≡ Menu

DSCN0558 (1)“Advertising is legalized lying.” 
–H.G. Wells

If I am not careful with what I am about to write here, I am in great danger of offending some of the fine people of Marina, so I wish to make it clear up front that that is not my intent. The fact is that I’m not entirely sure of my intent, but I saw something in the local papers this week that seemed to me to require some sort of examination, just the way some mountains require climbing.

It was an ad, full page, introducing local readers to a new development, Sea Haven, more specifically Preserve & Residences Sea Haven Monterey Bay. Hard to tell from the ad.

It was a splendid ad if its purpose was to capture attention. If its purpose was to accurately describe the product, however, it was kind of a fail. Very well done but a fail nonetheless.

The artwork is a lovely photo of the shoreline, with dunes and ground cover and some ocean.

The main headline tells us “The Ultimate Luxury is Living in a Place Few Know Exist.”

Intriguing.

It goes on to say, “Introducing Sea Haven in the city of Marina, a new residential community and nature preserve in the rolling dunes.”

OK, I said to myself. I must have missed something. There is a significant housing development, a Sea Ranch kind of place, to be built along the Marina shoreline? I know the newspapers are short of resources, or so they’re always telling us that, but how could they have missed this story? And how come I haven’t heard the gnashing of teeth at the Sierra Club or any threats of litigation over the inadequate EIR?

The ad referred me to a website, LifeSeaHaven.com. I proceeded there directly and with great curiosity.

If I wasn’t suspicious before, I was when I read this:

“While the Monterey Peninsula is revered around the world, few know of the little seaside towns that dot the coast along the Monterey Bay just to the north. The city of Marina is the kind of sleepy little beach town we all dream about.”

This is where I fear some Marinites might not care for what I’m writing here because they may see their little city exactly that way. I don’t wish to pick a fight with anyone, especially Partisan readers in Marina. I’ll just say this. I had not previously heard Marina described quite like that.

It goes on with some actually useful information.

“Sea Haven is a sustainable new planned community of approximately 1,050 homes throughout carefully crafted neighborhoods that spread over 248 acres on the former site of the historic Fort Ord U.S. Army Base. Here, the land gently rises and opens itself up to the distant sea for all to enjoy . . . “

Finally, a qualifier. “Distant.” And, on the next page, a map. It’s not exactly on the shoreline. In fact, it’s about a mile inland, at Imjin Parkway and Abrams Drive. Now I was getting it. This is what they used to call Marina Heights, or Cypress Marina Heights. Or, more accurately, the proposed Marina Heights.

Some will recall that the large chunk of former Fort Ord was approved for development back around 2008 when the economy went south. Before being mothballed, the project was in the hands of something called the Chadmar Group. You won’t find much of anything about the current principals on the website, but if you Google around some, you can find a disclaimer site that tells us not to believe everything we read elsewhere and that tells us the developers are now headquartered at a Marina Del Rey address that is home to something called Sunbrook Partners, which apparently is kind of a big deal in the world of real estate.

Oh yeah, there’s also a Facebook page. My favorites line there is this: “Sea Haven is just an ocean-drive away from all types of marine life exploration at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Get outdoors today!”

Take a bow, copywriters. You have outdone yourselves.

{ 23 comments }

The Partisan’s 2015 wish list, toward a better tomorrow

christmas tree lightA review of the Partisan’s posts of 2015 reveals that we did a reasonably good job of accentuating the positive and avoiding unnecessary criticism. In that spirit, we are taking this opportunity to distribute some presents of sorts with the barest amount of advice necessary to provide context.

City of Seaside: A gift bag filled with enough wisdom to realize that this horse-racing thing is never going to happen. You need to know this before you waste more time and money. It might have come to something if the centerpiece of this proposal was something other than a horse racing track, but that’s what it is. Horse racing was a dying enterprise even before the public started recognizing how many horses actually die at the tracks. On top of that, the location is wrong, the developers’ own financial forecasts don’t support the idea and the development team seems to think it can force it down the community’s throat.

Craig Malin: For the incoming Seaside city manager, a subscription to the Weekly and the Partisan because you’ve shown yourself to be a fan of good local journalism.

Sand City: Don’t be jealous about Seaside’s present. Here’s a box of reality for you, too. That hotel on the beach? It was a bureaucratic fluke that got the proposal this far but if you think the community is going to let you build a hotel on the sand, knowing what happens when buildings go up on the shore, you need to get out more.

City of Mared christmas backgroundrina: Your gift is a back brace to help continue to build a people-friendly community rather than a conglomeration of shopping centers and parking lots. Yes, people want restaurants in their commercial districts but the City Council can and should set standards. Time will prove the council right.

The City of King City: A whole new start.

Salinas Police Department: May the big shiny box behind the tree be filled with at least a few months of peace. The way your officers stepped up to contribute money for the 9-year-old abuse victim in the recent child homicide case was truly heartwarming. They deserve something other than crime scene after crime scene.

Jane Parker: Here’s hoping Santa brings you two new colleagues this year. Imagine a board trying to work together to serve the public! Yes, it sounds crazy, but we’ve all heard of Christmas miracles, right?

Dennis DonohuBirch forest in wintere: The former Salinas mayor won’t come right out and say he will run against Parker, though he’s already collecting campaign cash. Our gift is a simple reminder that to beat Parker, he’ll have to take loads of money from people he wouldn’t to have as neighbors. It’s about governance, Dennis, not commerce.

Pacific Grove: A city engineer who can figure out how to use the new hotel tax money to get the ancient sewer system fixed.

