and be consistent with jurisdiction General Plans that have previously been found consistent." In effect, Principle 2.d. says that FORA should pretend that there are no errors contained in any previous FORA consistency determination, regardless of the facts contained in the Reassessment Report. The Reassessment Report identifies more than 150 policies, programs and mitigation measures that are required as part of the 1997 BRP but which the jurisdictions have still not implemented and/or were ignored when one or more consistency determinations were made.

For example, the draft Reassessment Report states on page 3~63 that the General Plans for Seaside and Monterey County have noise standards that are 5 to 1 0 dBA higher for residential and other uses than the noise standards set by the BRP. Yet, principle 2.b. of the "Guiding Principles" would mean that FORA would ignore the admittedly-erroneous findings that the general plans of Seaside and Monterey County were consistent with the BRP noise standards. Principle 2.b. would mean that Seaside's and Monterey County's general plans would be allowed to remain inconsistent with the BRP because a past FORA Board mistakenly found them consistent.

An even more egregious example is that FORA itself has never developed the basic BRP land use requirement for base wide urban design guidelines. Yet every general plan found consistent with the BRP so far had a land use element. None of those land use elements should have been found consistent with the BRP because the BRP necessitates consistency with FORA's urban design guidelines, and such do not exist.

The third principle that Sierra Club protests is principle 3.b. As we understand its rather cryptic wording, principle 3.b would mean that irrespective of new information about changing groundwater conditions in the Salinas Valley Water Basin, FORA will stand by its past allocations. If that is what principle 3.b. means, it violates FORA's mandate to protect the environment at Fort Ord.

Sierra Club agrees with the guiding principle that BRP objectives should give equal weight to the economy, education and the environment. To do so, proposed new development needs to adapt to the changing economy, as the Reassessment Report so ably explains. The good work of CSUMB and the other educational institutions needs to continue. However, for FORA and the jurisdictions to adhere to a principle that new information about changing groundwater conditions in the Salinas Valley Water Basin will be ignored in favor of outdated information violates the third principle of protecting the environment on which the BRP is based.

The fourth principle that we protest is principle 3.d. It states: "Implement Capital Improvement program (CIP) prior to FORA dissolution." Does this mean that a project

2

like the Eastside Parkway or other projects, many of which will not be needed as of 2020 when FORA dissolves, will be "implemented" prior to FORA dissolution? Implementation of the 1997 BRP has been dramatically slowed by the recent economic climate: it is not at all clear that there will be revenue in the next seven years that will come anywhere near the amount needed to complete the projects in the CIP. Furthermore, borrowing such funds in order to pay for infrastructure that may not be needed for decades will leave a crippling financial burden on the local area into the future.

Violation of the Sierra Club - FORA Settlement Agreement

In addition to the points made above, we point out that the 1997 FORA-Sierra Club settlement agreement requires that a deed notice be recorded on all properties under FORA's jurisdiction that are located within the Fort Ord territory. The deed notices state that development of such property shall be limited by the policies and programs of the Base Reuse Plan. FORA cannot legitimately find that developments are limited by the policies and programs of the BRP when those policies and programs have not been implemented.

Guiding Principles For Implementing Policy Options Based on the

Base Reuse Plan (BRP) Reassessment

Despite the four misguided principles discussed above, many of the other principles are in accord with the points outlined in both the August 31st and October 30th Sierra Club letters formally submitted as part of the Reassessment process. We encourage the five authoring jurisdictions and the FORA Board to make the appropriate clarifications and corrections to the "Guiding Principles." We encourage FORA's member jurisdictions show a good-faith intention to use the Reassessment Report to correct past mistakes.

The following represents our suggested revision of the "Guiding Principles" so that they will stand in accord with the Sierra Club's prior recommendations for the Reassessment Report and align with this report and with the purpose of implementing the 1997 BRP:

1. Achieve the purpose of existing BRP before adding or supplanting with new purpose.

a. Replace the job and population loss that occurred with base closure.

b. Move "economy" to top of priority of BRP objectives, equal with education and environment.

c. Focus on job creation for middle income earners or higher.

d. Ensure the funding for all FORA obligations and arrange for funding to complete the implementation of all BRP policies, programs and mitigation measures.

