Extraordinary 1992 Fort Ord Parklands Document Reveals Early Public Vision To Preserve Parker Flats




Fort Ord Parklands Group Vision Statement: January 1992
To make the size of the documents manageable, this large document has been divided into three parts.
Part 1 is the text in which relevant parts have been highlighted.
Part 2 contains the figures and tables.
 Part 3 has the references and appendices.

Public Records Reveal Serious Shortfall of Monterey Downs Water Sources

The following documents are public records obtained by KFOW from the City of Seaside:

 Memo  re Water Supply Analysis Req…

Sec 04-19_Water_LBO (4)


Monterey Herald: Monterey Downs economic analysts sued


SEASIDE >> The firm behind a draft fiscal and economic impact report for Seaside’s proposed Monterey Downs development is being sued by two California cities over financial calculation errors.

Willdan Financial Services was sued by the cities last year for miscalculating utility rates, and in 2013 the firm was accused by a third town of the same.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Willdan’s parent company, Willdan Group Inc., stated in an official filing that it plans to “vigorously defend against the claims,” adding, “this matter is covered by the company’s professional liability insurance policy.”

Monterey Downs chief operations officer Beth Palmer said she hadn’t heard about the lawsuits, and said the project hired Willdan mainly because their longtime analyst James Edison had recently left another company to join the firm.

Edison, managing principal at Willdan Financial, declined comment, telling The Herald he was not authorized to talk to the press.

Palmer said Edison was recommended to Monterey Downs because he had experience with Fort Ord projects.

In July, the Southern California city of Glendale sued Willdan for $9.3 million. That amount covers the $9 million city officials said the company’s miscalculated water rates cost the city since 2012, along with consultants’ fees that Willdan and another company were paid, plus the cost to notify ratepayers about the error.



Glendale City Attorney Michael Garcia said the city provided bimonthly water use information, but Willdan’s staff “assumed it was monthly data” when the firm told the city what it should charge for water.

“There was a significant reduction in revenue” for the city, Garcia said, and when stunned city staff “worked backwards,” they discovered the error.

Willdan “acknowledged it caused incorrect rates, but said we should go back and charge the customers,” Garcia said. “We didn’t think that was fair.”

Garcia said no settlement talks are in the works at this point and the lawsuit is proceeding.

In August, Union City sued for $140,000 for failing to include a sanitation rate hike in calculations from 2012 that were given to the Alameda County assessor for use in property tax bills.

“Willdan admitted to that error, but refused to compensate the city for its error,” Union City’s City Attorney Ben Reyes said.

He said the firm told the city, “You have to go do a supplemental billing to the customers.”

Reyes said officials felt that response was “an inappropriate result. … It would lead customers to the conclusion that someone in the city had committed the error and not Willdan.”

He said when Union City increased another fee a few years ago, “there was a recall of two out of three City Council members. The residents are very sensitive to this.”

He said the city is in the process of trying to set up formal mediation with Willdan in hopes a settlement can be reached.

“We’re hoping, because in the scheme of things our case is much smaller than what’s going on in Glendale and presumably in Monterey, and we’d just like to get this behind us,” he said.

In 2013, the Humboldt County community of McKinleyville accused Willdan of a 2011 miscalculation that cost it $400,000. Willdan agreed to re-do the town’s water and sewer rate analysis at no charge, officials there said. Residents are now paying a monthly surcharge to make up the discrepancy that will last until December 2017.

Palmer said Monterey Downs’ situation is likely different from the cities because Seaside has made sure there is oversight.

“I don’t know that we would have that situation here, because you have a completely independent party to double check the work,” she said. “The city has hired its own company, which we pay for, to peer review it. That’s one reason we have so many versions (of the report).”

Michael Salerno, co-founder of Keep Fort Ord Wild, said Willdan Financial’s report for the combined housing and racetrack development was released to his group as part of a public records request. The November draft came after a version in March that had higher revenue estimates, he said.

Plans are to build the development in six phases, with Seaside losing money in four of those. It will take all six phases to reach the promise of $1.2 million annually going to the city’s general fund, according to the report’s estimate.

Salerno said his organization started scrutinizing the report after learning that Willdan Financial was being sued.

“That’s what made us look at the numbers more closely,” he said. “That’s twice in the past year for errors in their reports that cost the cities money.”

