FAR out lie

It has been some time since I wrote anything under the Marina Matters banner. Not that there have not been issues to write about but I just needed a break from the intense focus it takes to stay on top of all the local issues. Now I just can’t sit by quietly as our infamous City Council majority continues to endanger the long term viability of our City.

Let’s start with the latest distortions and lies that led to denying a local developer the right to build shops and restaurants on his property at the Dunes Shopping Center. The argument was centered on a little known numerical calculation called the FAR ratio. That stands for Floor Area Ratio. It is intended to increase the density of a project and leave more open space around it. The City of Marina requires a .25 ratio.

Opponents claim that the .19 ratio proposed by the applicant is in violation of the City’s General Plan. That is, in fact, correct. Several people spoke about the sanctity of the General Plan and how changing it for this project would destroy Marina. But here is where it starts to get interesting.

As was stated many times before the City Council during this process, the VA clinic and the Cinemark Theatre also fall under the magical .25 ratio requirement. So how can this be? The Council is adamant about upholding the General Plan without a change. In fact, it was Councilwoman Morton that stated “the plan requires that we reject the proposal”. The proposal voted on by our City Council included specific wording to change the General Plan for a very specific area within the Dunes Center to account for these developments being under the .25 ratio and correct the inconsistency. I myself repeatedly asked for the City Manager and City Council for the FAR ratios of the projects within the Dunes but they could not, or would not answer the questions while the item was pending. These numbers were promised to me after the fact but I have yet to be contacted by the City with these numbers.

I have since been able to obtain these numbers and the calculations needed to determine them from sources outside of the City. Let’s start with the VA Clinic. There are a total of 8 lots needed for the clinic that total 623,349 square feet. The building itself is a total of 148,401 square feet. So if you divide the building by the lot size you get a .2381 FAR ratio. But how can that be? It falls under the sacred General Plan ratio of .25.

Let’s look at the Cinemark Theatre. It sits on a lot that is 145,490 square feet with a building of 23,016 square feet. Dividing these numbers out you get a ratio of .1582. The last I checked these buildings are being built or have been completed so certainly the City Council approved these projects. How is that possible?

It seems that if the Council majority like a project they calculate the FAR ratio across the entire Dunes project. If they don’t like it they make each segment stand on its own. A similar thing happens when you include the Wellness Center into the mix. As it stands today, the Wellness Center does not meet the FAR ratio but will, once CHOMP builds the next building on the site (whenever that happens).

Where is the City Attorney in this discussion? I would think that applying the rules in such a hap hazard manner would expose the City to significant litigation. But I guess when you have so many attorneys on Council you don’t worry about litigation, no matter how much it could cost the taxpayer in the end.

I hope that the applicant re-applies with a couple of the compromises outlined in the months’ long discussions and negotiations. I also hope that the Council majority ends its campaign of lies and distortions and compromises so that this project can move forward to benefit our entire Marina community.

More later......

Election Season

It seems to happen about the same time every year, sometimes twice a year. It’s the time when feelings are shared, words are spoken and people get hurt. It’s when things are said with intent, whispered to do harm and to change people’s minds. In this country it’s called election season.

In fact, it happens all around the world, some are more vicious than others. We have read all sorts of stories about rogue campaigns in far off places and some not so far away. The use of scare tactics that are designed to inflame and harm an individual’s character and credibility seem common place. Like this is the norm and the way campaigns are supposed to be run. Sometimes these are done with the candidate’s full knowledge and forethought, others done behind their back by outsiders that support the candidate or issue.

Of course this is not new. The Romans and Greeks had some wicked statements said for and against competitors. In America, things said forty, eighty even a hundred years ago in campaigns would curl your hair even today. This election cycle we hear stories from elections around the country that are hard to believe but true. Charges leveled at candidates or parties that have no truth but designed to inflame and incite a visceral reaction.

Locally, we hear a few of these stories as they are whispered at door steps instead of broadcast for all to hear. Many of the statements are undoubtedly false if one was to think about the statements, others are so far from the truth they are outright slanderous. Still others reflect some fact, some conjecture and some exacerbation woven into a tale that people may actually believe to be true.

It’s time that we all as a society and as a community step back a bit. Is this really the way we want to elect our representatives? This is certainly not new to Marina; it’s been going on for years. There are plenty of examples of cases from both/all sides over the years of whispered, printed and even stated comments that crossed the lines. Even acts of theft and property damage designed to intimidate or threaten.