Carmel: A few dozen barbecue grills and a mural at the Post Office depicting the good old days of beach bonfires.

Sam Farr: Some fishing tackle.

Jimmy Panetta: A challenge from the left to keep you honest.

Casey Lucius: A professional campaign manager.

Monterey County Democratic Party: Leadership.

Monterey County Republican Party: New leadership.

Cal Am: A conscience.

{ 16 comments }
Cars in a parking lot

This is not what the framers of Marina’s general plan intended

TO HEAR SOME FOLKS SPIN IT, THE MARINA CITY COUNCIL IS OPPOSED TO RESTAURANTS IN OR AROUND THE DUNES SHOPPING CENTER AND HAS VOTED AGAINST THEM AND THE WILL OF THE SHOPPING PUBLIC.

IN FACT, THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL HAS TO DO WITH WHETHER MARINA SHOULD ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO BUILD WHATEVER THEY WANT, LEADING TO A CITY OF STRIP MALLS AND PARKING LOTS, OR IF THE CITY SHOULD STICK BY ITS PLAN TO TRY TO CREATE SOMETHING BETTER, MIXED USED, PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY RETAIL CENTERS.

THIS ARTICLE BY MARGARET DAVIS, ORIGINALLY POSTED IN THE PARTISAN IN AUGUST, HELPS SPELL IT OUT.

Since 1994, thousands of Monterey County residents have participated in public hearings, charrettes, symposia, and workshops on the reuse of Fort Ord, working with planners and electeds to craft a vision for well integrated, prosperous destinations and neighborhoods from the ruins of the former base.

Marina was the biggest recipient of federal land and its properties are for the most part highly visible–especially what became the Dunes development, along Highway 1, south of Imjin Parkway.

The Fort Ord Reuse Plan’s prescription for Fort Ord is replete with keywords such as sustainability, physical and visual linkage, concentrated development next to open space, major employment centers, transit and pedestrian access, special identity, integration, environmental stewardship, and, in sum, “sensitive site and facility planning and design.”

Marina was responsive to this Reuse Plan direction in 2003 and called for extensive citizen participation in hammering out how this would be expressed at the Dunes. This public–council–staff collaboration is reflected in the Dunes on Monterey Bay Specific Plan.

The Dunes (or University Villages, as it was formerly called) was to be an urban center built according to modern, tried, profitable, and humane design principals, enjoying the buzz and appeal of creative mixed use consistent with the Reuse Plan and Marina general plan. Multiple-use commercial parcels were included as economic drivers to provide multiple benefits to the city. The general plan sets the standard for multiple-use properties, explaining, “The intent of the multiple-use commercial category is to permit and encourage a mix of different land-use types in a planned and integrated manner [and] … serves a number of functions, including reducing the total number of vehicular trips by encouraging multiple- purpose trips and access by foot to many destinations.” –General Plan Primary Policy 2.4.5.

Multiple-use zoning includes a minimum density requirement, so you don’t waste your best commercial land on a small development that won’t bring in revenue. The density is measured in floor-area ratio, or FAR. High FARs permit denser developments that lead to greater revenue streams for a jurisdiction. At the Dunes, high density encourages a walkable and integrated shopping experience like Del Monte Center’s, rather than widely spaced retail dominated by parking lots. Concentrated, “intense” development creates room for adjacent open space and connections to parks, trails, and public areas.

With that background, the issue is as follows: at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday Sept. 1, the Marina City Council will vote on an amendment to eliminate the minimum density requirements from multiple-use properties.

This amendment to the general plan is proposed to accommodate a single developer at the Dunes and his extremely low-density project south of the REI/Target parking lot.

The specific plan for the 3.7-acre project site calls for a total of 57,230 square feet of floor space, stacked in three two-story buildings. The developer proposes 21,000 square feet of floor space, a reduction in FAR from .34 to .13.

A .34 FAR is not high to begin with. For comparison, the Grocery Outlet shopping center at Del Monte and Reservation has a FAR of .32.

The proposed project features several fast-food chains, including two drive-throughs running along 2nd Avenue, a hair salon, a Verizon outlet, etc.

I am asking Partisan readers who understand the long-term value of Fort Ord land and support economically robust, socially rewarding design at the Dunes to endorse an online petition asking the Marina council to deny the request to modify the general plan.

The petition is here.

The proposed general plan amendment would:

  1. Inflict long-term economic injury to city of Marina, and by extension, the region
  2. Reduce potential job opportunities in Marina
  3. Reduce opportunities for small business
  4. Underutilize Marina’s valuable land
  5. Promote “strip mall” development
  6. Discourage use of public transportation
  7. Discard smart planning principles
  8. Eliminate requirements that encourage people-oriented, mixed-use “destinations”
  9. Influence overall development patterns throughout the Dunes, shifting from an emphasis on walkability towards a “park and re-park” automobile orientation

The economic effects of the proposed amendment are summarized in the staff report to the Marina Planning Commission (May 28, 2015):

In addition to maintaining sufficient intensity of use to promote a pedestrian-oriented pattern of development, the intent of a minimum FAR  is to ensure economic development that provides a strong fiscal base and prevent underutilization of land. Land appropriate for community development is intended in the General Plan to be allocated and phased in a manner that enhances local employment and economic opportunities and provides the City with a strong economic and fiscal base (General Plan Primary Policy 2.4.12). A diversified and sound economic base is consistent with General Plan Goal No. 9, in that it will permit the delivery of high-quality public services to city residents and businesses (Section 1.18.9). The proposed text amendment would allow development that underutilizes the potential intensity of land uses and, therefore, minimizes enhancements to the City’s economic and fiscal base.