Salerno said his group has concerns about projected revenue from 141 events that would be held each year, including 40 concerts and 60 local, state and national horse shows. The events would draw 380,000 visitors, the report says, who would spend some $16 million a year in the surrounding community.

“They’re using some assumptions in there that are just crazy,” Salerno said. “They have 141 events, which basically means the place is running constantly. These thousands of people per day, some during the week — there’s no precedent for that in Monterey County.”

In comparison, Albany’s Golden Gate Fields hosts 28 summer concerts.

Salerno said the total of five horse shows per month also seems extreme.

“They didn’t sum the number of events or describe why that was rational. If they’re overestimating the amount of events, they’re going to overestimate the revenue,” Salerno said. “So if the project already has a thin margin … they could end up with something that’s completely revenue-negative for the entire project.”

Palmer said the report “is not a set-in-stone document” and its revenue projections will likely continue to change.

“We’re still in the process, with four or five drafts already, and we’re still getting numbers from the city,” she said. “Everybody’s looking at something that’s a moving target right now. It’s not final.”

Herald staff writer Jim Johnson contributed to this story. Julia Reynolds can be reached at 726-4365.


Monterey County Weekly Coverage | Without more water, attorneys say, Monterey Downs could be sunk.


Horse Jumping

Nic Coury


Monterey Downs developer Brian Boudreau did not answer the Weekly’s calls and emails about the lack of water for his proposed project.


Monterey County Weekly Coverage | Attorney memo: There’s not enough water to build out Monterey Downs.


Brian Boudreau

Nic Coury


Monterey Downs developer Brian Boudreau faces an uphill battle on finding enough water for his homes-and-horse track development.


Monterey Downs horse racetrack may be dead in the water

Watch Video Here: http://www.ksbw.com/news/monterey-downs-horse-racetrack-may-be-dead-in-the-water/30267470

SEASIDE, Calif. —The controversial Monterey Downs project suffered another setback after a confidential memo went public.

With the memo going public, a crucial report on the project — set to be released this week — has been put on hold indefinitely.

The memo, which addressed water concerns surrounding the project, was accidentally included among hundreds of documents that were released under a public records request by a group opposing the project.

“It tells the public what they’ve known for a while, that there’s no water for Monterey Downs,” said Michael Salerno, spokesman for Keep Fort Ord Wild, the group that requested the documents.

The memo highlighted what the Marina Coast Water District concluded two years ago, that there isn’t enough water for the entire project, only part of it.

The sprawling project includes 800 homes, a horse racing track, commercial development and an events arena.

Developers are betting on two new water sources being considered by the water district; a de-salination plant and water recycling facility.

Neither are close to becoming a reality though.

Attorneys for the city told city planners they need to consider the environmental impacts of any new water source and determine who will get to use the water sources, according to the memo.

“If a new water source came on line, Monterey Downs is assuming that they’re first in line for it, which isn’t necessarily true,” said Salerno.

Both issues will likely need to be answered before a draft of the Environmental Impact Report is made public.

That report was scheduled to be released Friday but the decision to pull it was made after the confidential memo became public.

“I think they just want to take one more look at that section of the EIR to ensure that the issues that were talked about in that memo were adequately addressed in the EIR and we think in general they do,” said Teri Adam, a planner contracted by the city to work on the project.

The Monterey Downs project has been talked about for three years and planners said it could now be late spring before anything goes before the Seaside City Council for consideration.


Monterey County Herald Editorial: Monterey Downs preliminary draft EIR sorely lacking


In Sunday’s paper, Herald reporter Jim Johnson provided an interesting look at the environmental review of the proposed Monterey Downs development at Fort Ord. The focus was the “preliminary draft environmental impact report,” a document that tries to make the case that there is enough water for the sprawling development even though the consultants writing the report don’t really have any evidence that there is.

Perhaps we should call this a “preliminary draft editorial,” because we also don’t have enough evidence to back up our “tentative conclusions” about the report. But, like those working on the environmental review, we won’t let that stop us from putting our thoughts down on paper.

After reading the long document, we were struck by a sense of suspicion — a worry that the environmental study may have drifted away from the scientific and over into political territory.

We are told that objectivity is assumed and all-but guaranteed whenever an environmental impact report is being prepared for a development proposal. And as we said earlier, there is not enough information available at this point to cause us to allege anything other than pure motivations and honest effort by the firm writing this report. That would be RBF Consulting.

