• The project applicant is Monterey Downs, LLC.
• The Monterey Downs site including the Veteran’s Cemetery is approximately 710 acres and the development proposal consists of a horse training facility, horse track, sports arena, commercial center, multiple hotels, and an office park.
• The City of Seaside is the lead agency.

• Seaside City Council rescinds all project approvals and the EIR in a 5-0 vote in December 2016.
• Monterey Downs developer issues letter to City of Seaside November 30, 2016 terminating all negotiations and actions related to the project.  The City issues a Press Release.
• Seaside City Council approves in a 3-2 vote the Monterey Downs development in November 2016. LandWatch and others gear up for a referendum to overturn the approvals and files a lawsuit in conjunction with Keep Fort Ord Wild over an inadequate EIR.
• The Seaside Board of Architectural Review recommended approval of the project at its August 2016 meeting.
• The City of Seaside released the Final EIR on July 29, 2016.
• Tuesday, July 28 the Monterey County Board of Supervisors will go into closed session discussions about the land sale. View the agenda. (07.27.15)
• City of Seaside Consultants Review Economic Analysis (191 K PDF)
  Economics & Planning Services reviewed the developer’s fiscal impact analysis and found it was lacking. In short, the estimates were based on specific assumptions that couldn’t be supported and the estimates were overly aggressive. Download the July 2015 final report from the City’s consultants. (65K PDF) (07.06.15)
• Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis have been conducted for the Monterey Downs project.  Here are the draft and final reports from Willdan Financial Services:
  • Final Draft Report – March 2015 (1.9M PDF)
  • Final Draft Report – June 2015 (1.1M PDF)
  • Final Draft Report – August 2015 (1.1M PDF)
• The Draft Environmental Impact Report was released March 31, 2015. The comment period has been extended to June 19, 2015.
• A Notice of Preparation (1.7M PDF) was circulated September 2012 to October 2012.

• Lack of Adequate Water Supply
  The DEIR admits there isn’t enough water for all six phases of the project. Instead, there may only be enough water for the first three. The project plans to use water from the already overdrafted Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. The City of Seaside indicates it would then would be willing to provide water from other approved, but not yet built projects, in the City.
• Unavoidable and Significant Traffic Impacts
  Sixty-one unavoidable and significant traffic impacts are identified to local intersections, Highway 1 and its on and off-ramps. These impacts would be permanent and unmitigated to the surrounding area residents.
• Lack of Analysis on Project Phases
  Numerous impacts would occur if only a portion of the project is built, and this is a possible scenario given the inadequate water supply. The DEIR fails to analyze these impacts. For example the Monterey Downs is a mixed use project and determined that 28% of the car trips will be internal (staying within the project). However, there is no analysis of what the traffic impacts will be if only the residential phases are built. There is also no analysis of the impacts during special events. In fact, the Special Events Traffic and Emergency Management Plan is being deferred until later.
• Loss of Oak Woodland Habitat
  Due to the massive scope of the project, 41,000 oak trees would be removed from the project site. Trees reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by absorbing carbon dioxide and converting it to oxygen. No analysis was conducted to determine the GHG impacts for the extensive loss of habitat. Additionally, the loss of carbon has not been calculated for when the trees are cut down and removed.
• Impacts from Horse Manure
  The project proposes a horse racing facility, but fails to quantify the greenhouse gas impacts from horse-generated manure. Methane contained in the manure is a more potent GHG than carbon dioxide.

LandWatch engages in the public process in a variety of ways. For this project, here is a list of our engagement strategies.