Marina now has a wellness center, hotel, shopping center, VA clinic, university campus, MPC, cinema, and 1,200 new homes underway at the Dunes. The location is prime for the type of development that includes restaurants, retail, business suites, and lofts.

The vision of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan, Marina General Plan, and the Dunes on Monterey Bay Specific Plan is within Marina’s grasp.

Margaret Davis is a member of the Marina Planning Commission and executive director of the Friends of the Fort Ord Warhorse. She is a recipient of Supervisor Jane Parker’s Instigator of Excellence Award.

{ 14 comments }

Clean Drinking WaterThe draft environmental impact report on Cal Am’s proposed desalination plant concludes that the controversial operation would have “less than significant” impact on groundwater, salt water intrusion and Monterey Bay water quality, the subjects of serious concern among opponents of the slow-moving project.

The report was made public Thursday on the state Public Utilities Commission website, setting off a 60-day comment period.

Environmental Science Associates, which prepared the dense, 1,700-page document, also concludes that construction of a smaller plant obviously would have less of an environmental impact even if combined with a new groundwater replenishment project.

Environmental groups and the Ag Land Trust, which owns property next to the project site on the Cemex property north of Marina, have contended that the plant’s pumps would illegally suck up fresh water belonging to others, including water long claimed by Salinas Valley growers. The EIR agrees that fresh water would be drawn in, possibly more than Cal Am’s engineers expected, but it estimates that the plant would draw down the water table in the area by no more than a foot. It labels that a less than significant impact, one that would not require any mitigation.

The report mentions that the Ag Land Trust says it operates a well about a mile from the plant site but an EIR subcontractor couldn’t find it and the State Water Resources Control Board has no record of it. The trust has been sharply critical of the project.

It is possible, according to the report, that the desalination operation actually could ease seawater intrusion by drawing fresh water toward the ocean.

The report says brine discharged by the plant would violate water quality standards in the bay but indicates that the damage could be mitigated. Some scientists have opined that the brine is likely to settle on the floor of the bay and create a dead zone.

Clean Drinking WaterCal Am is under pressure to create a new water supply because of a state order that it dramatically cut back on its use of Carmel River water by the end of next year. With the desalination process slowly slogging through the engineering and regulatory processes, local officials have given up on the 2016 deadline and are pleading with state officials to push the deadline back by several years.

Copies of the report are available at the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency offices in Ryan Ranch, at the Marina and Seaside community development departments and at some area libraries.

A series of public meetings is scheduled to start May 26 at the Marina library.

{ 4 comments }

Cal Am and critics are fighting hard over a hole in the sand

IMG_0028 2

The Cemex sand-mining operation along Monterey Bay north of Marina, which is where Cal Am wants to drill a desalination test well.

During the political campaigning that ended with last week’s election, Democratic Congressman Sam Farr did something unusual. In the race for two seats on the Marina City Council, he endorsed strongly conservative Nancy Amadeo and registered independent Dan Devlin Jr. instead of Democratic incumbent Dave Brown.

Farr’s explanation was straightforward. He was punishing Brown for not voting to let Cal Am Water drill a desalination test well in the Marina sand dunes.

In an email, Farr explained, “I support friends. I support (Mayor Bruce Delgado) and Nancy because they supported the rest of the Peninsula’s effort to solve the water issue. I thought the blockage (the majority vote against the permit) was selfish and punitive.”

Farr’s choice helps illustrate how much energy and politicking is going into the unresolved issue of whether Cal Am should be allowed to proceed with a test well. Ultimately, it’s about a lot more than a simple well, of course. It is the latest in a series of increasingly testy fights between the Cal Am camp, which includes the hospitality industry and other business interests, and Cal Am’s detractors, which include many area environmental activists and others who worry what an expensive desalination plant is going to do to the already high cost of water locally.

Cal Am has been trying for most of this year to move ahead with a plan to drill a test well to help determine whether the Cemex sand mining property on the Marina shoreline is a feasible location for the desalination plant it hopes to build to help solve the Peninsula’s water shortage. In essence, the plan is to drill a well slightly inland from the ocean to draw seawater and some fresh groundwater and determine whether the sand can serve as a filter to prevent the intake of sea life.

Engineers also want to see how much fresh water would be drawn into the well, an issue of grave concern to neighboring property owners and others with rights to the Salinas Valley aquifer, which reaches to Marina and beyond. If things go well, the well could be converted to a production well for the actual desalination plant.

Rather than granting a permit, however, the majority of the Marina City Council voted to require an environmental impact report, which would add many months to the desalination project. The council members say they were only protecting the environment and state environmental laws that require EIRs for projects that create the potential for significant harm. In an appeal to the California Coastal Commission, Cal Am and its cohorts say the issue is the economic health of the Peninsula, which they say easily trumps the environmental niceties.

The issue goes to the Monterey County Board of Supervisors Tuesday Nov. 11 for an advisory vote and then to the Coastal Commission the next day for a possible vote on a motion to overturn the city of Marina and allow Cal Am to proceed. Under tremendous political pressure to permit the testing, the commission is likely to say yes, but don’t expect it to end there. Much of the opposition input is written like legal briefs, so the two sides are likely to see each other in court.

Here, the Partisan will try to explain what’s happening, a task that will tax our analytical skills to the max. It might take a while, so you might want to take a seat.

