Guiding the decisions of the reuse authority are several themes and principles, each interconnected with environmental, educational, and economic goals. Principles include the reinforcement of the natural landscape consistent with the Monterey Bay Station through diverse, community-driven neighborhoods and sufficient open space (EMC 1997, p. 9). These neighborhoods are to be integrated into a mixed-use development view that stresses sustainable environmental practices and conservation of adjacent BLM land while at the same time stimulating the local economy and creating a “novel identity for the community around the educational institutions” (ibid.). In turn, these principles are applied to six planning elements: land use, circulation/transportation, recreation, conservation, noise, and safety (8). Each element is then broken down into sub-elements, each with individual objectives which are, in turn, implemented through policies ad programs outlined for each jurisdiction. Through this organizational structure, FORA sought to create for each area a specialized plan with standardized goals.

FORA’s vital objective as regards land use was to “Promote the highest and best use of land through orderly, well-planned, and balanced development to ensure educational and economic opportunities as well as environmental protection” (213). Divided into residential, commercial, and recreational sub-elements, objectives differed slightly according to use.

Residential development was driven by ten objectives, which can be condensed into the establishment of variable housing densities compatible with neighboring land uses, expansion of public facilities and transportation networks to serve the new communities, and economic enrichment through sensible property valuation (232). These objectives were designed to meet the on and off-campus housing needs of California State University and the University of California, as well as the economic needs of the cities of Seaside and Marina, and Monterey County by creating both shameful and high-income housing. These objectives are to be carried out primarily through zoning regulations affecting housing density, buffer zones reach BLM land, transportation-sensitive planning geared towards decreasing demand for automobiles (241).

Commercial development centers on meeting the community’s retail and employment needs, as well as attracting outside tourism and investment through creation of hotels and golf courses (Ritter 2002, p. 3a). Additional objectives include economic self-sufficiency for the area and high-quality design of the facilities, consistent with the character of the peninsula (EMC 1997, p. 248). Policies and programs enacted to conclude these objectives include the allotment and rezoning of 14 million square feet as commercial space, two million of which is reserved for retail and the rest for light industrial and office situation, as well as the creation of “opportunity sites” for hotels and tourist attractions (252).

The recreation sub-element is tied closely to that of the residential sub-element, incorporating the utilize of start space and parkland as buffers between residential and BLM habitat to satisfy the overall impartial of protecting the community’s natural resources (263). Zoning regulations are again the choice tool of FORA in realizing these objectives. Commence spaces and parkland regulations are to be included into zoning plans, specifically calling for one acre of parkland for every 1,000 residents (268). In addition, the reuse plan calls for an annual recreation budget to provide equipment for community sports and nature programs (264).

The final sub-element within land use is institutional- providing for the needs of the three educational institutions and the remaining military presence on the land. Much like the other three sub-elements, institutional planning objectives are centered on the needs of the communities they serve, as well as compatibility with neighboring land uses (273). Policy focuses heavily on the cooperation in zoning between the cities of Seaside, Marina, and Monterey County, as well as the establishment of a new high school to cater to the families of area employees (275).

Fig. 2 – Ft. Ord. Roads – FORA The next element in the base reuse plan is that of circulation. As more people settle on and around the Fort Ord area, transportation demand will inevitably rise, calling for a comprehensive transportation plan to be developed along side other reuse elements. Encompassing the sub-elements of streets and roads, public transit, and pedestrians, FORA’s overall objectives in circulation are

decreasing the inquire for automobiles through mode shifts, and provision for a cohesive community, seamlessly linking all sectors on and around the base (281).

Objectives for the streets and roads sub-element include the reduction of demand for and wear on infrastructure through the lowering of traffic volume (298). Policies and programs designed to alleviate this demand include the enhancement of regional access alternatives, including carpooling and expansion of public transit, as well as the selected widening of targeted roads to accommodate increased utilize, especially along highways 1, 68, and 183 (288). Furthermore, to decrease traffic, FORA calls for cooperation between municipalities and companies to schedule compressed work weeks, encourage telecommuting, and provide for carpooling (311).

Public transit expansion will be accomplished by increasing routes, stops, and schedules, updating equipment, and changing fare policy to encourage greater use of local bus and regional rail systems (304). Furthermore, the plan calls for the creation of an intermodal rail-to-bus connector at the northern edge of the land, in the city of Marina (306).

Tied to both the streets and roads sub-element and the land use element, the FORA reuse plan encourages increased walking and cycling through urban planning that decreases the need for long-distance transportation, and creates infrastructural support by building sidewalks and adding bike lanes to roads (309).

The only element that also has a direct thematic counterpart is that of conservation. Broken into soil, water, air, biological, and cultural components, FORA’s plan for conservation forces developers to consider the full environmental impact of their decisions.

Objectives of the soil and geology sub-element include dealing with erosion endemic to the sandy soil of the Fort Ord area and creating buffer zones around sand-mining operations (335). By requiring developers to file environmental impact assessments (EIAs) before building, FORA hopes to control erosion and prevent loss of soil that is habitat to 22 Special-status plants (338).