The only way this stops here and elsewhere is when we ALL stand up and say it is unacceptable. Argue the facts, the policies and even the actions of the candidates. Talk about what you would do differently, your ideas, your proposed policies. It does not need, nor should it ever be personal. It’s not as easy as it sounds because many of the statements, policies and ideas of candidates are based on personal beliefs, thus making a counter argument sound personal when it is not. I think we all know when it crosses the line … the hard part is listening to that inner voice that says it’s too far, time to back off. It’s time we do a bit more listening to that inner voice

More later…

2014 Marina Elections

It has been a while since I have written a Marina Matters column, primarily since it is election season and you needed to hear from the candidates about the issues and where they stand. By now I hope you have seen and heard from many of the candidates and have an idea of how you will vote in the November elections. If not, or if you are not sure I want to forward to you the Monterey Herald editorial endorsement for the Marina elections.

Mind you I have not agreed with the Herald on a lot of things over the years but they evolved recently to now look at the issues that affect us all in a much broader sense. The editorial board really captured the essence of our Marina City election and stated it very clearly. It goes without saying that I agree with their comments and the candidates they endorse.

More later….

Editorial: Amadeo, Turgen, Devlin best for Marina

Monterey County Herald

POSTED: 10/16/2014 05:20:54 PM PDT

Marina was one of the cities hardest hit economically when Fort Ord closed in 1994, and now 20 years later it is still dealing with a variety of issues stemming from that event. But its officials are also considering how to develop a downtown with a specific identity and how to meet the needs of various groups in the community, like teens and seniors.

A recent candidate forum highlighted different approaches to these issues. We found mayoral candidate Ken Turgen and council candidates Dan Devlin Jr. and Nancy Amadeo, an incumbent, to have the most balanced approach. We recommend their election.

Turgen, a member of the city Planning Commission and an architect, emphasizes the need for logical economic growth and job creation, and stresses the benefits to Marina of more regional cooperation. He clearly understands the necessity of solving the region's water problem, as so many of Marina's residents work in jobs all over the Monterey Peninsula — jobs that could be in jeopardy without a water supply project. Turgen wants to see city parks improved, a downtown identity developed and a stable city revenue base established.

Incumbent Mayor Bruce Delgado clearly spends a lot of time on his job as mayor. But his future vision for the city is not as clearly balanced or delineated as Turgen's. Delgado emphasizes "smart growth" and a new "greenway" for Marina, though he has not provided details about the greenway or how it could contribute to the city's economy. Delgado does highlight his endorsement by political parties, a trend we find unhealthy for local nonpartisan offices.

We believe Turgen would bring a more vigorous and balanced perspective to Marina's economic future.

The council race mirrors the mayoral contest. Incumbent Nancy Amadeo clearly has the best grasp of how to be an effective council member. At a recent forum she stressed the need for Marina to develop policies and strategies for economic health, rather than just react in a piecemeal fashion. She also has an impressive understanding of the city's budget process.

Candidate Dan Devlin Jr. emphasizes his interest in providing good city services for families, and wants to develop an economic base that will benefit Marina overall and provide jobs for CSU Monterey Bay graduates. We feel his family-oriented perspective and his budget expertise from his job with the Department of Defense would be good additions to the City Council.

Incumbent David Brown believes the city's "smart growth" is a sufficient economic policy, but offers few details about how he would apply that to future project review. Brown has noted he's been part of "a council majority with Delgado and Frank O'Connell since 2010." We think a more open-minded approach to council business would be better for Marina.

Turgen, Devlin and Amadeo offer balanced, reasonable and thoughtful approaches to Marina's future and deserve your vote.

Immigration

With all of today’s headlines about immigration I wanted to weigh in with a few thoughts. I suppose that what I am going to outline is not terribly new but it does take issue with both sides as they try to position themselves for their core constituents.

First, it sounds obvious, but we have to admit there is a problem. There are many who do not feel that there is. A country’s border is sacred to its citizenry for it separates one country from another in social, economic, security and political ways. The United States is the destination for people all over the world because we are a beacon of social, economic and political freedom rarely found in other countries.

To maintain many of these freedoms we must have control of who enters our country in number and identity. The latter, even more so in today’s world of terrorist plots and threats. Those who believe that our border is secure need only see the unaccompanied twelve years olds walking or swimming across the border to realize the borders are not secure. This leaves the door open for all forms of immigration abuse. Most every country in the world controls, in some form, its own border or its own economic interests by visa or other controlling factor. Why should we do anything different?

On the other hand, those that believe the eleven or twelve million undocumented individuals in this country should be deported are not being realistic. It will simply never happen. Yes, they entered illegally or entered legally and overstayed their visa and they will need to pay a price for not following the laws of our country. What that price is can and should be debated. What plan comes from this is not amnesty. Amnesty would be to ignore the illegal act and give everyone citizenship without a paying price.