BACKGROUND

As most everyone knows by now, the state Water Resources Board has issued an order requiring the Peninsula to reduce its reliance on the threatened Carmel River starting in 2016. After Plans A, B and C fell through, the only real plan in place now involves construction of a desalination plant along with a handful of supplemental projects, including additional wastewater reclamation.

Unfortunately for all, the process has been compromised by petty corruption, politics of all sorts, litigation and bureaucratic dilly-dallying. It became obvious long ago that there is no chance of meeting the state’s deadline, which is why an assortment of Peninsula bigwigs is preparing to descend on Sacramento later this month to beg for mercy and time. The state agency is fully empowered to require deep reductions in water usage, and the water-reliant hospitality industry is in near-panic mode.

Well testing is expected to take more than two years, once it gets started, and actual construction of the desalination plant couldn’t begin until completion of an arduous regulatory process and additional engineering work. Even so, Cal Am and the area officials hope to obtain the well-drilling permit as a signal to the state that progress is, at long last, being made.

THE VOTE

After a series of delays, Cal Am’s permit application finally went to the Marina City Council for a vote on Sept. 4. The issue put the council in an unusual position. Most city governments in the area are solidly behind Cal Am’s desalination plan because their jurisdictions are running short on water and political leaders are worried about the economic impact of a severe water cutback. Marina isn’t served by Cal Am, however. It has its own water district, the Marina Coast Water District and would not be directly affected by the state cutback order.

Making things more complicated, the Marina Coast Water District was a partner with Cal Am and Monterey County in an earlier incarnation of a desalination project. That venture fell apart, but Marina Coast Water District believes Cal Am still owes it some big money from that failed effort. Not so incidentally, trial over that dispute is scheduled to begin Dec. 1 in San Francisco.

Also not so incidentally, the City Council majority in Marina is politically compatible with the majority of the Marina Coast board, so Cal Am wasn’t as warmly received in Marina as it might have hoped. When Cal Am and its supporters in the hospitality industry complain about obstructionists and those who would destroy the Peninsula’s economy, Marina officials don’t quiver the way their counterparts in Monterey, Seaside or Carmel might.

RATIONALE

Anybody who is anybody in the world of water testified before the Marina council. Cal Am argued that there was no reason not to proceed. Time’s a’wasting, the company emphasized. Representatives of the hospitality industry, who had pressured employees to attend, warned of dire economic consequences if the vote went the wrong way. Cal Am critics argued that Cal Am and the industry have made an unholy alliance with hotel officials supporting Cal Am in exchange for a sweetheart arrangement on water rates.

The meeting went on forever.

In the end, the Marina council voted 3-2 to require that Cal Am perform an environmental impact report before proceeding with the test well.  Council members said they were concerned primarily about the well’s potential impact on the surrounding groundwater in the Salinas Valley aquifer. They also were concerned about whether the pumping would violate the water rights of other property owners.

The technical grounds for the decision are important now for legal reasons. The council members in the majority—David Brown, Frank O’Connell, and Gail Norton—said they felt compelled to vote as they did no matter how they felt about the desalination plant and the threat of economic harm to the community. Clearly, they said, pumping a large amount of water along the shoreline could have significant environmental impacts, so the law requires full exploration of the potentials.

Councilman Brown won re-election last week despite falling into disfavor with Farr. He explained the thinking in a subsequent email to Farr. He noted that the other two lawyers on the council agreed with his analysis:

“First, I did not vote against desal, or desal in Marina. I simply voted to require an EIR. Second, our CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) attorney explained the matter as somewhat analogous to a motion for summary judgment, namely if there is opposing environmental evidence on both sides of the issue, from experts, as to the possibility of environmental harm to Marina’s 180-foot aquifer, we don’t weigh the evidence, we simply note the conflict and then require an EIR.

“There was expert testimony from engineer Brian Lee of (Marina Coast Water District) of such harm. I viewed the matter as more of a legal one than anything else, and as an attorney I felt I had to respect that process . . . . You may recall that a few months earlier, I voted to approve (in a 3-2 vote) Cal Am’s bid to drill temporary boreholes at the Cemex plant, for water-quality testing. I voted that way because it was clear there would be no significant environmental impact.”

APPEAL PROCESS

Cal Am quickly appealed to the Coastal Commission, which has the power to overturn local jurisdictions in cases involving significant public works projects.

The commission staff is recommending that the commission grant the test well permit. The staff’s legal argument is largely that the City Council did not properly document its position in the context of the city’s coastal protection plan as approved by the commission and that the overriding issue, the Peninsula’s water supply, is more important than an EIR.

The staff found that alternative locations for the test well and the desalination plant itself are more environmentally vulnerable than the already developed Cemex site. The staff also found that the public interest compels approval of the test well because progress on the project is necessary in order for the Peninsula to eventually abide by the state’s water cutback order.

The staff did concur with the City Council in places. It said the test well plan is inconsistent with the city- and commission-approved coastal habitat protection plan and that numerous requirements should be attached to the permit to assure that Cal Am protects the site to the greatest extent possible and is responsible for eventual cleanup.

One thing that is curious about the staff report is that it keys on the city’s rationale for essentially denying the permit but does not include a full transcript of the city proceedings.

Tom Moore, chairman of the Marina Coast Water District board, pointd that out in a note to the district engineer.

“Someone brought to my attention the fact that it appears as though the Coastal Commission staff has redacted more than 200 pages from the City of Marina’s transcript of the slant well hearings before the City Council in September.  The online staff report to the Coastal Commissioners on this item for Wednesday’s meeting contains less than 40 of the more than 300 pages of the transcript.”