The objective of FORA’s plan for hydrology and water quality is to protect area watersheds by controlling pollution and eliminating overdraft of pumping operations (345). Water pollution is taken very seriously in Fort Ord due to unexploded ordinance contamination across a 6,000 acre position and an uncapped, unlined landfill in its northwestern quarter (Wernstedt 2000, p. 165). Through required filing of EIAs, mandated and standardized water conservation ordinances, and programs to control and monitor water pollution, the reuse plan will ensure a clean, plentiful, and sustainable water supply (347).

Despite the area’s contiguity, Fort Ord encompasses eight different biological communities, ranging from sand dunes on its western side to the forested BLM land in its center. The primary objective of the biological resource sub-element is to protect and preserve “sensitive species and habitats” and to promote public awareness (356). Due to the varied species under protection, varied policies and programs have been enacted to ensure their conservation. Development arrive protected habitat is to be restricted and monitored, off-road vehicle use is to be regulated, and educational programs are to be set up with the aim of teaching both children and developers about conservation (364).

Policies and programs to reduce air pollution are already incorporated into other elements. FORA hopes to reduce carbon emissions through transportation demand management (TDM) and clustered, compact development (390).

Finally, whereas archaeologists have found signs of human life dating as far back as 5,000 BC and whereas the fort is tied to US history as far aid as the Mexican-American war, there is significant cultural value to the structures and archaeological sites on the land (391). The reuse understanding calls for the restoration of key military buildings and the encouragement of exploration for additional archaeological sites (395).

The third element in the FORA plan is that of safety as regards seismic hazards, fire and natural emergencies, and uncertain materials. Lying close to the San Andreas fault and containing one designated superfund site, safety is a key teach for reuse authorities.

Seismic hazards are to be dealt with through renovation, informed development, and education (426). New policies require a standardized building code throughout the Fort Ord status to which developers must adhere. Buildings are to be kept a minimum of 200 feet away from active areas, and developers must file a seismic assessment of the land on which they intend to create (428). What’s more, existing buildings are to be renovated and brought up to code. The extent of these renovations will depend on the building’s purpose. Hospitals, schools, and other “critical structures” are subject to the most stringent rules. As such, the Silas Hayes Hospital, built in 1971, is to be repurposed as office situation on story of excessive renovation costs (432).

Fire hazards, including both municipal fires and wildfire threats in the eastern brushland and flood hazards from the Salinas Valley Watershed reservoir are to be negotiated by reducing these hazards through better urban planning and improving response time and interagency cooperation of emergency management services (433, 439). Finally, the management of the superfund site and former landfill, as documented by the US Army in their Record of Decision, will remain under the auspices of the military until both areas are made safe for their slated purposes (Wernstedt 2000, p. 172). Reuse authorities provide for community monitoring of toxicity levels in an effort to ensure effective cleanup (EMC 1997, p. 445).

As with any area set between two major highways, noise is an elemental assure in the reuse planning of Fort Ord. Management goals include standardization of regulations across jurisdictions and ensuring compatibility of adjacent land uses as regards noise (399). Specific policies and programs include assessment and normalization of noise regulations, directed planning of development, and required noise barriers in areas where adjacent land uses are incompatible, and example of which is the location of the university campuses adjacent to habitat land (407).

Finally, the last element of the plan for Fort Ord is recreation. Tied closely to recreational land employ regulations and objectives, FORA seeks to integrate the fort’s existing recreational resources into the community while protecting habitat at the same time (318). Home to three golf courses, a stadium, and an indoor basketball court, Fort Ord already has many recreational resources for the CSU and UC communities, as well as tourism prospects from its golf courses (315). These resources are prime areas for economic and community development. In addition to reuse of existing manmade resources, the plan seeks to coordinate development of new neighborhood and community parks in planned residential areas, some of which will be incorporated into scenic corridors and landscape buffers between residential and BLM land (322).

In summation, FORA’s approved reuse plan attempts to achieve not only economic development and community revitalization in the wake of Fort Ord’s closure, but it also seeks to protect and conserve natural resources in such a way that all elements are seamlessly integrated together across the land’s seven different jurisdictions. If successful, the revitalization of Fort Ord could become an ecological case study for military base closure.

Sources Cited

Anonymous. 2000. Fort ORd Cleanup Balances Habitat and Safety. Civil Engineering. 70(11):13

EMC Planning Group, Inc. and EDAW, Inc. 1997. Fort Ord Reuse Authority – Fort Ord Reuse Idea. Fort Ord Reuse Authority: Monterey. 450 pp.

Ritter, John. June 3, 2002. Housing Debates Hold Up the Fort. USA Today USA Today. 03a.

Wernstedt, Kris. 2000. Terra Firma or Terra Incognita? Western Land Use, Hazardous Waste, and the Devolution of US Federal Environmental Programs. Natural Resources Journal. 157(40):157-183

Fort Ord Reuse Authority Fora Management Plan Image

Fort Ord Reuse Authority Fora Management Plan Picture

Fort Ord Reuse Authority Fora Management Plan Picture

Fort Ord Reuse Authority Fora Management Plan Photo

Fort Ord Reuse Authority Fora Management Plan Photo

Fort Ord Reuse Authority Fora Management Plan Photo