• Letter: Seeks Corrections to Flawed Monterey Downs Process (120K PDF)
  LandWatch has been involved every step of the way with the Monterey Downs project. Over the past several weeks, we noticed glaring issues with how the City of Seaside is conducting its review–issues that favor the developer’s interests over those of the public. Our letter asks the City to correct its process and make it fair to the public. (10.24.16)
• Letter: Comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (1.65M PDF)
  Concerns outlined in this letter to the City of Seaside include: inadequate analysis of water, greenhouse gas, traffic, noise, partial project alternative, and inconsistency with the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan. (10.12.16)
• Letter: Technical Water Comments on the Draft EIR (289K PDF)
  LandWatch hired an expert to review the Draft Subsequent EIR for the Monterey Downs project. Conclusions include significant impacts to the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin and future saltwater intrusion. The document included faulty assumptions on water pumping that must be further evaluated. (10.08.16)
• Letter: Comments on the Monterey Downs Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (67K PDF)
  LandWatch outlines in this substantive letter how the project fails to meet the standards outlined in the California Environmental Quality Act on numerous issues. (09.05.16)
• Letter: Comments on a Land Swap (215K PDF)
  The removal of development restrictions against residential homes in the Parker Flats area is premature and questionable.  Consistency can be judged only if the land-use designation maps and the summaries of allowable development by planning area are provided and are adequately detailed. Neither FORA nor the County has clarified the matter. (02.26.16)
• Letter: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (301K PDF)
  Traffic and water were two main concerns highlighted in the letter to the City of Seaside submitted by LandWatch. Air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and process were also covered. (06.16.15)

• Non-Profit Dissolves with No Horse Park
  After the Monterey Downs project came to an end the non-profit established to run the horse park is dissolving due to lack of adequate funds. (02.05.18)
• What Next in Seaside?
  With Monterey Downs withdrawn, the City of Seaside considers what to do next?  Things that may be considered Monterey Horse Park, the Veteran’s Cemetery, or something in the new General Plan. (02.21.17)
• Fort Ord Still Needs Reuse
  With the removal of the Monterey Downs project from the table, many questions still exist about the future of the Fort Ord lands.  The Fort Ord Reuse Authority has many things to consider when implementing the reuse plan. (12.06.16)
• Fort Ord Reuse Needs Still Exist
  Even though Monterey Downs is dead, there are still unanswered questions about the future of the Fort Ord and how those reuse plans will be implemented. The cemetery, future investments and maintenance of the open space are just a few things on the list. (12.05.16)
• Developer Kills Fort Ord Project (page 18)
  LandWatch and Keep Fort Ord Wild filed lawsuits on November 28th to ensure the City knew the groups were serious about the flawed EIR—in addition to the referendum efforts.  This move prompted the developer to retract the project and cut its losses.  The project approvals and EIR have been rescinded. (12.02.16)
• Seaside Council Rescinds Project Approvals
  In a 5-0 vote, the City of Seaside makes it official and takes Monterey Downs off the table completely. The EIR was revoked as well to create a clean slate so that no future developer could use it (knowing that it had been challenged by LandWatch and others). The City is expecting to be repaid the over $100,000 for its costs. (12.01.16)
• Monterey Downs Deal Kaput
  After the developer refused to indemnify the City of Seaside with pending legal action on the Monterey Downs project, the City officials will consider rescinding all project approvals. The City now seems focused on other projects. LandWatch hopes it includes more sustainable development. (12.01.16)
• Monterey Downs Officially Dead
  According to a letter from the developer of the Monterey Downs project to the City of Seaside, the project is officially terminated.  The Council is poised to rescind all project approvals tomorrow. (11.30.16)
• City Council Considers Rescinding Project Approvals
  The developer relayed to the City earlier in the week it did not wish to proceed with the project as approved.  This also meant the developer would not indemnify the City against possible litigation of the project. (11.25.16)
• Developer Refuses to Pay City Fees
  In a stunning turn of events, the developer of the Monterey Downs project is now refusing to pay for the City’s legal fees even though it was part of the development agreement.  Now the City Council is considering rescinding the project approvals and sending the project back to the drawing board. (11.24.16)
• Beyond Monterey Downs: Bringing jobs to Seaside
  Mike DeLapa writes about the remarkable and unprecedented challenges facing the Monterey Downs project, proposed in the City of Seaside. Numerous issues may mean the project never gets built, but it is high time the City actually followed the community’s vision. (11.19.16)
• Monterey Downs Flailing
  Developer Brian Boudreau does not wish to proceed with the Monterey Downs project as approved.  He refuses to indemnify the City against future lawsuits and therefore the City must consider rescinding the project approvals. (11.24.16)
• LandWatch ED Pens Op-Ed Against Monterey Downs
  After outlining a litany of things, each of which make it nearly impossible for the project to proceed, Mike DeLapa covers the lack of vision and imagination among Seaside officials.  In chasing the “fools gold” of Monterey Downs they are missing other opportunities. (11.12.16)
• Coalition Launches Referendum to Overturn Decision
  After the 3-2 vote to approve the Monterey Downs project, a Coalition vowed to collect signatures to overturn the decision by referendum.  While significant concerns were raised by members of the public, no one followed up on those issues. (11.11.16)
• Seaside Council Approves Monterey Downs 3-2
  The No on Monterey Downs Coalition is now poised to circulate a referendum to overturn the November 10th decision by the Seaside City Council to approve the mega-development Monterey Downs. (11.11.16) Join the effort by collecting signatures and donate for this critical and time sensitive issue today!
