– PFAS in drinking water at Cal State University Monterey Bay: Open Letter to CSUMB Administration

From Military Poisons

Dear reader, Please consider sending the above headline and this url: https://www.militarypoisons.org/latest-news/open-letter-to-the-california-state-university-monterey-bay-administration to University President Carlos Vargas, president@csumb.edu .

Artist’s rendition of PFOA. Students should not be drinking PFOA on campus.

 October 3, 2026

Dear President Vargas and CSUMB administrators,

California State University Monterey Bay was created on the grounds of former Fort Ord. That history brings an obligation larger than ordinary campus management: the University must insist that the soil, water, and construction zones used by its students, staff, and neighbors are investigated with current science—not assumptions made by the Army before PFAS was even part of the regulatory vocabulary.

Independent September screening identified PFAS at four locations connected to campus life and former Fort Ord land uses.

A tap-water sample from the Otter Student Union contained 7.7 parts per trillion (ppt) of PFOA and 7.3 ppt of PFOS. Both exceed the EPA’s current individual drinking-water maximum contaminant level of 4 ppt. The same sample contained PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and other measured PFAS, with 30 ppt total detected PFAS.

Another sample collected from a residence on Abrams Drive in Marina, a litttle more than a mile away showed no detection of PFAS. How could that be?

Certainly, one sample does not establish system-wide compliance or prove anyone’s illness was caused by water at the Student Union. It does, however, require prompt confirmatory sampling, disclosure of the source water and distribution route, and a public explanation from CSUMB and Marina Coast Water District.

PFOA deserves particular attention.

 PFOA is not simply another PFAS on a laboratory printout. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies PFOA as carcinogenic to humans—a conclusion based on sufficient evidence of cancer in laboratory animals, strong evidence of carcinogenic mechanisms in exposed people, and very strong human evidence for kidney and testicular cancer. The National Toxicology Program has also concluded that PFOA, like PFOS, is presumed to be an immune hazard to humans. California lists PFOA as causing cancer and reproductive harm. It is fair to say that PFOA is among the most thoroughly studied and consequential PFAS compounds.

A 2025 peer-reviewed journal article published in Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, funded by the NIH,  tracked millions of US residents. It observed where PFAS drinking water contamination corresponded with elevated incidences of hematologic malignancies, including leukemia and myeloma, especially in male populations.

A Maximum Contaminant Level Goal, (MCLG) is the EPA’s non-enforceable, health-based drinking-water goal, set at the level where no known or anticipated health effects are expected. For PFOA, EPA set it at zero. Students should not be drinking these carcinogens.

When I spoke with Dr. Linda Birnbaum, the former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program, she warned that the relevant question is not whether a concentration looks small on paper, but what repeated exposure can mean for a chemical that persists in the body. That perspective helps explain EPA’s extraordinary 2022 interim PFOA health-advisory number of 0.004 ppt. EPA has since superseded that interim advisory with its 2024 final toxicity assessment, but the history matters: it reflected the agency’s conclusion that very low, lifelong PFOA exposure warranted concern. A 7.7-ppt PFOA finding is almost 2,000 times that former interim benchmark and exceeds EPA’s 4-ppt drinking-water standard. It does not establish that a student drinking water with this level of PFOA will develop cancer. It does, however, establish a compelling need for immediate confirmation, source-tracing, and public disclosure.

Screening samples found PFAS at the notorious “Pete’s Pond”, south of Eighth Avenue beside Promontory Housing; at the Athletic Field west of Pete’s Pond; and at the former Fort Ord Soil Treatment Area (FOSTA), located between the baseball and soccer fields. These results were from German-method eluate tests. It measures PFAS in liquid leached from the sampled material, not a direct soil concentration.

It should not be misrepresented as proof that people are breathing a stated concentration of PFAS. But it does show that PFAS were present and mobile under the conditions tested, and it warrants a real investigation of surface soil, subsurface soil, dust, stormwater, and groundwater. This concern is sharpened by the 1994 EPA Record of Decision. Section 2.10.