3

2. Implement the policies, programs and mitigation measures of the 1997 BRP and its Environmental Impact Report.

a. Consistency findings for legislative enactments and development projects shall be based on consistency with applicable BRP policies, programs and adopted mitigation measures.

b. To the extent that the Reassessment Report shows that BRP principles and policies have been violated or not implemented, such violations and non-implementation will be corrected.

3. Begin now to plan for future FORA dissolution by accomplishing remaining tasks under BRP.

a. Dedicate staff and funding to assist jurisdictions with the implementation of the BRP policies, programs and mitigation measures within FORA lifetime.

b. Disallow any consistency findings until all applicable policies, programs and mitigation measures are implemented.

c. Continue to monitor SV Ground Water Basin and make adjustments to water allocations when appropriate.

d. Make the demolition of barracks and building removal a priority.

e. Make plans for future Capita/Improvement Program (CIP) to be carried out by jurisdictions after FORA dissolution in a manner that will perpetuate the programs and policies of the 1997 BRP.

f. Develop an augmented water source at the appropriate time.

g. Complete the Environmental Services Cooperative Agreement (ESCA) and Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEG) Cleanup.

h. Complete the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).

i. Complete only those portions of the roadways/transportation systems shown to be needed for approved projects.

Conclusion

Sierra Club expects FORA's member jurisdictions to carry out the purpose of the Reassessment process and the 1998 settlement agreement. The purpose was to ensure that the 1997 BRP is implemented.