• Monterey Downs Process–A Long One
  Between the City’s decision, the election results, the Fort Ord Reuse Authority Board and its election results there are a number of ways to overturn the potential approval of the Monterey Downs project. (11.02.16)
• LandWatch Calls Seaside Out on Process
  LandWatch submitted a letter to the City of Seaside stating that presentation provided by the Monterey Downs applicant should have reviewed the EIR impacts, not been time to relay the project benefits.  LandWatch requested the next presentation cover all the project impacts. (10.27.16)
• Monterey Downs Has Insane Process
  Many have commented that the City of Seaside Council is known for making bad decisions—Monterey Downs’ process being one of them.  For example, public comments were opened before the project presentation. And, the applicant only covered the project benefits, no impacts. (10.27.16)
• Monterey Downs Continued to November 10th
  City leaders opted to avoid a decision and instead postpone it until after the election.  The next meeting on this topic is set for November 10th. Public comments on the project were highly contentious. (10.14.16)
• Stunning Twist on Monterey Downs Meeting
  While the City Council had the option to vote on the Monterey Downs project, instead they voted 5-0 to continue the project hearing and discussion until November 10th. (10.14.16)
• Council Meeting Moved
  Thursday’s special Seaside Council meeting on Monterey Downs moved to Oldemeyer Center in anticipation of large crowds.  The Council will have its first potential vote on the project at this meeting. (10.10.16)
• Noticing Requirements Flawed, Some Point Out
  The City of Seaside may have goofed with its noticing requirements by state and local law.  Notices should have been published 10 days in advance, but it was only posted eight days early.  This is a clear violation of the City’s own municipal code.  The Council has its first opportunity to hear public testimony on the Monterey Downs project tonight. (10.13.16)
• Seaside Holds Public Hearing on Monterey Downs Project
  Two study sessions on the Monterey Downs project now lead into the first public hearing before the Seaside City Council.  The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 13th at 7 PM.  It is anticipated a decision will be made at this meeting. (10.07.16)
• Council Continues Study Session
  Except for a few high schools that were allowed to comment on the project, the discussion got late enough that the Council opted to schedule a continuation of the meeting. A vote is expected on Thursday, October 13. (10.04.16)
• Planning Commission Deliberations Short
  Even though the Environmental Impact Report was more than 2,000 pages the Seaside Planning Commission deliberations took less than an hour.  Proponents focused their comments on jobs and housing, while opponents had many more concerns: traffic, water, biology, public safety, etc. (09.29.16)
• Seaside Council Holds Special Study Session
  City officials in Seaside will hold a Special Study Session on the proposed Monterey Downs project. The Council will be reviewing the recirculated environmental impact report and considering its approval at a future meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approval with a 3-2 vote. (09.27.16)
• Planning Commission Moves Project Forward
  The City of Seaside hosted a public meeting where Planning Commissioners voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the controversial Monterey Downs project to go before the City Council.  The meeting is tentatively scheduled for October 13th.  LandWatch continues to watch and engage on this project. (09.22.16)
• Monterey Downs Hearing Continued to Sept. 21
  While the public comments are closed for the City of Seaside Planning Commission, deliberations on the Monterey Downs project continue on September 21. This has pushed back the City Council’s first hearing of the project to September 29th in Closed Session. (09.09.16)
• Developers Drop Horse Racing From Project
  City of Seaside staff recommended allowing horses to train at the Monterey Downs facility but not race.  Even with this change, the developers contend there will be plenty of jobs and revenue to bring to the area. (09.07.16)
• Officials Consider Removing Horse Racing from Project