It allowed treated or untreated Fort Ord soil that met the standards of that era and was classified as “inert” to be reused as clean fill, road base, and landfill-cover material. PFAS were not among the contaminants characterized in that reuse scheme. PFAS-contaminated soil was likely spread across large areas of today’s campus. The “inert” classification cannot be used today as evidence that reused soil was free of PFAS. The Army and the agencies that approved reuse did not test for them.

PFAS are not all alike. PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, PFHxA, and fluorotelomer compounds differ in mobility, persistence, and affinity for soil and organic matter. Generally, longer-chain sulfonates such as PFOS and PFHxS tend to bind more strongly to soil, sediment, and organic carbon than shorter-chain acids. Compounds such as PFOA and PFHxA are often more mobile in water. None of this means PFOS or PFOA simply evaporates from soil. The real concern is contaminated soil becoming particulate dust when it is scraped, hauled, graded, or tracked into campus buildings.

That pathway is not speculative in the abstract. ATSDR identifies accidentally swallowing or breathing contaminated soil or dust as important PFAS exposure routes; EPA identifies contaminated soil and dust among the environmental media through which PFAS exposure may occur. NIH likewise recognizes that PFAS can move through water, air, and dust. These agencies say the pathway must be evaluated with site-specific sampling—precisely what has not yet been done at the locations where students live, recreate, and where construction is ongoing. ATSDR

The former Site 10 fire-training area near General Jim Moore Boulevard and Gigling Road presents a separate but related concern. AFFF and fuel-burning training occurred there from 1972 to 1991. The question is not whether a legacy fire-training area should be presumed to have harmed a particular person. The question is why potentially affected soil, groundwater, and dust pathways have not been fully characterized before redevelopment and construction were allowed to proceed.

CSUMB should therefore publicly request and support four immediate actions:

1.     Confirm the Otter Student Union water results through repeated, independently validated tap and source-water sampling, with full laboratory reports, detection limits, methods, and results released to the public.

2.     Conduct a transparent PFAS investigation at FOSTA, Pete’s Pond, the adjacent athletic field, and Site 10: surface and depth-discrete soil, leachability, settled dust, stormwater, and groundwater. Generate an analyte list of the 40 EPA compounds reported by EPA method 1633.

3.     Pause soil-disturbing work throughout the campus and call for the same at the Campus Town/Site 10 area until a site-specific soil-and-dust management plan is public. That plan should include dust suppression, truck decontamination, perimeter monitoring, and worker protection. Appropriate respiratory protection should be mandated for workers.

4.     Create a public Fort Ord–CSUMB PFAS dashboard that maps sampling locations, distinguishes official results from independent screening, identifies data gaps, and reports all results—not only PFOA and PFOS.

CSUMB need not declare a public-health emergency to act responsibly. It must acknowledge that a campus built on former Fort Ord cannot rely on a 1994 “inert soil” designation to answer a 2026 PFAS question. The University’s duty is simple: test thoroughly, disclose honestly, and protect the people who learn, work, play, and live here.

Thank you,

Pat Elder, Director,
Military Poisons 
St. Mary’s City, MD

https://www.militarypoisons.org/latest-news/open-letter-to-the-california-state-university-monterey-bay-administration

– New investigation shows multiple exposure risks at former Fort Ord — at CSUMB and Campus Town development

When public agencies utilize the Army’s antiquated regulatory findings to walk away from a legacy burn pit, they are not practicing sound science; they are making a calculated choice to tolerate an unmitigated public health vulnerability. By prioritizing corporate real estate timelines over the physical well-being of the construction crews, students, and families who inhabit this land, these institutions have transformed a failure of environmental stewardship into a profound moral crisis.

From Military Poisons:

Surface and Subsurface PFAS Mobility, Ambient Dust Hazards, and Multiple Exposure Risks at Fort Ord Site 10
Investigating the Disconnect Between the Toxic, Historic Fire Training Area and the ‘Campus Town’ Project Currently under Construction

By Pat Elder
October 1, 2026

Then and now – U.S. Army photo of firefighters and an artist’s rendition of Campus Town in Seaside, CA Torti Gallas & Partners

This report presents a critical evaluation of localized environmental safety, groundwater resource vulnerability, and multi-pathway exposure risks associated with legacy Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) within the Ord Community water grid and the planned “Campus Town” mixed-use development center.