Sincerely yours,

4

~~~-~ Thomas P. Moore, PhD, Chair Sierra Club FORA Subcommittee

Scott Waltz, PhD, m Sierra Club FORA Su

Jane Haines, member Sierra Club FORA Subcommittee

5

Lena Spilman

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

FORA Board Members:

Rachael Mache [mache@stamplaw.us] Friday, December 14, 2012 2:23PM board Molly Erickson; Michael Stamp Base Reuse Plan Reassessment Report, December 14 agenda item 7b FORA.Board.12.12.14.1tr.to.pdf

Attached please find correspondence on behalf of Keep Fort Ord Wild with regard to today's agenda item 7b.

Thank you.

Rachael Mache Paralegal Certified Law Student Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp 479 Pacific Street, Suite One Monterey, CA 93940 tel: 831-373-1214 fax: 831-373-0242

1

Michael W. Stamp Molly Erickson Olga Mikheeva

Via Email and Facsimile Dave Potter, Chair Board of Directors Fort Ord Reuse Authority 920 2nd Ave., Suite A Marina, CA 93933

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP

479 Pacific Street, Suite One Monterey, California 93940

December 14, 2012

Telephone (831) 373-1214 Facsimile (831) 373-0242

Re: Base Reuse Plan Reassessment Report, December 14 agenda item 7b

Chair Potter and Members of the FORA Board of Directors:

This Office represents Keep Fort Ord Wild, which strongly objects to FORA's action to accept the report on reassessment of the Base Reuse Plan.

FORA's Existing Conflict of Interest with EMC Planning Renders Any Action by FORA Void

There is an existing conflict of interest in regard to the FORA report process involving EMC Planning, and there is active litigation with FORA over that same issue. Under the circumstances, FORA is proceeding at this time at its own risk. There are two issues that the FORA Board should understand and address before taking any action.

1. Void Action.

Any action to approve the reassessment report by FORA is void pursuant to Government Code section 1090 et seq. and other applicable law arising out of FORA's dealings with the report.

2. FORA Is Proceeding at its Own Risk If FORA Acts to Accept the Reassessment Report.

Courts have repeatedly affirmed that parties who proceed with work on a project that is the subject of legal challenge do so at their own risk. In Kriebel v. City Council of the City of San Diego (1980) 112 Cai.App.3d 693, 707, work on a construction project conducted while an appeal was pending was done "at the risk of the applicant" even where the party was not subject to a stay order.

Likewise, in Gogerty v. Coachella Valley Junior College Dist. (1962) 57 Cal.2d. 727, 732, the Supreme Court held that once the agency was aware that plaintiff had

Dave Potter, Chair Board of Directors Fort Ord Reuse Authority December 14, 2012 Page 2

instituted a legal challenge against the proposed construction, it had "proceeded at its own peril" in continuing construction on the site before there had been a final judgment in its favor. (Ibid.) "One who proceeds with unseemly haste bears a risk that his conduct might bear the stigma of bad faith." (Aries Development Co. v. California Coastal Conservation Comm'n. (1975) 48 Cai.App.3d 534, 549.)

In Hewlett v. Squaw Valley Ski Corporation (1997) 54 Cai.App.4th 499, the Court commented that pending litigation put defendant Squaw Valley on notice that the project approvals might be set aside. Consequently, they must bear the burden of gambling with environmental resources, and losing." (/d. at 516.)

Any action by FORA to accept or receive the reassessment report places FORA at significant risk due to the pending litigation between Keep Fort Ord Wild and FORA.

Inaccurate New Water Information that Is Inconsistent with Public Records of Marina Coast Water District.