After listing the missing pages, Moore continued, “I have to say that this boggles my mind.  Who authorized such an extensive redaction, one that prevents the Coastal Commissioners and the public from understanding the entirety of the proceedings that were held before Marina City Council.”

PRO AND CON

Presumably, correspondence on the issue was flowing into the commission in the past weeks. Farr, among others, wrote a letter strongly supporting the permitting of a test well.

Among those writing letters in opposition was the Ag Land Trust, which owns rights to Salinas Valley aquifer water in the area.

“The Coastal Commission, if it follows (the staff’s) wrongful advice, will be taking an ‘ultra viras’ (beyond its power) act and approving an illegal test well which violates CEQA, which fails to address the cumulative adverse impacts of the project as a whole and which will result in an unlawful ‘taking’ of groundwater rights from the Ag Land Trust and other rights holders.”

The Ag Land Trust letter was signed by former county Supervisor Marc Del Piero, a lawyer who has specialized in water, and Richard Nutter, retired Monterey County ag commission

The trust said it owns extensive groundwater rights in the area, including on property adjacent to the Cemex property, and that Cal Am has not produced any evidence that it has any rights to groundwater that would be pumped along with seawater. In its 11-page letter, the trust also said the test well would violate numerous provisions of the Marina coastal plan as approved by the commission and not just the habitat provision cited by the staff.

“The Ag Land Trust understands that there is a water shortage on the Monterey Peninsula. We have not caused nor have we contributed to that problem. It has gone on for decades . . . . The water shortage that is of Cal Am making, by its failure to produce a water supply project in over 20 years, does not justify the commission staff’s proposed illegal taking of our groundwater and property rights and the intentional contamination of our potable aquifers and wells for the sold and private economic benefit of Cal Am.”

So there you have it. Important stuff. And, as always, the Partisan would like to know what you think. You can leave a comment below.

{ 16 comments }

American Flag Painted by Roller Brush, Wining Concept of Flag

UPDATE: Here is Marina Coast Water District candidate Sarab Sarabi’s response to the news reported below on Oct. 8  that he is on probation following a marijuana-related arrest last year.

“I have been the state political director or the student wing of the California Democratic Party, I have served as the policy director of the western United States for the student wing of the Democratic National Committee, I have sat on the Senate Bill 1440 Implementation and oversight Committee, I was instrumental in getting several state lawmakers to support the California dream act, I have fought all my life for democratic values and supported leaders who seek to implement those values, locally I ran the canvassing operation with the mayor and designed the literature for Marina’s measure Ito fund police, fire and senior services all this work in the name of democratic values.But people are encouraging you to research a criminal record instead. Alright well since you asked, yes, I was arrested for possession of marijuana but there is no such thing as felony probation and I was released. Just a couple months after the arrest the DA tried to throw the sun and the moon at me but at the end of the day all of the original chargeswere dropped. I pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor just so I could get it over with. I should have had my medical marijuana license on me but the paper is so large and awkward to carry around I often just don’t. (The Partisan also asked Sarabi about a rumor that he had a previous arrest for arson) As to the fire damage I was playing with fire in my own room and it got out of hand I was just old enough for this to go on my adult record by the way that was almost two decades ago, Since then I have done many great things. I tutored at risk children in math and science while I was a student at Monterey Peninsula College, I have devoted my life’s efforts to the enfranchisement of young people whether it was access to college or the ballot box or something as simple as helping them with homework my efforts in Sacramento led to the legislature passing several bills that made college more accessible tohundreds of thousands of young people across California.

“I can go on and on about the past my local efforts on measure I ensured continued funding for fire, police, and seniors my work has not gone unrecognized as I have beenawarded various awards including one from our very own congressman Sam Farr as well as the state chancellor’s office.In the end I bring balance a fresh face, a policy background, passion and energy. I’m looking forward to being able to work with Jan (Shriner) and Margaret (Davis) to really unite Marina and do the people’s work. We can’t do that with Howard (Gustafson), Ken (Nishi) or Bill (Lee). Thank you. I hope this answered your question I look forward to building a long-term relationship with you if you would like to ask more questions in the future.”

Proprietor’s note: Marina police records say Sarabi was arrested after a small amount of marijuana was found during a traffic stop in 2013. A Monterey County Superior Court docket sheet says he pleaded no contest to a felony charge of possession of concentrated cannabis and that three other felony charges were dismissed as the result of a plea bargain. The record says he was placed on three years probation with the understanding that the felony would be reduced to a misdemeanor upon successful completion of probation. “The People indicate to the Court that the plea agreement included no reduction of count 4 to a misdemeanor unless the defendant successfully completes the term of probation, defense concurs.”

 

 

Continuing where we left off in Part 1, with the easiest pick of the season.

SHERIFF: When the Monterey County Weekly endorsed incumbent Scott Miller, it said the choice was so obvious that “even the Herald got it right.” Here here. Or is it hear hear. I have never been sure

Steve Bernal, a sheriff’s deputy with absolutely no management experience, should be ashamed of the campaign that Brandon Gesicki and other GOP henchmen are running on his behalf.

Gesicki has been telling people that the Bernal campaign has some bombshells to drop on the sheriff. They’ve made as much noise as possible for as long as possible about Miller’s son being a druggie. That, at least, is true. I’m betting that Gesicki and company will soon be making stuff up.