  In an interesting twist the City of Seaside Staff Report for the September 7th Monterey Downs hearing may be suggesting moving forward with the project without the horse racing component, but the track would still be built. Some see this as a move to get the project approved in phases. (09.05.16)
• Seaside Committee Unprepared for Monterey Downs
  While the Architectural Board Review for the City of Seaside undertook the monumental review of the proposed Monterey Downs project—many claim they were completely unprepared for a project of this magnitude.  In the end, with a 3-0 vote, the Board recommended project approval. (08.25.16)
• Seaside Committee Reviews Monterey Downs
  The City of Seaside Board of Architectural Review discussed the proposed Monterey Downs project. The Board focused mainly on the details of the houses and ended up recommending approval of the specific plan in a 3-0 vote. (08.18.16)
• Seaside Releases Final EIR for Monterey Downs
  After a year and a half, the City of Seaside completed the Response to Comments (Final EIR) for the proposed Monterey Downs project. LandWatch has already and will again submit comments on the environmental documents, which are set to be released on July 29. (07.28.16)
• City Manifest Reveals FEIR Release Information
  According to the City’s March 18th Manifest, Seaside planners expect the Final Environmental Impact Report to be completed and released for public review in April. (03.29.16)
• Monterey Downs Track Could be Public Facility
  If it is a public facility, the public could have to pay for its construction. The Monterey County Fair & Event Center which is not funded through state dollars says no discussion has occurred recently about this. And, this route would require a lot of approvals. If there is public opposition the State Legislature and/or Governor could become involved. (03.17.16)
• Monterey Downs Contract Extended, Again
  The City of Seaside voted to extend the contract with the Monterey Downs project developer—for a third time.  This means the proposed project is “alive” for another 12 months while other details get sorted out. (03.05.16)
• Seaside Extends Contract for Monterey Downs
  Did you see that the City of Seaside extended the contract with the Monterey Downs developer and accepted the fiscal study? It appears there are many things yet to be answered. At what point, we wonder, do you stop the process from moving forward until the questions are actually answered? (03.04.16)
• Racetrack Inches Forward
  The proposed racetrack inched forward on July 15 when the Architectural Review Board considered the project. The Board reached consensus on the project’s architectural standards and guidelines and found the project consistent with what the Planning Commission and Council deem appropriate. (07.27.15)
• County Board to Review Monterey Downs Project
  LandWatch is concerned that the Economic Analysis for the Monterey Downs project does not consider the potential impacts from the County’s reasonable demands. Tuesday, July 28 the Monterey County Board of Supervisors will go into closed session discussions about the land sale. View the agenda. (07.27.15)
• Annexation Discussions Begin
  Monterey Downs, Seaside and County begin discussions about annexation. The County submitted a letter on July 19th that raised concerns about impacts. The County seems to have focused on the economic impacts. (07.24.15)
• County Submits Letters on Monterey Downs Project, Sites Changed Situation
  The County of Monterey and its Resource Management Agency submitted two letters to the City of Seaside on the proposed Monterey Downs project. Concerns include: undetermined water allocations, undetermined fiscal impacts, and future of open space lands. View the letters on the Pre-Annexation (759 K PDF file) and the Draft EIR. (993K PDF) The Local Agency Formation Commission also provided feedback. (401K PDF) (07.06.15)
• Concerned Residents Outline Issues
  Many residents have shown concern about the proposed Monterey Downs project. Check out this short article about the project, its impacts to the land, to residents and to Monterey. (06.27.15)
• Seaside’s Economic Analyst Reviews Project
  The City of Seaside hired an independent economic analyst to review the proposed Monterey Downs project. It appears the estimates are “very aggressive.” At full build out the Monterey Downs project advocates claim the City of Seaside will get $1.9 million a year in annual tax revenue. (06.17.15)
• Are We Suckers for Monterey Downs?