The so-called "republished" reassessment report, newly produced in December 2012, contains new information that was not contained in prior versions and was not considered by the Board.

Here is a glaring example of the lack of reliability of the report's new information:

The draft reports and November 2010 report did not contain a water table. The December 2012 reassessment report contains a new Fort Ord water allocation table ("Table 13"). Table 13 contains information that is inconsistent with other FORA records and Marina Coast Water District records.

• One month ago: In November 2012, the FORA Board was told that Seaside has a "remaining amount" of 27.9 AF. (Revised Table 18, final scoping report [Attachment F to Item 8c, November 16, 2012 FORA Board meeting].) (Ex. A to this letter.)

• Now: In December 2012, the brand new Table 13 claims that Seaside has a "remaining amount" of 226.6 AF. Neither FORA's staff and nor FORA's consultant EMC (who is also working for Seaside) has explained why they increased Seaside's allocation by nearly 200 AF since the November 2012 FORA Board meeting. (Ex. B to this letter.)

In order to make Seaside's allocation appear larger, FORA's consultant EMC has deleted the suballocation of 430 AF to the Bayonet/Biackhorse golf courses in Seaside. That 430 AF suballocation was made and is in effect, and the golf courses

Dave Potter, Chair Board of Directors Fort Ord Reuse Authority December 14, 2012 Page 3

are currently using that water, according to public records. That water use will remain for the foreseeable future. That use will continue unless and until a replacement water source is found and fully operational, and no replacement source Is likely to be built for many years, If at all. No reason has been provided for deleting the 430 AF allocation from Seaside's totals. No direction to delete the 430 AF was made by the FORA Board or proposed by the public, contrary to the Appendix D claim (see p. D-1 ).

As another example, the public records of Marina Coast Water District show that as of November 28, 2012, Seaside had suballocated over 1216 AF. That suballocation total of 1216 AF significantly exceeds Seaside's allocation of 1210.5 AF. (Ex. C to this letter.)

As another example, the public records of Marina Coast Water District contain specific water consumption information that the Table 13 claims is "unknown." That information is available to FORA staff and EMC, who chose not to include it.

The New Information contains Incorrect Information

Appendix D is wrong in material respects. For example, it claims that there is a new water table on page 3-99 (App. D., p. D-18). There is no new water table at page 3-99 of the republished report. And FORA consultant EMC failed to include the new water table from Appendix D. Why? The only reason for the deliberate omission is that EMC wanted to hide the new water information from the public.

The New Information Is Inappropriate. It Was Not Directed by the FORA Board. and Was Not Made as a Result of Public Comments

Many of the proposed changes and new text In the reassessment report were not made as a result of public comments or direction by the Board. EMC has not attributed the sources of or factual support for many of its changes and new text.

As to the Base Reuse Plan policies and programs that are required, the new revisions to the reassessment report propose this new language:

However, implementation of BRP policies and programs needs to be considered in the context of a plan with an anticipated lifespan of 40 to 60 years, and it must be recognized that jurisdictions will need to implement these incrementally over time.

This is a self-serving comment that has no place in a reassessment report. The Base Reuse Plan was passed in 1997. Fifteen years later. many of these policies and

Dave Potter, Chair Board of Directors Fort Ore! Reuse Authority Dscember 141 2012 Page 4

