EDITORIAL RELEASE: FORA Extension Issues

[FORA ESCA Remediation Program]

EDITORIAL RELEASE

Release Date: March 22, 2012
By: Steve Endsley, Assistant Executive Officer

FORA Extension Issues

Over the last several days, there have been a number of questions
posed regarding the extension of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority. I am
submitting this piece to provide a clear picture of what the extension
attempts to do and to address questions. One of the issues posed
revolves around the process for FORA dissolution. FORA has agreed it
is a good idea to include specific reference to a Phase-out Plan for
whenever FORA sunsets. Assembly member Monning has submitted bill
language to accomplish this.

Having met personally with representatives from the Sierra Club,
League of Women Voters, and LandWatch over the past 7 months to
discuss questions pertaining to the extension and Base Reuse Plan
(BRP) Reassessment (9/27/11, 10/26/11, 11/17/11, 12/5/11, 1/3/12,
2/6/12, & 3/5/12), I know that FORA has responded to many of the
concerns raised. The process has been collegial and we are committed
to continued dialogue with all elements of the public interested in
what we do.

Part of the discussion has been about the role of the State of
California in making local land use decisions. Do we as a community
really want state law to make our local land use decisions for us?
What would happen if the State decided what our local development fees
are, and who should pay them? Consequently, the State does not make
local land use decisions which are appropriately part of the local
land use, entitlement, and FORA consistency processes.

One concern that has not gone ignored has been that FORA update the
BRP. Evaluating land use patterns and economic conditions are
precisely what will be studied in the required Reassessment that is
now underway. At that time, FORA's Board will determine what should be
updated and these adjustments could be done after FORA is extended.

Another concern has been the phasing of land uses and infrastructure
to address urban blighted areas first. The Board is committed to
discussing conclusions, strategies, and options about how to best
incentivize addressing blighted areas in the BRP Reassessment process.
To date, FORA has spent over $29 million in building removal to
incentivize development in the blighted parts of Fort Ord.

Several stakeholders are concerned with the cost of FORA consistency
determination appeal fees. Because FORA adopted its appeal process and
associated fees as part of the 1998 FORA-Sierra Club Settlement
Agreement, we are unable to address the issue through state
legislation. FORA and the Sierra Club would have to agree on these
modifications before FORA can adopt any changes. After recent
discussions with the Sierra Club, FORA staff is
making progress on recommendations to the FORA Board that would make
the appeal process more accessible and affordable.

Finally, a number of stakeholders advocate improved enforcement by
FORA of the BRP. There may be specific instances where people feel
Base Reuse Plan policies have not been followed. The Base Reuse Plan
emphasizes jobs, education, sustainable development, and open space.
Sometimes there are conflicts between these objectives and compromises
must be reached. FORA, being that regional authority, is the most
appropriate entity to address such conflicts.

As one can see, most of the suggestions made by stakeholders regarding
the FORA extension legislation are already acceptable to FORA staff
and can be addressed in the Reassessment process or FORA Master
Resolution should the FORA Board and Sierra Club agree to do so. The
case for extending FORA is the need to have an agency that’s regional,
that addresses quality of life issues for the Monterey Bay region,
protects habitat, and completes munitions cleanup while creating the
jobs promised in the 1990’s. We are committed to doing this in a way
that balances the needs of all members of our community