  Developers play the game using words that sound charming, endearing and fitting, but this type of marketing and advertising leaves a community in ruins. From dead malls to empty buildings, the author warns readers not to fall for this. (05.02.15)
• Extensive Public Comments on Project’s EIR
  During the first opportunity to comment during a public meeting on the proposed Monterey Downs project, the public was ambitious and thorough. Residents raised issues about horses, traffic, loss of trees and more. (05.01.15)
• Seaside Land Annexation isn’t a Done Deal
  The proposed Monterey Downs project is expected to be annexed into the City of Seaside.  Or is it?  The agreement for the annexation expired and the project applicant never filed in the County.  These technicalities make moving this project forward a bit difficult according to opponents. (04.30.15)
• Monterey Downs Under Microscope
  The City is lacking a formal agreement to annex the land into the City of Seaside.  Residents remain concerned about the future of this 500+ acre site. Supervisor Parker urged the investigation into the agreement and its standing. (04.28.15)
• Reminder of Vision for Land
  Bill Weigle writes about the League of Women Voters forum on Monterey Downs in early April.  He reminds readers that the vision for the area by Inter-Garrison Road was permanent conservation not a development such as Monterey Downs.  Read the article to get more details. (04.27.15)
• Monterey Downs Faces New Complaints
  Keep Fort Ord Wild is requesting the Monterey Downs project be processed through the County as the project lies on county land. The City of Seaside would eventually annex the project into the City, but that hasn’t happened yet. It appears that the agreement between the County and the developer is expired… so this (and other things) need to be clarified. (04.24.15)
• City/County Agreement on Project May Be Expired
  The City of Seaside has been processing the Monterey Downs project proposal and yet the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the County may have expired.  Without an agreement it is unclear how the development can actually proceed. (04.23.15)
• City of Seaside Required Actions (180K PDF)
  In order to approve the proposed Monterey Downs project the City of Seaside has numerous items to approve.  These include: Planning Area Boundary Amendments, General Plan and Zoning Amendments, and Tentative Tract Maps, among other things. (04.18.15)
• Memo Says No Water for Monterey Downs (1.5M PDF)
  This confidential memo was accidentally released to residents that requested information during a public records act request.  Questions about the contents and how this relates to the EIR for the project remain. (04.15.15)
• League of Women Voters Forum Offers Insights
  Participants in this forum provided questions to the developer and Keep Fort Ord Wild.  While water is a big issue, so is the economy, loss of 40,000 trees and traffic.  The goal was to provide information to residents in a civil manner between the proponents and opponents. (04.08.15)
• Monterey Downs and its Impact to Our Resources
  Residents heard from the project proponent that 76% of the trees on the Monterey Downs site would be removed if the development were approved.  According to the developer, most of these trees were dead and dying anyways.  Keep Fort Ord Wild and others contend there is value in these natural resources. (04.08.15)
• Editorial Outlines Issues with Monterey Downs
  While the Environmental Impact Report outlines numerous challenges for the proposed Monterey Downs project, the project proponent says they anticipate the three phases of the project can be built in 10 years and according the COO for the project, “the water is there.”  Others think this is extremely speculative. (04.01.15)
• Monterey Downs Developer Says Water is There
  “The water is there.” Those are the claims from the Monterey Downs developer in this latest Herald article. As a side note, Governor Brown today implemented California’s first ever 25% mandatory water reductions across the state. He doesn’t think the water is there. (03.31.15)
• Monterey Downs Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis (3M PDF)
  This economic analysis outlines the revenue the proposed Monterey Downs project will generate annually as well as estimates of costs to the City. (March 2015)
• Monterey Downs EIR: Not Enough Water For Entire Project
  The Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Monterey Downs project outlines that there isn’t enough water for this development in its entirety.  There are six phases of the project and only enough water can be guaranteed for three phases. (03.30.15)
• Monterey Downs Would Remove Up to 40,000 Trees
  While water is a big issue, so is biology on the proposed Monterey Downs site.  The project would require the removal of 315 acres of oak woodlands – amounting to 40,000 oak trees on the site.  Attorneys for Keep Fort Ord Wild note that the EIR glosses over this by focusing on acres and not individual trees. (03.30.15)
• Monterey Downs By the Numbers: Draft EIR on Public Safety Needs
  The proposed Monterey Downs project would add over 12% (4,000 people) to the population of the City of Seaside.  These new people would also require additional capacity for public safety services. The developer is to determine if a new substation is needed. (03.30.15)
• Monterey Downs By the Numbers: Stuck in Traffic
  A significant and unavoidable impact is the traffic generated from the proposed Monterey Downs project.  It will impact numerous key intersections and stretches of highway.  While some impacts can be mitigated with road widening this can only occur with the City – not outside the City.  Those areas will just have to “deal with” the added traffic and no mitigation. (03.30.15)