So just what is the answer to our immigration problem? Here is my solution. You may have your own and that creates a healthy debate that we need to have in this country. Not by the headline grabbing talking heads but by those actually responsible for enacting our laws and enforcing them.

The first thing is to actually secure the border, not just temporarily but permanently. The next step is to increase the number of legal visas and work permits substantially. This will allow for a legal work force to follow many of the agriculture related jobs that flow across the border. Additionally, we need to substantially increase both work visas and citizenship for higher educated individuals. Finally, we will need to finalize a path to citizenship for the millions of illegal individuals already here.

Of course, none of this can happen without strict enforcement of the laws we already have in place. That may well mean that those with criminal records are deported immediately but others will no longer be looking over their shoulder and afraid of deportation if they follow the new laws. Yes, there will some gray areas and those can and will be worked through over time.

It is time that we stop ignoring our immigration issues and stop the rhetoric (from both sides). It’s time to do the humane thing, and that is to find a solution now. All in the name of freedom, health, safety, and the economic benefit of our Nation.

More later…

Veterans Cemetery Revisited

We had the opportunity to spend a few minutes yesterday with Congressman Sam Farr and State Senator Bill Monning at an open forum updating everyone on the status of the Veterans Cemetery on Ft. Ord. It was a fairly well attended event with parties from both sides of the issue.

My first thought is it’s rather odd that there would even be two sides to this issue. Clearly the community has spoken out in support of the Veterans Cemetery time and time again over twenty some years. Yet, there are still a handful of people that continue to harp on the same issues that have been addressed and readdressed time and time again. Clearly their collective opposition is that they want nothing done at the site, or for that matter, anywhere else on the former Ft. Ord. Period.

So please allow me to once again address the issues in a calm and easy to understand form:

First, let’s address the biggest of the scare tactics currently being used. The Veterans Cemetery is NOT connected in any way to the Monterey Downs project. Senator Monning carried legislation a couple of years ago to completely separate the two projects. So supporting the Cemetery does not mean you support ‘gambling’ or any other perceived social ill the opposition continues to throw out by connecting the two.

Second, the project is being reviewed for environmental impacts by both the State and Federal government. Each has identified issues that will be easily mitigated during the construction of the current 17 acre project. These include the replacement of trees and the usual air quality, drainage and other steps used during most any construction process in California.

Next is the actual size of the project. When this project was first envisioned twenty some years ago it was to be some 260 plus acres. That was simply too big for everyone involved and has been completely re-imagined under a much smaller total build out. Currently the only area under consideration is the 17 acre columbarium. Any additional phases or additions will require additional environmental review at that time. Legally, the current proposed 17 acre site is all that can be reviewed at this time because there is no funding or plans for the additional expansion that may or may not happen over the next ten years or more.

Then there were comments made that the project needs more review, that the site should be somewhere else and, of course, there will be trees that will be removed. Let’s be clear about one thing. This project has been reviewed, and reviewed, and reviewed - again over a twenty plus year period. The site was selected years ago and reviewed in public by the Board of Supervisors and by FORA. The general plans have been reviewed by FORA, the County and the State. The voters weighed in with a special referendum and now the State of California and the Federal government are making their final reviews of the current 17 acre plan. This has been one of the most public projects in the history of Monterey County and likely the State of California.

Trees. I will stipulate yes, there will be trees removed. Just as there are trees removed for almost any other construction project. Of course, there will be trees replanted as well. Let’s also be clear in that most of the trees are scrub oaks, not the big majestic oaks that one might imagine. Let’s also remember that this area has survived the most powerful army in the world. It has withstood bombing, shelling, canons, grenades and just about any other form of explosive, plus tanks, half tracks, trucks, jeeps and thousands of troops stomping over the grounds… I do believe it will survive as the permanent home for those that have served this country for generations.

It’s time that we ALL stand up and give our full support to the Veterans Cemetery project and stop the fighting. As Congressman Farr stated…”he has never seen so much made about so little”.

More later…

City Budget, again

I know that for most of you talking about the budget for the City of Marina is about as interesting as watching the grass die in a drought. However, this is the document that the City needs to provide the direction to operate for the coming fiscal year. It will determine the number of city employees in each department (police, fire, recreation, planning, etc.), it will determine how much to spend on pot hole repairs, park and facility maintenance, and all the functions of a City.

It is with this in mind that I ask you to sacrifice a few hours of your life and attend the City Council meeting this Tuesday night (June 10^th at 6pm) to listen and provide your input on the choices before the City Council. I will try to give you an outline of the issue I think is most important in a single paragraph.