The purpose of this document is to reconcile independent field screening data with official municipal well logs, public water district records, and federal military cleanup frameworks. Historically, institutional oversight has relied on an exposure model that assumes surficial soils are stable and shallow aquifers are isolated from active municipal drinking water assets.

This report provides empirical evidence directly challenging those baseline assumptions. By demonstrating the chemical mobility of legacy contaminants at Site 10 (the former Fire Training Area and Burn Pit) and mapping the structural vulnerabilities of the regional aquifer network, this brief establishes the presence of completed and highly probable exposure pathways impacting active construction zones, pedestrian commercial nodes, and university facilities alike.

The findings compiled herein serve as a formal administrative advisory for municipal leaders, university administrators, and planning commissioners to mandate comprehensive site characterization, enforce protective occupational safety protocols, and insulate the community from long-term environmental and public health liabilities.

1. Environmental Testing Summary and Methodology – Site 10

For decades during Fort Ord’s operational history, the intersection of Gen. Jim Moore Blvd. and Gigling Road served a far grimmer purpose than the vibrant, mixed-use retail and housing hub currently envisioned. As Site 10, this specific parcel was the military’s primary Fire Training Area and Burn Pit.

Year after year, troops poured thousands of gallons of petroleum, fuel, and chemical accelerants onto the ground, ignited them, and extinguished the infernos using Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF). The toxic foam was allowed to sink directly into the unlined earth, saturating the soil profile with resilient, non-biodegradable synthetic compounds.

To evaluate the current subsurface mobility of this legacy footprint, surface soil matrices were collected and analyzed utilizing the German Eluate method. This laboratory procedure assesses whether selected PFAS can be mobilized into water under regional weather and rain conditions.


Eluate Testing Results from soil at Site 10.

Laboratory analysis of the resulting liquid eluate yielded a Total Detected PFAS concentration of 201.3 ppt. The analytical profile reflects an industry-standard Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) signature:

• Fluorotelomer Compounds: The sample exhibits elevated concentrations of 6:2 Fluorotelomer Sulfonate (44.2 ppt) and 8:2 FTS (27.5 ppt) [image_z8QLwE.png]. These components are characteristic of legacy fluorotelomer-based firefighting foam chemistry historically deployed at military fire training sites.

• Perfluoroalkyl Acids: The testing detected significant concentrations of long-chain compounds, including PFOS (26.7 ppt), PFOA (30.7 ppt), and PFNA (30.8 ppt).

The results for PFOS and PFOA compounds exceed the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) of 4.0 ppt enforced for public drinking water grids.

Because eluate testing isolates the dissolved liquid phase of analytes, these results demonstrate that the historical source soils at Site 10 remain saturated and capable of leaching contaminants into local shallow groundwater.

This method evaluates soil contamination by measuring the active desorbing mass that leaches into groundwater during rain events, which provides a more accurate mobile risk profile than standard bulk-soil mass testing. To mirror these exact parameters, a precise 2:1 liquid-to-solid ratio was maintained using a certified non-PFAS container. The matrix was systematically agitated over a 24-hour period and subsequently filtered. This independent screening strictly followed the same analytical EPA extraction principles utilized by commercial and military laboratories.

The new Site 10 results are significant evidence. The test demonstrates that PFAS remaining at Site 10 are not merely a historical concern or a fully immobilized burden buried in the soil. Under the test conditions, a complex mixture of PFAS entered water. That result deserves a far more complete investigation than the Army has conducted.

The regulatory framework has established an incomplete exposure model for Site 10. The Army’s primary assertion has been that human health risks are incomplete simply because the local community does not extract municipal drinking water directly from the surficial A-Aquifer. By focusing exclusively on this single water vector, the risk-assessment process effectively glosses over more complex, multi-pathway exposures.

This historical reliance is directly refuted by current data. The Army’s Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) asserts that because 1,451 cubic yards of fuel-impacted soil were excavated in 1995, ‘it is unlikely that PFAS-impacted soil remains near the ground surface at Site 10.’ However, because the QAPP admits that ‘PFAS was not a contaminant of concern at that time’ this historical action entirely missed the AFFF footprint.