r2ro~rarns hmve not being implemant~d bl{ tbe land .us~ ludsdictions. That Is a serious failing that is not excused by gratuitous and disihgenuous reasons as proposed. Fifteen years is more than a third ofthe40~year ~~anticipated lifespan." The programs and pollcit:fs should have been implemented by now;

The proposed new language shown above is yet another exaunple of the problems wlth the conflict Of Interest of FORNs consultant EMC, who Is also Jneing paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Seaside. Seaside is one o'f the jurisdictions that has faHed to implement important policies and programs required by the Base Reuse Fllart

Ke~p Fo.rt Qrg YVlld Qbjects to FQB6:~ Acceptance of .tbe Reassessment ReQott.

In addition to the conflict of interest and other issLles, at1d withoutwaivlng ita claims that FORA can hot act oh the report, Keep Fort Ord Wild reiterates tht> objections .made In its November 16, 2012 lettsr to the FORA Board regarding the reassessment. (Included in the current FORA Board pacl<et) rhe report is indompleta, deeply flawed and potentislly misleading on many topics.

There is no CEQA review of any of the proposed options in the report Prior CEQA reviewlsreq~Jired prior to any FORA action on any oft he items In the report. The FORA Board should hold a full public hearing prior to considering any actions.

Very truly yours,

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W .. STAMP

~~on EX:hlblts:

A November 16, 2012 water allocation chart (not part or reassessment teport) -shoWing Seaside uremaihh1.g amount" of 27.9 AF

B. December 2012 Table 13 newly added to reassessment report- clatmh1g Seaside "remaining amount" is 226.6 AF.

C. Novemb~ar 28; 2012 tlilble from Marina Coast Water District showing Seaside allocation of ·121 EL6 AF, for a ''remaining amountll of Negative 204.1 AF, or .. 204.1 AF.

----·· -'~-

ord CommunitY SVG!l Land use Allocatton Suballocations Jurisdiction (!1f1L- To

"""' ·--CSUMB ---~1oss, ~---'''''""·--"""'"'"""""'"""""'-cumpwl BUlldOllt pro)eotlon to2o2s

City of OQJ Rey .oaks 242.5 ----None --City of M(:m,~ari\ly

~

($5 . Norw

~-- .. -~--·-

County of

f..M~!n~i: 710, ~

" ,;. EC!st "'(1', '""' 1 -- ""'"'" ·~

MPC "

- ord Market, .. ,_._

Whlsperfng .oaks

JLCMOESt 2'30 -~ ...... 41«

UCMB~SI

-·""-~··""~-· ~. C(3nter c I"! I« ··~" " L 1101~.5 .I.HY

~~

_Suhb'~yAey,.:__ Brostrum Park (8 .. ayy£~~L-Seaside

~-~-.. ~ ~"""""'""""'»''""""'-Highl<lr1cl!l

-..-..,.,,,,,,,..-...~~"

~ .. ___,_,_ ___ ,_ ---·-- Seaside Rusort ~"""'"''""'"""'~ MQntarey

-·""''""--"''"''""""''"" ~·--·

Go liege of LQW

~-...,.,.,-_MPC

\.--,.,_._ ... MPUSO ·- -

._., ___ ._"''""'"'····~ 2011 ""'~·-"--•.""

~tcs1 ""'"" Consumptlot1 SuboUocatkm(( lt!'lrnatf1ll'llf , ; At'n~~!lt{(i~yt Amol;tnt(AfY} Atn.l)~tlt. !tl.~vr

.4~~ 9?8 97 ,....,_,.;. -"'~~'""""'~

~007 Campus MasterPhm

~98 46:L ... - filt!R

0 0 242.5 ......

0 0 ...... ., ........ ,"" '"'''''-*"""""""'""""""

65 """"'""•••-•~IU#>I>_,__..,. ~"'~

0 0

10 527-5 182ili __ , ___ !!i 470 , Allocation .___. ~d~l>ml~-~~

0 $2.5 AlkJC<Itlorr ~~~~''""'"'

_JL _5 . ABg§lltk!n . __ Allocated08

' AFV1then f(iVI~~~dWfth

(j 0 ,,, theSP, ~~:..:.;;;..r~ ... ~ .. '""""~-

1 0 229 ... _ .. _,..., -~

,_ MCWD :m-year Annual Consumption Htlport (COMUI~1pt!Oh

1 0 .., .. , .... report) ~~-

so a 848,6 ( 2'{;"!1', I')---·~ ~---A6hsumptlo11

69 0 1~fill:. _______ .... - ....... ;..,~- ........ -~ ~-~

C6f1$Ufl1~)tloti !19 Q

"""-~"" tEir;ort

j.GG. """"'"""""__,.__.,...-

168.$ nBl'Jcatlon 1 16M Allocntll:m

---~ ...... - ,;,--~·~

Allt.ciltiOh Oli

JL@1Q~l1. 2.5 --·""""' $/HV2004 -~· 1\Uocatlon Oh

}ll1i<MWn 9.7 .. ~L1§11QOs consumption

78 retyort .. .. __ Page IM of 136

l I

j

\ 1

t

f I I

I I

.. l

Chartwell Allocation on School unknown 6.4 S/19/2005