Bernal’s campaign advertising portrays Miller as some sort of crime boss and Bernal as the decent, honorable alternative. If hanging around with Gesicki and his ilk hasn’t drained all the honor out of him already, he should publicly fire his advisers, apologize to his boss and sign up for some training

Miller is highly experienced. He spent years in the Salinas Police Department, rising through the ranks, and was police chief in Pacific Grove before being elected sheriff. He inherited a mixed bag staff-wise with a fair number of deputies who had coasted through their jobs. He has worked to make them accountable and to weed out the worst. A goodly number of deputies are supporting Bernal and it’s no wonder. Who would you rather work for, a hard-nosed boss or your buddy?

Though the position is non-partisan, Bernal’s candidacy is all about partisanship. The local Republican Party is hellbent in getting as many GOPers as possible elected to local office. Before the campaign, one of the party bosses offered Miller a deal. Register as a Republican or we’ll run someone against you. You can see what happened.

For another glimpse at how things really work, check out Bernal’s list of endorsers and you’ll see some familiar names out of Carmel. Though cute little Carmel has little stake in law enforcement outside its borders, Bernal has been endorsed by former Mayor Sue McCloud and former City Council members Paula Hazdovac and Gerard Rose. Yes, they’re Republicans but that’s not the whole story. Some may recall that Miller’s wife, Jane, was once personnel director in Carmel and she successfully sued the city after she was repeatedly sexually harassed by the city manager at the time, during the incumbency of McCloud and there others. She received a settlement of $600,000.

You be the judge. McCloud, Hazdovac and Rose, sharp cookies all, decided for some odd reason to endorse a cluelessly inexperienced candidate for sheriff, or could it be retaliation? Politics at its worst.

In other words, re-elect Miller.

DEL REY OAKS: Incumbent city councilmen Jeff Cecilio and Dennis Allion are trying to stay on board while challenger Patricia Lintell, a retired computer scientist, is trying to knock one of them off. I’d go for Lintell because the incumbents in Del Rey Oaks seem hell-bent in turning their Police Department into a little Army for no particular reason. Forced to pick one of the incumbents to stick around, I’d go with Cecilio simply because I talked to him once and he seemed OK. I wouldn’t try to talk anyone out of voting for Allion, however.

GREENFIELD: I generally don’t dig too deeply into Salinas Valley races but Greenfield Mayor John Huerta has been in office long enough. He and I have quite a few mutual acquaintances. They always seem to pause when they talk about him. In other words, they have reservations but they’re reluctant to put them into words.

Challenger Michael Richard de Leon-Mungia is young, smart and eager. Let’s give him a shot.

MARINA: Mayor Bruce Delgado is one of the nicest guys around. In almost every way he is the opposite of past mayors Gary “You Talkin’ to Me” Wilmot and Ila “I’m An Army Colonel and Don’t You Forget It” Mettee McCutchon. Delgago has enough of the ‘60s peace-love-and-understanding stuff left in him to drive the Board of Realtors wild but he has proved to be hard-working, conscientious and respectful of his constituents.

Delgado’s opponent, Ken Turgen, is an architect and planning commissioner whose list of supporters reads like the guest list for one of Ila’s birthday parties. Delgado is receiving support from the slow-growthers. Turgen is the pick of the  fast-growthers. If Cal Am has any money left over from its last campaign, look for someof it to end up in Turgen’s treasury.

I’d suggest voting for Delgado unless you like strip malls and taxpayer-subsidized construction projects.

Meanwhile, two incumbents and a newcomer are competing for two seats on the Marina council.

Incumbent David Brown, one of three lawyers on the council, often votes with Delgado, Frank O’Connell and Gail Morton. Let’s call them the liberals. Incumbent Nancy Amadeo often votes the other way. Let’s call her not a liberal.

Re-electing Brown and Amadeo is a fine idea. It won’t shift the balance of power and will keep one person on board to help keep the others honest. Recreation Commissioner Dan Devlin Jr. also seems vote-worthy, partly because his late father, the former Defense Language Institute commander, was one sharp fellow. Even so, I’d vote either Brown-Amadeo or Brown-Devlin, not Amadeo-Devlin.

MONTEREY: Clyde Roberson will be the next mayor because he scared everyone else off. He was a very popular mayor a long time ago and every seems to think he did a good job.

The City Council race, however, is a real contest. Two seats are open, those of Nancy Selfridge and Frank Sollecito. Frank’s had enough and is hoping that another retired Monterey cop, Ed Smith, takes his place.

Smith is a worthwhile candidate. He’s studied the issues closely and understands city business. However, I can’t stop thinking that for him, job one would be protecting police pensions at the expense of everything else.

Selfridge is the wind-up councilwoman. She’s here, she’s there, this meeting today, that meeting tonight, or visiting a sister city at her own expense. Early on in her council career, she was hopelessly naïve. She’s wiser now but still an idealist. Every City Council needs at least one. During the past term, she expended much of her energy fighting with then-City Manager Fred Meurer. Now that he’s gone, she should be able to put her energy into larger causes. (When you read the Herald’s endorsement in this race, keep in mind that Meurer’s wife, Phyllis, is now on the Herald editorial board.)

With lefty Alan Haffa already on the council, his friend Tim Barrett could amount to one idealist too many. He’s a true peace-loving, homelessness-fighting Occupy Wall Street kind of liberal of the sort that has been in short supply here over the decades. Selfridge supporters fear, however, that a Barrett victory could mean a Selfridge defeat, so they’re urging voters to shy away from Tim. I’m also bothered by his ages-old arrest for allegedly manhandling his girlfriend.