This systemic oversight prompted an investigation of the remediation repository itself: the Fort Ord Soil Treatment Area (FOSTA).





PFAS results from the Fort Ord Soil Treatment Area (FOSTA).

The historical record identifies FOSTA as the concrete slab situated at the former 519th Motor Pool. An independent eluate sample collected from this treatment footprint was submitted for laboratory analysis to evaluate the legacy repository.

The EPA Record of Decision, 1994 says treated or untreated soil below health-based standards were classified as “inert.” PFAS were not among the contaminants identified for routine characterization in the 1994 FOSTA reuse scheme.

The Record of Decision authorized treated or untreated soil that met then-applicable health-based standards and was classified as “inert” to be used in the OU 2 landfill cap, as road base, or as clean fill. Because that classification did not include PFAS analysis, meaning reused soil containing PFAS were liberally spread over areas that became part of the CSUMB.

We collected a sample of contaminated soil from the FOSTA – between the baseball field and the soccer field on campus.

Everywhere we looked, we found PFAS:

  • • Land south of the Fire House on General Jim Moore
  • • Irrigation Pond in Castroville
  • • Locke Paddon
  • • CSUMB Athletic Field at Gen Jim Moore Blvd & 8th St.
  • • Fort Ord Dunes Park
  • • Pete’s Pond Area adjacent to Promontory Housing

(Stay tuned for a description of these contaminated areas in a follow-up report.)

The historical reuse framework authorized by the 1994 EPA Record of Decision created a systemic environmental vulnerability across the region. By classifying thousands of cubic yards of uncharacterized, fuel-impacted soils as “inert” based on obsolete 1990s regulatory criteria, the military liberally re-routed and spread highly contaminated matrices across parcels that now comprise the CSUMB campus.

Compared to today’s rigorous analytical testing procedures and part-per-trillion health standards, these soils were never properly vetted for highly mobile, bioaccumulative “forever chemicals” like PFAS, meaning vast swathes of the university’s surface profile rest upon an undocumented mosaic of legacy military contaminants.

Zoning Protections vs. Environmental Exposure Gaps: The Multi-Story Residential Framework.

According to the Army’s 2020 Quality Assurance Project Plan, “There are no residential, school, or daycare facilities onsite or within 200 feet of areas of potential contamination (at Site 10) and there are no sensitive terrestrial environments onsite. The property is zoned as Commercial-Mixed Use (CMX) and future land use could include both commercial and residential where PFAS-impacted soil could be exposed during development of these uses. However, Site 10 is within a designated commercial center that is part of the larger Campus Town CMX development. Per the Campus Town specific plan, future residential use is permitted but would be limited to levels above commercial spaces (second floor or higher) and the Site 10 area will be hardscaped (i.e., there are no expected exposure points for future residents) (City of Seaside, 2020).”

Crucially, while institutional Land Use Controls (LUCs) strictly restrict access to soil and groundwater at other designated parcels across the former base—such as the Main Garrison Sewage Treatment Plant and the airfield fire drill areas—no corresponding restrictive land use controls were applied to the Site 10 Burn Pit footprint within the Campus Town development zone.

Locating residences above commercial spaces may reduce direct contact with ground-level soil at the immediate building footprint, but it does not by itself resolve potential construction-worker exposure, disturbed-soil dust, groundwater migration, vapor intrusion, or off-site plume propagation questions.

Environmental Risk Assessment for ‘Campus Town’ Redevelopment

These findings introduce profound liability, environmental, and public health risks for development entities currently executing earthworks at this intersection.

Subsurface grading, excavation, and structural earthworks within an un-remediated fire training zone present an immediate pathway to generate airborne dust containing PFAS-bearing soil particles, exposing construction personnel and downwind residential tracts to inhalation pathways. Concurrently, the installation of impermeable foundations and altered stormwater routing risks modifying localized hydrology, potentially accelerating the vertical migration of dissolved analytes into underlying water resources.

Constructing a high-density commercial and residential center directly over an active, leaching chemical repository creates a permanent exposure footprint. Until this source area is comprehensively characterized, delineated, and stabilized, the proposed ‘Campus Town’ footprint remains structurally compromised by its legacy military use.