WSAtotaled Main Gate 0 0 207 AFY,

Consumption report. Water not formally allocated by

Bayonet/Black City, awaiting horse Golf 430 0 recycled water.

u.s. Army 1,582 686 0 896

None 686 0

State Parks and Rec. 39.5 0 0 39.5

None 0 0

Cl!\'_of Marina 1,325 258.15 1,053 72 Consumption

Abrams Park 71 0 report

Cypress Knolls 0 156 Allocation Marina Heights 9 293 Allocation

Consumption Preston Park 103 0 report

Consumption MPUSD 4 0 report Dunes on Monterey Bay 49 593 Allocation Rockrose Gardens 0 s Allocation

Consumption Airport 7 0 report

MPC unknown 6 Allocation Consumption

Other existing 15.15 0 report

Marina Sphere 10 0 0 10

None 0 0 Reserved to cover line loss 348.5 348.5

Total GW: 6,600 1,861

EXHIBIT ~ ) f • ~ Page 107 of 138

'QtCJU,w!JoeJr W\~ - 'A.~ ··k~e... ~ t~~~, ~.· ·~· ~S}~~S'~ ·~.·~

Trtblu :L; :Forme.r Fort Ord Water Allocntioml

·g l!XHIBIT __ _

,, ,,

"WSA" mcatlllWatcrSupj!ly Assc$sinttnt

}\gl'(!(~d. Ql1

2,5{)0 AI' in <•vt•h•···'"''' fnr 17 l\C(e parco!; nmximum .~00

",SVCJTl A llocalltrn (Al"'Y)" m«iH\S nlh)t~atiuos c;I'Siillfms V;tl!ey Oto\lndwatcr Basin water made by lhc FOHA Board after At:lliy it11nsft•netl tht! mnjorlty of its 6;600 A 1"Y Sn!hlllll V11il.tty Groumlw!t(Ut 13ai!il1 water ligllt.~ to FORA.

"$ulmllot•atlmis 1'o" memts l;'ORA ag.~ney's ;\l!oefi!lcl!l ofils Willet( rigiJts IP 11 srtedflt\ pwjr:ct t<l' Jll't1jcctr., m tracking of 2011 t:Ollfilli1lfll(on

dtltH. wiHH1l1tl p1t1jcc1 a(Iqcath•ni ¢:<d~ts.

"ComllllHcd atnmmt(Al"Y)" trH~luis prt~c(t.Siibn!lomtti!Ytl, w!wutt 11xists, ur2011 fZOJ!,,UJ1iptlon dattt when no project nlloCII(ioh exlsls, lla.yoncnt/Bhtdtlwrse Ot1lf Conrscs WlHcr cuns\l mptlon l;q ooi¢olllttccl (tcmt1Mln'lly) as a c:nJnmlnctl UJI!OUllt sitl(:c MCW!) tlllHvcf}' of r<it:Ytjl<ld water will replace tltis t:mrsumptlon in the ntnr-runn. Acconlin~ to. U1c <Ill! W lvlCWD·SJ:asil!(r agrucme1lt, MCWD Will pr\;iYfde 2r500Af' ofpmahlt~ OJ' re~)'<rkil water to tht• golf cout::cs, lr! cxdmngc lbt a l 7,ncrc parcel: Jil!IXimum alll!ual Wil!er <:ntisrunptlorr is SO{) APY.

'· ,. 1·~. I

M.ARINA COAST WATER. DISTRICT 11 RI~SKRVA'fWN ROAD • MA.RlNA, CA 93933-1099

Home l1rtgn: www.rucwd.org TlU,: (831) 384 .. 6131 • If AX: (831) SS3~S995

Ms. Molly Erickson Law Offices of Michael W. Stmnp 479 Paclilc Street> Suite: Qne M('J!lterey~ 93940

Novcntbcr.· 28, 2012

D!RtU::It'JHS r>AN flURNS

PNrti¢ml

lfOWi\RP CrUS'J)\FSON FldrJ Pt.!lsfdtm/ ·

K!lNNlTH K. N!Slll JAN SHRl~IER

WlLhiAMY. tm~

T.his letter- is in response to your teoords l'ectuest t)fNovcmbcr 16, 2012, pcrt!11ning ttj the

a~tmn:iary l'Cpor!s1

A:lsessmcllt ihr the Stm,'fl.ide Main Oatc J?rojectl the WalcJ: Supply As~essment for !he Whispexlng Oaks .P~·ojectr t.he Agree.ment I~Jr Construc:tim'l: an:d Ttnnsfel' of \V,,ter, SQwer :and Recycled Water InO:astructJn'e ib1· the Mmttctey IJeninsuJn C<Yllege Scasirle Campus, tho Agreement ftll' Comut·uctirJt1 nnd Tnui!lfbr tf Water} Sewer Hnd I~ec:ycl.:•d

Water I:nfrastl'llclure ibr tho M<mlerey Collcg~ of LttW Seaside Campus, and Agxcement for Construction and. Transfer of WrtCCJ>, and lnftastructur:e for the ChattweH Sclwol Somdda Ca1npus .

. ~~yert11 t~frh~ euti·ie~_]lq!!q gor1;~1.ctt~d fl~ ttl:~!l\d~:,prl!)js.. \lPii~Bt!· The t\Uocut1on Jbr the C)rd Mal'k~t was moved to lhe lvl:ontcxey CounLy•Mudna Sphere of Influence .urea. The allocation for Seaside Highlm1ds was con·octcd to the alloG.ulud amounlof l6B.5 ~1Cro .. f:eel per year, The pt-evi~ms rcpm·t lind W~ted the nctlml watel' two dudng the landf'caJ:)t:l cslabUshrmmt period. i.11 that mea h~ts: l:lince declined t<) th~ aUoca!etl mnom1t. The aUtrct1timr cntty Jor Monterey College of l,mv 'NftS Ctil'rected to 2.8 acreAbet pe1· year (the original ttrble contahn:~d a typo). Finally, we have added i1w tcn1r.:mrary l.ll!C: nf8ali11as Valley Gt·out)dwatcr fm· irrigation of IJ1e l3nyonetli3lackhorse Golf Course. 'T'his us:e Is under a tem1 agreement between the City of Seaside nnd the Dlsti'lct and does not retl:ct a pcrrmment nUoca!ion ofwatct' supply,