But when we see a report, even a preliminary draft one, glossing over things as important as the size of the available groundwater supply, and whether that supply if fixed or variable depending on conditions, we are not reassured.

Those are the most important elements of this review, so when RBF says it appears that each of the aquifers is sustainable, contrary to other opinions, we would expect to see support other than unidentified “studies.”

If this is how the rest of the process is going to go, as the words “preliminary” and “draft” are jettisoned and the report becomes just that, those in charge should either pull the plug now or insist that on serious science and conclusions based on reality rather than anyone’s expectations.


39,000 Oaks To Be Removed For Monterey Downs Complex

Keep Fort Ord Wild has obtained Monterey Downs planning documents from the City of Seaside under the California Public Records Act. To see the Monterey Downs and CCVC Forest Resource Evaluations, click the links below:




Oak Removal
More than 39,000 oaks are in the Monterey Downs project area…of which more than 9,000 are in “oak oval” area to be preserved…(theoretically)…though Monterey Downs has stated they plan to set-up a cross country horse course  there, so likely some oaks will be removed there too.

Thus, around 30,000 trees would come down if project gets approved, because it’s difficult to imagine that any trees would survive the mass grading and development as laid out in the MD specific plan and subdivision map.

The Vets Cemetery Report was also authored by Staub for FORA. It says over 9,000 oaks are on-site. Again, its difficult to imagine many oaks surviving the cemetery project, given the development and mass grading required. Note this report was prepared in 2010 for FORA. FORA chose to sit on the data during the Veterans Cemetery designation in late 2012. Its not hard to imagine this data could have affected the FORA board’s decisions or caused a more serious consideration of other sites with less environmental impact. Note: The Veterans Cemetery project is part of the Monterey Downs complex and will be analyzed in the same envoronmental review (EIR) process

Both reports talk about the presence of numerous landmark oaks in the respective project areas.

Overall, for the Monterey Downs complex (including the VC) it looks like 39,000+ oaks will eventually be removed.

Tree Replacement/Mitigation Issues

“Tree Replacement” sections (pg. 11 for VC) and (pg. 14 for MD).  Acknowledgement of the mitigation problems. —  Where do you replant 39,000 trees?

From MD Report:

 Since fairly dense oaks already cover nearly 60% of the project site and the proposed use will require substantial clearing, there is no likelihood that 1:1 on-site oak replacement will be appropriate.

From VC Report:

Since fairly dense oaks already cover nearly 65% of the project site and the proposed use will require substantial clearing, there is little likelihood that 1:1 on-site oak replacement will be appropriate.

 The reports indicate they will not be able to mitigate the oak loss on the project sites.  To duplicate +/- 60% of the lost oak acreage off-site, they would need to find  300+ suitable acres off site for mitigation.  Where?

Ancient Oaks Bulldozed in 2009 Fort Ord Clearcut

Results of a past Fort Ord Clearcut



Looking Back: 2007 Mass Grading at East Garrison

Wondering what the beautiful open space areas in Parker Flats will look like if the Monterey Downs is approved? Photos of the East Garrison development from 2007 give us a pretty good idea.

5,200 Coast Live Oaks removed for East Garrison.



East Garrison Stats:

Homes Planned = 1,470
Coast Live Oaks Removed = 5,200
Coast Live Oaks Replanted as of Dec. 2012 = 0
Homes Sold as of Dec. 2012 = 0


District 5 Supervisor Dave Potter personally ensured the community this project would be a winner:



FORA Board Approves Reassessment Report Farce


12/14/12 the FORA board approved the Final Reassessment Report for the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan.

Despite being one of the most important things FORA will ever do, only Supervisor Jane Parker chose to comment on the matter. Public comment was closed by FORA chair Dave Potter despite large amounts of new information since the draft version of the report.  See starting 15:30 in this video:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X3tbSmKAuk&feature=player_embedded#!


In addition to the report being filled with factual errors and omissions, the Final Reassessment Report represents a conflict of interest as FORA’s consultant EMC, is also managing the Monterey Downs project for the City of Seaside.

Click Below to open the letter to the FORA board outlining KFOW’s objections to the Final Reassessment Report.


The Final Reassessment Report is available on FORA’s website here: http://www.fora.org/resources.htm