2. Comparing PFAS tap water results from Abrams Drive, Marina to CSUMB

The Abrams Dr. residence showed no PFAS while the tap water at the CSUMB Student Union Building showed potentially hazardous levels of PFAS.

Comparative analysis reveals a significant locational variance between residential inflows and municipal drinking water assets.

• Abrams Drive Residential Tap: Analysis of water samples yielded a clean baseline, with concentrations remaining below the laboratory’s specific reporting limits (non-detect) for all tested PFAS compounds

.

• CSUMB Student Union Building: Tap samples collected from the campus center revealed a Total Detected PFAS concentration of 30 ppt, driven by PFOA at 7.7 ppt, PFOS at 7.3 ppt, and PFNA at 8.1 ppt. The concentrations of individual long-chain analytes PFOA and PFOS directly exceed the U.S. EPA’s enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) of 4.0 ppt.

Because municipal water distribution networks rely on dynamic blending, varying system pressures, and complex wellfield configurations, this variance indicates that local exposure risks are highly dependent on the localized aquifer extraction zones and distribution lines serving individual facilities rather than a uniform base-wide baseline.

3. The Hydrogeology of the Basin

Conceptual pathway of groundwater running from the Site 10 Fire training Area to regional water supply wells.

Continue reading “– New investigation shows multiple exposure risks at former Fort Ord — at CSUMB and Campus Town development”

– Restore local land use control: League of California Cities votes on key resolution Sept. 24, 25 – UPDATED

Update October 1, 2026:
The resolution to restore local land use control was approved by the League of California Cities General Assembly on September 25.

Our Neighborhood Voices (ONV) posted this update today
https://www.ourneighborhoodvoices.com/you-made-it-happen-resolution-for-local-control-wins-at-calcities/

There is a great deal of work ahead. From ONV:

The resolution brought together communities to discuss concerns about the destructive impact of state housing mandates. Before it got to the final vote, however, the resolution was revised in committee, and the original reference to a state constitutional amendment was removed. (This may be added back in at a later date.)

ONV believes a constitutional amendment needs to be part of that discussion. Also, while the current resolution looks toward 2030, ONV will continue advocating to bring the issue before voters in 2028.

– – – – – – – –

On Thursday and Friday, Sept. 24, 25, the League of California Cities votes on a resolution to restore local control over planning and land use projects.

Please contact your city council and council representative to the LCC to vote YES on this resolution. It is the only resolution on their agenda.

Resolution on page 8:
https://www.calcities.org/docs/default-source/advocacy/2026-cal-cities-resolution-packet.pdf?sfvrsn=36139ca0_1

1. A RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CALLING FOR A WORKING GROUP TO CONSIDER A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT OR OTHER FORM OF INITIATIVE TO ENSURE FINAL LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER HOUSING AND LAND USE DECISIONS

Let the public and other officials know about this important vote, including nearby cities. Officials may not know about this critical resolution.

The California Legislature is taking greater control over local decisions. In 2017 SB 649 would have allowed small cell towers everywhere by state mandate, eliminating local control. Through collective action, the public defeated that bill. A big issue is housing, with densification pushed by the Legislature and Governor Newsom via SB 79 and other bills, the so-called “builder’s remedy”, eliminating hearings and environmental review, and FCC-like shot clocks for rapid approval. These projects can destroy community character and contribute little to affordable housing. Another land use issue is the recent lithium ion battery energy storage facility preemption by the state. The Moss Landing BESS had a new fire September 18, but the legislature stripped cities and counties of authority to pull the plug or deny projects.

The resolution will be voted on at the annual LCC Conference in Anaheim. The LCC Resolution Committee will vote on the resolution Thursday, and if passed, it will go to the General Assembly for a vote Friday, September 25. The organization Our Neighborhood Voices is sponsoring a rally at their booth on Wednesday
https://www.ourneighborhoodvoices.com/press-release-our-neighborhood-voices-to-take-fight-for-local-control-to-league-of-california-cities-annual-conference-in-anaheim/– press release

Please lobby your city and nearby cities to vote YES.