5XHIF31i .~., ·-

To: Ms. Erickson -2· November 28, 2012

If you have additional questions on this topic, I can be reached at (831) 883-5925.

Very truly yours,

Interim District Engineer

i-

~ :I: ffi -i.

t ~~

Stl.nalbea .... tiim T fd~~l:.md ~t!Orc . . .

r SVGB I

~~ -· ,__.,. Amount r {Ali"~) 1.1\<=futllni ~"~ O;>lie ~~

i'~ :OS-26&' l~ S:c4:St &2-l\X

l\'>.'hlspenr.,goaks !}

~t</iMa~Spili'1fll: tql !OJ:d:J.Aadlet I s..

Cjlyof:S~ uazi l I

svss: ~ 1rnl'le'if:&O<....-.d"'""'f !las!ri AFY«aqec~J'flil;ft.t:

--------1 U[q.[p

-- ~i\

12/If/~l l~ea!Bm;~~.,et<~J:e,:i.wrtnWe:s~r:JJti:n. ·a:e:~;;:i'lanpQ!ygl)n.s..{tanatdf~~l.m~

3{i71Eifl&

f'ty ~~~~.

f\~ ~~~s~k -~.().l:i. ~ ~ \OYL~S" A\=

- ·-·~· ·---"----------·'------ --·- ------ ----- ~·-~~---~-------~ ----'------~·--- ·-- ------------ - ---- -·~--- ----

Lena Spilman

From: Sent: To:

Hello FORA,

dubianskys@gmail.com on behalf of Eco-Deli Ueff@eco-deli.com] Monday, December 17, 2012 2:54PM board

I am looking for a site for a commercial baking operation. Many large forts had existing, brick ovens that baked the forts breads etc. I would like to know if there is such a facility that could be restored. If not I would like to speak with the appropriate party to find out about obtaining fort recycled building materials, brick, stone etc ... and a look at available fort real estate sites.

thank you

Jeff Dubin jefl@eco-deli.com (831) 247-0925

ECO-DELI 721 Neeson Rd. #6 Marina, CA 93933

1

Lena Spilman

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Jennifer McNary [mcnary@stamplaw.us] Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:33PM board Michael Houlemard; Molly Erickson Request to Preserve Emails FORA.Board.ltr.to.12.12.20.pdf

Chair Potter and Members of of FORA Board of Directors:

Please see the attached correspondence from this Office on behalf of Keep Fort Ord Wild.

Thank you.

Jennifer McNary Law Clerk Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp 479 Pacific Street, Suite One Monterey, CA 93940 tel: 831-373-1214 fax: 831-373-0242

1

Michael W. Stamp Molly Erickson Olga Mikheeva

Dave Potter, Chair Board of Directors Fort Ord Reuse Authority 920 2nd Ave., Suite A Marina, CA 93933

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP

479 Pacific Street, Suite One Monterey, California 93940

December 20, 2012

Re: Request to Preserve Emails

Chair Potter and Members of the FORA Board of Directors:

Telephone (831) 373-1214 Facsimile (831) 373-0242

This Office represents Keep Fort Ord Wild. KFOW is very concerned about the possible destruction of public records.

KFOW recently discovered that FORA lost at least two of KFOW's public records requests from October and November 2012. This, and other factors, cause us to question FORA's record keeping. Please investigate this and report back to us by January 7, 2013.

Background

On December 18, 2012, we sent the attached email to FORA regarding open and unresolved issues with, and public requests to, FORA with regard to emails and possible destruction of emails.

FoRA•s Records Management and Retention Policy states that all information on the FORA email system is .. subject to automatic purging (that is, deletion) by FORA after 60 days.'• The problem with this automatic purging is it would delete emails that KFOW has requested and which are public records that cannot be destroyed.

In our December 18, 2012 email, we requested the following of FORA:

1. Please prevent the deletion of emails. This includes any automatic or deliberate back up which supersedes the previous backup, as described in the FORA Records Management and Retention Policy.