Lawyer Hansen Reed is the solid guy in the middle. He isn’t fully up to speed on some of the issues, such as desalination, but he is known to be a quick study and is well regarded in the legal community. Barrett’s politics suit my own better but I agree that voting for him would reduce the chances of a Selfridge victory. I’m thinking Selfridge and Reed.

SEASIDE: If it was a popularity contest between Mayor Ralph Rubio and former Mayor Felix Bachofner, Rubio would win it easily. He’s the handsome charmer, the guy who remembers everyone’s name and accepts criticism with a smile. Bachofner, an aggressive, youngish businessman, won’t win on style points. And there’s that name. I just looked it up and I’m still not sure I’m spelling it right.

But style points or not, Rubio shouldn’t be in office for the simple reasons that he’s a mucky-muck with the Carpenters Union. No one else around seems to care but to me it is one heck of a conflict as much as I admire unionism. Most of the controversial items that go before the council involve development. When Rubio votes yes, as he almost always does, is he voting yes as the mayor or yes as the union executive who sees jobs for his members? The upcoming decisions on the Monterey Downs racetrack venture will be as controversial as they come. The project also would create quite a few carpentry jobs. I’d like to think the mayor’s analysis goes deeper than that.

Did you know that the Home Depot store in Seaside, which was fast-tracked through the Seaside City Council, is in a building owned by the Carpenters Union?

Rubio’s got all the moves, but Bachofner should be back in office. When he was mayor before being knocked off by Rubio, he worked hard on all sorts of issues and represented a wider range of interests than Rubio does. As a small businessman, he had minor conflicts of his own but he worked them out forthrightly. He’s the right choice.

Meanwhile, the Seaside City Council election is a four-man race for two seats.

I’ll always support incumbent Alvin Edwards, the retired fire captain and former water board member. That’s because he truly understands what working-class families are up against in Seaside and because he always laughs at my jokes. Alvin made a name for himself politically while he was on the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District board. When development interests applied pressure to the board, and essentially disrespected the environmentalist bloc on the board. Edwards responded by stepping up and becoming a leader of the water-conservation, slow-growth contingent. I wish he would take more of a leadership role on the council, but I’m glad he’s there even when he’s quiet.

I’m also giving a thumbs up to landscape contractor Jason Campbell because he is smart, energetic and opposed to the Monterey Downs boondoggle. The council needs at least one person who won’t rubber stamp development. Jason was a leader of last year’s unsuccessful anti-Monterey Downs initiative, but even those on the other side of that campaign would have to admit that his side would have prevailed if the other side hadn’t relied on fraudulent advertising. He would be the odd man out much of the time, but he would be serving a great purpose by keeping the council accountable.

The other incumbent is the very likable Dennis Alexander. I find it fascinating that the ballot doesn’t say he’s an incumbent. Instead, it calls him a teacher and reserve police officer. Maybe the value of incumbency is slipping. He has done a fine job on the council but not fine enough to recommend him over Edwards and Campbell.

PACIFIC GROVE: For mayor, I’m going with the incumbent, Bill Kampe, though I have found myself disagreeing with him on water issues. I have a hard time supporting anyone who didn’t support the effort to take Cal Am Water public. But challenger John Moore, a lawyer, is too much of a one-note guy, all about pensions. Important thing, police pensions, but not the only thing.

Six candidates are competing for three seats on the P.G. City Council. If I knew more than I do, I’d tell you all about it, but I don’t so I won’t.

SALINAS: Mayor Joe Gunter, the former police detective, is a pretty good guy, though I wish he would vote his conscience more often rather than political expedience. Take him aside sometime and ask how he really feels about cardroom gambling.

If I lived in Salinas, I’d vote for challenger Bill Freeman, the outspoken Hartnell College trustee who has championed progressive causes and who has been a real friend to the instructors. I like his stance on most things, but I’m not going to pretend that most people in Salinas could ever support him. I wish he had run for a seat on the council first. Gunter would be the more practical choice but who says we always have to be practical? Freeman.

No matter what I say here, the three City Council candidates will be re-elected, though Kimbley Craig‘s opponent, Eric Peterson, seems to be coming on. I had initially felt that Peterson was simply too liberal for the north Salinas district, but he has demonstrated a command of the issues. Unfortunately, much of his key support seems to be coming from outside the district, particularly on the Peninsula.

As for incumbent Tony Barrera, I’ll simply remind him that he is still trying to rebuild trust after previous legal issues. His aggressive style can work well in representing the city’s poorest district but the tough-guy persona doesn’t always work. I’d remind Councilman Steve McShane the he’s not 23 any more and remind Councilwoman Kimbley Craig that expectations are rising. She’s not the new kid on the council anymore.

No, it hasn’t escaped my attention that these three incumbents are the very same three incumbents who got together and scolded the former city librarian to the point that she walked away with a big-dollar settlement from the city. But what’s that old saying about the devil you know….

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT: Now, to my favorite contest.

Many voters on the Peninsula figure there’s no need to pay attention to the Marina Coast Water District, which supplies water to Marina and much of Fort Ord. The thing is, the district board is an important player in area water affairs. At one time it was a partner with Cal Am in an attempt to build a desalination plant. Now, it may go it alone on a plant and no matter what happens, it has the capacity to play a spoiler role in other water-related efforts. That’s why it is important to have skilled and public-spirited people on the board. Therefore, I’ll start with the candidates who should NOT be on the board.

Incumbent Howard Gustafson and former trustee Ken Nishi are a two-man team apparently committed to keeping everyone confused. They say their motivation is to keep water rates down but it’s hard to tell because they seem to communicate in code.