Resolution:
https://www.calcities.org/docs/default-source/advocacy/2026-cal-cities-resolution-packet.pdf?sfvrsn=36139ca0_1

1. A RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
CALLING FOR A WORKING GROUP TO CONSIDER A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT OR OTHER FORM OF INITIATIVE TO ENSURE FINAL LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER HOUSING AND LAND USE DECISIONS

Source: City of Murrieta
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials
Cities/city officials: City of Banning; City of Calimesa; City of Canyon Lake; City of Moreno Valley; City of Norco; City of Torrance; Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto; Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula
Referred to: Housing, Community, and Economic Development Policy Committee

WHEREAS, California cities have historically been responsible for adopting general plans and zoning regulations, reviewing housing development proposals, and providing or coordinating the streets, water, wastewater, public safety, parks, transportation, and other infrastructure and services necessary to support responsible, environmentally sound, and well-planned residential growth; and

WHEREAS, the League of California Cities is dedicated to protecting and expanding local control for municipalities across the state to ensure their orderly growth and development; and

WHEREAS, the League of California Cities recognizes that local zoning is a primary function of cities and an essential component of home rule, and that a city’s general plan should guide its land use planning and strategic decision-making free from pre-emption by the state; and

WHEREAS, increasingly prescriptive statewide housing mandates and development approval requirements can override locally adopted plans, zoning standards, and public review procedures without adequately accounting for differences that exist in each unique jurisdiction in infrastructure capacity, water availability, wildfire and evacuation risks, environmental constraints, fiscal impacts, public service needs, and community priorities; and

WHEREAS, California’s housing goals can be more effectively advanced through state funding, streamlined environmental requirements, and voluntary partnerships that support housing production while preserving the authority of locally elected officials to determine how and where housing is best planned and approved;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the Annual Conference in Anaheim, California, on September 25, 2026, that the League of California Cities support the development and advancement of a state constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot- based strategies that restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters within municipal boundaries, including general plans, housing elements, zoning, density, design and development standards, project siting, and the approval or denial of housing development applications; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any constitutional amendment or alternative strategy should preserve the State’s authority to establish broad statewide housing goals and enforce constitutional and civil rights, fair housing requirements, building and life-safety standards, and generally applicable environmental protections, while protecting cities from state actions that compel, through funding conditions or state law, the approval of housing developments that are inconsistent with locally adopted requirements; override local zoning or density standards; or invalidate locally adopted housing or land use decisions when a city has planned in good faith to accommodate its regional housing needs allocation and maintains adequate capacity for housing at all income levels; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the League of California Cities consider establishing a statewide working group or other appropriate committee(s) to evaluate and develop a proposed constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters including but limited to: conducting appropriate legal, fiscal, and policy analyses; engaging cities and other stakeholders; and building a statewide coalition of proponent supporters in preparation for; the November 2030 General Election, or within another reasonable time frame as determined by the working group.

– King City property listed for sale as data center site

Property in King City, Monterey County, originally purchased for marijuana cultivation is now being sold as a potential data center site.

From Monterey County Now, September 3, 2026:

“The 150 Don Bates Way property, which County Assessor records show [city council candidate Jonas] Lalehzadeh’s partner purchased for $3.5 million in 2021, has been posted for sale online with an asking price of $18 million. A real estate listing describes it as a “power-ready data center campus” opportunity with 55,000 square feet of space across five buildings.

“The campus is fully secured and gated, and the property will be delivered 100-percent vacant at the close of escrow,” according to the listing, which also notes 8.31 megawatts of power already onsite. “The property provides a compelling platform for operators seeking deployable compute capacity in Northern California without the constraints of the Silicon Valley power grid.”

A data center is not yet a permitted use of the site. “I mean, he’s not wrong. I guess it is an opportunity, but that type of use would certainly come to the Planning Commission and the Council before it was approved,” Arreola says. “My guess is it would be met with quite a bit of scrutiny.””

https://www.montereycountynow.com/svnow/news/council-candidate-sues-king-city-over-revoked-cannabis-permit-and-pitches-a-data-center/article_6b5898ab-de54-4570-b05a-ba8bf2af61bc.html

– September 18, KSCO AM 1080: data center measure rejected by Santa Cruz County, new Moss Landing BESS fire, and more

From Becky Steinbruner:

I will be discussing the [Santa Cruz County] Board of Supervisor action to reject, by a vote of 3/2, putting a measure on the 2028 local ballot that would allow voters to approve data centers in Santa Cruz County should there be an application for permitting in the future. 
The item was proposed by Supervisor Justin Cummings. He is worried a data center could potentially be developed at the site of the former Cemex Plant in Davenport.