2. Please advise us when the last backup was completed by FORA.

3. Please advise us if purged or deleted emails are archived or preserved in anyway.

·-1

I i

Dave Potter, Chair 13oard of Directors Fort Ord ~euse Authority Deoembsr 20, 2012 Page2

4. Please do not delete any backups or archives until these issues are fully resolved. These are Important issues thatgo to the heart of the Public Records Act and government transparency.

Further Disoyfl!sion

We are Involved in olvll litigation with FORA Em ails relating to issues in that litigation must be preserved under Callforn[a law, and strong penalties exist for v!olatio'f'IS. Separ·ately* California law specifically provides criminal prosecutions rnay be undertaken to address the unauthorized destruction of public t·eoords,

Due to the setious nature of the issues, we are forwarding our requestto the Board. Please take prompt and effective aotitm.

Very truly yours,

Attachment December 18, 2012 email from Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp to FORA

'I

Subject: KFOW request to preserve emails

From: Molly Erickson (erickson@stamplaw.us)

To: mlchael@fora.org: Lena@fora.org: jen@fora.org;

Cc: jerry@fora.org; jgiffen@kahlaw.net: cbronson@kahlaw.net:

Date: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:16 PM

Mr. Houlemard, Ms. Spilman, Ms. Simon:

This Office represents Keep Fort Ord Wild. We have open and unresolved issues with, and public requests to, FORA with regard to emails and possible destruction of emails.

FORA's Records Management and Retention Policy states that all information on the FORA email system is "subject to automatic purging (that is, deletion) by FORA after 60 days." The problem with this automatic purging is it would delete emails that we have requested and which are public records that cannot be destroyed.

We have at least two public records requests that FORA lost, and other records requests that involve emails.

We request the following of FORA:

• Please do nothing to delete emails. This includes any automatic or deliberate back up which supersedes the previous backup, as described in the Network Back-up Procedure in the FORA Records Management and Retention Policy.

• Please advise us when the last backup was completed by FORA. • Please advise us if purged or deleted emails are archived or preserved in any way. • Please do not delete any backups or archives until these issues are fully resolved.

These are important issues that go to the heart of the Public Records Act and government transparency.

Please confirm that you have received this email.

Thank you.

Molly Erickson Law Offices of Michael W. Stamp 479 Pacific Street, Suite One Monterey, CA 93940 tel: 831-373-1214 fax: 831-373-0242

12/20/2012 1:21PM

Lena Spilman

From: Sent: To: Subject:

emallthis@ms3.1ga2.nytimes.com on behalf of jwandje [emailthis@ms3.1ga2.nytimes.com] Friday, December 28, 2012 11:51 AM board NYTimes.com: A Ponya s Death Draws Notice to Medication in the Show Ring

Importance: Low

' .

-·T}tisarti61efrom'theN-yTilt1~J2/~$/l2}Strwarningto all;yh9_, .• _., _ ... reC?tnrnendtheinstalhition_ ofhorse.f~dlitiesin FottOrd. The fact.that tlr~sport.isrota·r~liable;at1clsafeOne.atthecqmpetitiveJevelshouldbe. consi~ered beforethe proposed Mdnterey Downs phth is approved. Joarine ~· Ratcliffe · · · · ·

BREAKDOWN

A Pony's Death Draws Notice to Medication in the Show Ring BY WALT BOGDANICH

In horse racing, industry leaders have taken significant steps against the overmedicating of horses. But in the cloistered equestrian world, the issue has attracted less notice.

To ensure delivery to your in box, please add nvtdirect@nytimes.com to your address book.

ADVERTISEMENT

article tools sponsored by

Qgpyr[g.ht?.Qli£ I The New York Times Company I NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018