Gustafson’s the board bully, or would-be bully. His tactics often don’t work because people often can’t figure out what he’s talking about. Nishi is the mischief maker, the sneaky one. Voters should be reminded of the time when he was serving on the Peninsula sewage treatment board at the same time and  arranged for the water district to hire away the sewage district’s chief executive, breaking several confidences in the process.

Gustafson and Nishi have a fast-growth agenda and other agendas known only to them. They have been endorsed by the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, a decision that decidedly cheapens the chamber’s other endorsements. If you live in Marina, don’t vote for them. If you have friends in Marina, call them and tell them not to vote for these guys. Having them on the board reduces the effectiveness of board member Tom Moore, one of the smartest people I know. He’s a Naval Postgraduate School professor and they’re all wonks over there. He also has a remarkable understanding of water politics and water-related engineering. Having Nishi and Gustafson on the board with him again would make board politics so difficult and confounding that his effectiveness could be seriously degraded. He’d have to spend all his time playing their games.

When Nishi and Gustafson were on the board together a few years back, I compared the district to a Moose Lodge. I owe an apology to the Moose.

Incumbent Bill Lee also should be thanked and excused. I’m not sure I understand his game either, but he calls himself a security consultant when he’s actually a bail bondsman. When his brother in law ran for a board seat a few years back, Bill introduced him to everyone without mentioning the relationship.

Initially I was ready to endorse Sarab Sarabi along with two excellent choices, Jan Shriner and Margaret Davis, but I have been urged to do some additional research on Mr. Sarabi. Court records indicate that he is on felony probation following an arrest last year for a minor marijuana offense. I have asked him about it but haven’t received a response. (UPDATE”: SEE RESPONSE AT TOP OF POST).

Shriner has become a water wonk and the board’s monitor of all things procedural. She obviously feels that things will work out well if everything is above board and all procedures are followed to the letter, which puts her at distinct odds with Gustafson and Nishi. She takes her position extremely seriously and deserves another term.  Davis, meanwhile, is an editor and land-use activist. She is fully conversant on the issues and would be a great addition to a board looking for ways to solve the region’s water problems.

Shriner and Davis

BALLOT MEASURES: Maybe later.

{ 36 comments }

Do profits prevent Cal Am from picking up the pace?

????Twelve years ago, Nader Agha told me “Cal Am will never build a desal plant.”

We were having lunch at the Hyatt Monterey. Agha had set up the meeting to chew me out. I was the city editor at the Monterey Herald, which had published an article about his plan to buy the National Refractories property at Moss Landing. Agha, the developer-coin dealer-entrepreneur, was buying it as a potential site for a desalination plant of his own and he feared that publicity would kill the deal.

When I said I was skeptical about his ability to build a desal plant, he shook his head and said, “Do you really think Cal Am is going to build a desal plant?” He drew in his breath and raised his shoulders and said, slowly and loudly, “Cal Am will NEVER build a desal plant. NEVER.”

Why’s that, I asked, quickly and softly. He pulled out a pen and started scrawling on a napkin. There were numbers and arrows and plus signs and minuses. When he could tell I was not following, he wadded the napkin and said, “It’s simple. Cal Am is making too much money selling water that it gets for free. Why would the company want to spend millions of dollars doing something else when it is making so much money selling water it gets for free?”

Each time Cal Am suffers another setback in its effort to build a desal plant for the Peninsula, I think about Agha’s prediction. He’s no expert on utility finance but he has does know something about buying low and selling high. Given Cal Am’s halting progress toward a desal solution, I have had plenty of occasions to think about his forecast.

I thought of it again this week, of course, when I heard that Cal Am is suing over rights to use the Cemex property in Marina to drill test wells. In case you missed it, there had been a big fuss over the last several months over whether the city of Marina would allow Cal Am to drill the wells without conducting a complete environmental impact study. The city said no, and Cal Am supporters howled that do-nothing environmentalists on the City Council were trying to block the desal plant because of its growth-inducing potential.

As we have been told again and again, time’s a’wasting. The Peninsula is under state order to greatly reduce its reliance on the Carmel River. Cal Am needs to develop a considerable supply of replacement water pronto or face large fines.

Who pays those fines is an open question, of course. If Cal Am can persuade the state that it did all it could, those fines could land right on top of our water bills. Cal Am has stumbled to the right and stumbled to the left since the original water cutback order of 1995 but has managed each time to somehow put the blame on everyone else.

Now, here’s another delay and Cal Am is telling us it wasn’t its fault. It was Marina’s fault or the fault of whoever got to Cemex.

It turns out Cal Am had no firm deal with Cemex to drill the wells. Cal Am’s engineering department had gotten ahead of the legal department. In other words, this multinational conglomerate has been spending more ratepayer money and doing all sorts of engineering and hydrological work based on a handshake arrangement with another multinational conglomerate.

Good thinking.

Now Cal Am will try to get the courts to order Cemex to go along as a public necessity. There will be appeals and appeals of appeals, all involving deployments of sharply dressed lawyers.

We’ll be told that it’s the fault of do-nothing enviros, or even Cal Am customers who couldn’t convince Marina politicians that it is their responsibility to fix water problems outside their jurisdiction.

Eventually, I imagine, we’ll be asked to pay for it all, the appeals and the appeals of the appeals and the nicely dressed lawyers and the studies. Plus a 10 percent profit margin on top of it.

And in the meantime, Cal Am will keep pumping free water from the Carmel River and charging us more and more for it.

All because Cal Am’s lawyers didn’t do their job.

Or did they?

{ 18 comments }