The California State Assembly just passed legislation, now headed for the State Senate, that would address energy demands of data centers, but not much else: https://tech.yahoo.com/general/article/the-house-just-passed-a-bipartisan-data-center-bill-what-the-ratepayer-protection-act-would–and-wouldnt–do-to-protect-consumers-from-rising-energy-costs-130000413.html

There has been a plan to build a data center, combined with a desalination plant, in Moss Landing (2010-2018), known as DeepWater Desal: DeepWater Desal aiming to build desalination plant in Moss Landing. It was to use sea water to cool the data center, and use the cooling water for desalination water supplies in the region.

[Also, land in King City is being sold as a data center site https://www.montereycountynow.com/svnow/news/council-candidate-sues-king-city-over-revoked-cannabis-permit-and-pitches-a-data-center/article_6b5898ab-de54-4570-b05a-ba8bf2af61bc.html]

What do you think about data centers?  What do you think about the Santa Cruz County Supervisors?

Call in! 831-479-1080. I have invited Supervisor Justin Cummings to phone in.
Listen in 2pm-3pm Pacific Time on KSCO Radio AM 1080 and FM 104.1, 95.7 & 107.9. KOMY AM 1340. or listen live online: http://www.ksco.com/
The program will be recorded and posted on the KSCO website: http://www.ksco.com/

******Also of note for discussion will be a town hall meeting by Second District  County Supervisor Kim DeSerpa to discuss the proposed “Village on the Green” Project in Aptos on the former Par 3 Golf Course that would bring two 6-story apartment buildings and about 200 three-story townhomes to that 13-acre parcel.

September 28, 2026 – 6:00 to 7:30 pm, Twin Lakes Church (2701 Cabrillo College Drive, Aptos) – Village on the Green Community Meeting
Let us know if you can make it

AND THEN……

Bratton on KSCO (6pm-7pm) Pacific Time
TOO MANY TOO TALL AND UGLY BUILDINGS IN SANTA CRUZ???

Host Gillian Greensite will be covering a variety of local political issues,  especially those involving over-development.

— How did the City of Santa Cruz fail to involve itself in the state wide effort by CA cities to take back local control from the State’s grab over land use issues?   
— How did the CA Coastal Commission turn its back on a small but significant environmental issue at its last meeting, held here in Santa Cruz?

Call in and join the conversation!  831-479-1080.
Listen in at 6pm-7pm Pacific Time on KSCO Radio AM 1080 and . FM 104.1, 95.7 & 107.9. KOMY AM 1340.  or listen live online: http://www.ksco.com/

The program will be recorded and posted on the Bratton on KSCO webpage: http://zbsradio.com/show_detail/id/126

– New fire breaks out at Moss Landing battery facility, Friday September 18

A fire was reported at 6:15 AM on Friday, September 18, at the Moss Landing. Firefighters are on the scene. It is burning on the north side of the building.

Residents are being told to shelter in place and keep windows and doors tightly closed. Dolan Road is closed near the facility.

Press release from Never Again Moss Landing

News coverage:
https://www.ksbw.com/article/flames-moss-landing-power-plant-shelter-in-place/73788675

https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/moss-landing-power-plant-fire-september-18-2026-shelter-in-place

Monterey County webpage: https://www.readymontereycounty.org/emergency/2025-moss-landing-vistra-power-plant-fire

Becky Steinbruner will be discussing the situation as well as data centers at 2 PM on KSCO radio AM 1080 and online http://www.ksco.com/

– Write-in candidate filing period for November election is now open; deadline October 20-22

The filing period to sign up to be an official write-in candidate is now open.
Votes only count for official write-in candidates.