The City Council passed a resolution a couple of years ago to “balance” the City budget under the definition of “monies in equal’s monies out” in a given fiscal year. On the surface that sounds great but it also ignores the $7,000,000 in reserves the City currently has. As a result the City Council has been cutting vital services to all our City departments while maintaining an oversized reserve fund.

At the same time, the City Council will be finalizing plans to bring Measures M and N before the citizens in November for extension. It seems to me that asking citizens to continue the TOT and Sales Taxes while not using the funds already available to them is disingenuous.

While no one is demanding that we use all of our reserves, we do ask that a basic level of service be provided to our Police and Fire departments, our Recreation department, our Public Works department and all the others that provide the services we as Marina citizens expect and voted for the first time with Measures M and N. But just like your own budget, you set aside in savings monies to buy a car, replace a roof or for other big expenditures, the City has these funds set aside to use to replace old equipment, repair or replace worn out streets or maintain a basic level of service.

For some reason, this Council wants to use these funds to someday buy more land or some other plan they do not articulate rather than provide the services that 21,000 current Marina citizens expect and need. They would rather reduce staff in the Recreation department in the middle of summer, not fill positions in the Police and Fire departments, not replace worn out vehicles, not provide proper Library building maintenance and more. Although you could do all of these at once with the reserves, no one expects that. Rather, what is needed is a fair plan to use our reserves to work through a very long list of deferred issues and proper staffing as identified by the staff.

So it is with this back drop that I ask my fellow Marina citizens to attend Tuesday night’s meeting and help express the Community’s views and priorities on an issue that affects our own daily life within our community.

More later…

 

California

The June primary is just around the corner so it’s a good time to share some thoughts.

For those that have followed this column over the years I am sure it is no surprise that I identify myself as a Republican. Yes, I know just more than half of you just freaked out and jumped to all sorts of conclusion by that simple statement. My guess is that if you and I sat down for 10 minutes we would agree on some eighty percent of the issues that confront us today. Of the remaining 20 percent, we would likely agree on the issues but have differing opinions as to the solutions.

 I would say that I consider myself a fiscal conservative and more of a social libertarian. Frankly, I could care less whom you sleep with, who you love or what you do to yourself - those are the choices that you make, not me. I believe in a right and wrong and that people need to take responsibility for their own actions. There are just things in this world that are really that simple.

Now that I have said all that here is another simple statement… California is a mess and it needs to be fixed as soon as possible. This State has been ruled by one party for far too long. What we need is a balance, members from both parties working together for the good of the people not their own good. How many Sacramento politicians do we need to see indicted before we wake up? How many more budget tricks does it take to get re-elected? How soon, before we as a State pass the point of no return?

We do not need to legislate the amount of sugar in your drink, we need to address the structure of our Government. We need to consolidate departments and agencies and simply eliminate tons of redundant panels and commissions. We need to address out of control social programs that need to be adjusted, not eliminated. We need real jobs from energy, manufacturing and trade not some grand cap and trade experiment that is already failing.

That brings me to this June’s primary. I have had the opportunity to meet several of the candidates in person. I have asked questions and heard them speak before several groups. As a result I have my recommendations for you to consider. First, for Controller is the former Mayor of Fresno Ashley Swearengin. She has been endorsed around the State by newspapers and editorial boards of both parties including the Los Angeles Times. Next would be Secretary of State Pete Peterson. He has also gained the support of businesses, newspapers and editorial boards of both parties. He has a real plan to make Sacramento friendlier to business to help get our economy working again. Of all the candidates running, these two individuals can really make a difference in how our State is run and start to make the changes necessary to get California moving in the right direction.

In the Lt. Governors position, Gavin Newsome is likely a lock and that is disappointing. He needs to be challenged at every step to defend his positions. Ron Nehring will do so but he will likely not get a lot of traction unless Newsome really steps into something which he has the potential to do. I have met and talked to Ron, he is a very serious candidate but you will likely hear little about him in the weeks ahead.

Finally, realistically the two candidates that are battling in the Republican primary don’t stand much of a chance against the Brown machine.  I have had the opportunity to meet and listen to both candidates.  The one who should debate Brown would be Neel Kashkari but his chances seem slim at this point even with some very high profile endorsements. The other candidate Tim Donnelly is nowhere near qualified and that might well be an understatement. If Donnelly does indeed become the Party’s nominee he will likely hurt the qualified down ticket candidates I mentioned earlier.

It is time for the citizens of California to look beyond the party affiliation and truly look at the candidates. Take the time to understand their philosophies and ask what they would do to change California in a bipartisan manner. Anyway, those are my thoughts, what are yours?

More later….