• Monterey Downs EIR To Be Released
  The controversial Monterey Downs Environmental Impact Report will be released (we think!) tomorrow. Comments on the document will be due by June 1st. Stay tuned for details. (03.25.15)
• Decision to Extend, Appropriate
  The decision before the City of Seaside was about an agreement extension, not the approval of a development. The Environmental Impact Report review will be vetted before the public and will be a transparent process. (03.10.15)
• Monterey Downs Agreement Extended
  Some predicted what would happen at the City Council meeting and it was correct. Activists from both sides showed up and the Council approved the agreement extension with a 4-1 vote—even though there is no water for the project. (03.09.15)
• Seaside Extends Monterey Downs Agreement
  Dozens of people came to oppose the proposed extension of the Monterey Downs Exclusive Negotiating Agreement. The Council voted just after 11 PM to extend it for one year with a 4-1 vote (Campbell opposed). (03.05.15)
• Time to Pull the Plug
  With huge amounts of water required to maintain the horses on the site, many residents are concerned about how much water will be used for this project—when they are asked to reduce their own use. Staff recommends approval and this is sometimes viewed as the game plan, not knowing exactly what residents may think about a project. Many feel it is time to move on. (03.04.15)
• Seaside Should Reject Monterey Downs
  A fateful decision about the Monterey Downs project negotiating agreement is set for decision on Thursday. This time the developer is asking for a 12 month extension with a possible three month extension as well. The staff recommends approval of the extension. (03.04.15)
• Council to Decide on Monterey Downs Extension
  The City Council for the City of Seaside is set to decide to extend (or not) the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for the proposed Monterey Downs project. The agreement has been in place September 2010. Extensions have already been granted. The Council will decide if another 12 month extension is in order. (03.02.15)
• Seaside to Determine Extension
  The developer of the proposed Monterey Downs project is looking for another 12 month extension of its Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with the City of Seaside. Numerous extensions have already been granted. The author wonders that if the Council/developer believe that if more time is allowed many of the problems related to this project will simply go away. (03.02.15)
• Resident Voices Concerns on Monterey Downs Project
  Seaside Resident Kay Cline outlines concerns she has on the viability of the Monterey Downs project. She urged residents to attend a City Council meeting where the decision to extend the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement will be decided. (02.28.15)

• More Water for Horses Than People
  Our friends at Keep Fort Ord Wild have been at it again. Through the Public Records Act they have requested to gain access to documents related to the Monterey Downs Environmental Impact Report. If the document or portions of the document were sent to the developer, then they are considered public. The City of Seaside said nothing had been released and then changed its position—something had been released—the water section had been sent. The plot thickens. (02.05.15)
• Monterey Downs Economic Analysts Sued
  An interesting development with the Monterey Downs project was reported today in the Monterey Herald. Apparently the company that completed the economic analysis for this proposed project is actually being sued by two California cities over financial calculation errors. (02.03.15)
• Monterey Downs Developer Sued
  It seems there is more than one Monterey County developer in hot water at the moment. A lawsuit was apparently filed in July that included the Monterey Downs developer. The accusation includes taking part in an improper scheme to buy a SoCal racetrack. (01.23.15)
• Workshop Videos on Monterey Downs and CEQA
  LandWatch and Sustainable Seaside partnered to offer a workshop focused on the California Environmental Quality Act. The workshop was filmed and has been posted on YouTube for the public to view.
• Where’s the Money to Police Monterey Downs
  There’s been so much going on we didn’t get a chance to post this when it was published last week. Many residents are concerned about the crime in Seaside. Questions are coming up about the need for improved police and public safety services should the Monterey Downs project get approved by the City. (01.15.15)
• Confidential Documents Reveal No Water for Monterey Downs Project
  A confidential document apparently reveals there is not enough water for the Monterey Downs project and all its phases. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must provide accurate information on the water supply. The consultants and City of Seaside know the EIR must acknowledge there isn’t enough water. Let’s see what the EIR says when it is released, whenever that may be. (12.16.14)
• Developer Targets Youth for Monterey Downs Project
  A video shows floppy hats, foofy drinks, tennis matches, luxurious hotels, a horse trainer and rider… all of which points to rich white people at the racetrack. The developer states that Monterey’s youth wouldn’t need to travel to San Diego to enjoy this racing day if the Monterey Downs project were created.  The developer targets youth as the missing link. (02.14.13)