Period to file paperwork:
– Monterey and San Benito County: September 7 – October 20
– Santa Cruz County: September 9 – October 22

Information on how to qualify as a write-in candidate

Monterey County https://www.countyofmonterey.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/148040

San Benito County
https://www.sanbenitocounty-ca-cre.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/15938/639189473224970000
p. 35

Santa Cruz County
https://votescount.santacruzcountyca.gov/Home/Howtobeawrite-incandidate.aspx

Monterey County Elections Department states that a person cannot be a write-in candidate for federal and state offices. A person can only be a write-in for city and county offices, as well as state offices that are non-partisan. The county has a list.
https://www.countyofmonterey.gov/government/departments-a-h/elections/elections/11-03-2026-general-election

– Monterey County postpones Flock ALPR camera decision until September 22, but hears two hours of public testimony against ALPR

August 25
Today, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors heard public comment on a proposed 10-year contract with Flock for ALPR cameras — over 2 hours of testimony, all opposed except for one law enforcement employee.

Originally, the 10-year, 2.781 million dollar contract was to be considered today:

#9 Authorize the County Purchasing Agent or designee to negotiate and to execute a non-standard agreement with Flock Group Inc., dba Flock Safety, for the subscription service of 103 Flock cameras (License Plate Readers) in an amount of $2,781,000 for the period of September 1, 2026 to August 31, 2036.
– REVISED Board Report (REVISED VIA SUPPLEMENTAL)
– Board Report
– Flock Group Inc., dba Flock Safety Non-Standard Agreement

However, at the beginning of the meeting, Board Chair Askew announced that the Sheriff had postponed this item until September, tentatively September 22. The Board decided to take public comment today anyway, since people had already made plans to attend the meeting. Comments on ALPR were heard in the morning and from approximately 1:30 – 3:30 pm in the afternoon session. The video will be available at https://monterey.legistar.com/Page.aspx?M=W

– Salinas schools, children, and homes getting high, repeated exposure to methomyl, banned in over 50 countries for toxicity

Comments by Karen Cameron, concerned Salinas citizen, on August 11 to the Monterey County Board of Supervisors.


Salad bowl of the world, yet we’ve had no air monitor from CDPR [California Department of Pesticide Regulation] since 2017, so we don’t know what we’re breathing in terms of pesticides. It was interesting to read through the environmental justice element of the Monterey County General Plan, where CalEnviroScreen data was shared from Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment on pesticides accumulation in some of the disadvantaged areas. 99% accumulation in Boronda, Las Lomas, Moss Landing, Castroville. The list goes on. In Pajaro, where we have our closest air monitoring, it’s listed at 79 to 100% accumulation. That’s very concerning to me. We seem to live in a time when we’ve normalized this behavior. I flash back to 1962 where Rachel Carson published Silent Spring with many of these same concerns. My colleagues from Safe Ag Safe Schools and Future Leaders of Change are right now in Sacramento marking 30 years for California for pesticide reform. Just wanted to share with you that on a local level, I have a big concern I shared with the city council this week in Salinas. I met with the Monterey County Ag Commissioner by phone for over 20 minutes, displaying a concern that I have from spray days notification data that I have collected for two schools in Salinas that are near fields. University Park Elementary, I’ve noted 57 methomyl applications since May 10th. McKinnon Elementary, over 50. And to tell you the truth, I think I’ve missed a couple because it’s so hard to keep up with this. That is a minimal number I could document. Now the Ag Commissioner in our conversation not only confirmed that methomyl, these applications are all methomyl, is banned in over 50 countries for its toxicity, yet he is signing off on every application. And he admitted to me that this trend is going on for the next month at least. We share concerns that school is in session. I share concerns that I’ve had seasonal health concerns that seem to calendar in concern with this. So I’m asking all of you to speak out to the Ag Commissioner and please research methomyl. Thank you.

Video

Ms. Cameron advocates for transitioning to organics and a one mile buffer zone around schools. She is a member of Safe Ag Safe Schools and Californians for Pesticide Reform.

Additional comments to Salinas City Council, August 18, 2026
https://fb.watch/J7iXsqNRr_/?mibextid=wwXIfr
(In her remarks, Ms. Cameron meant to say a one mile buffer zone is necessary)

– Sexual harassment lawsuit against Monterey County, its Sheriff’s office, and the husband of the chief executive officer of the County

The Carmel Pine Cone recently reported on a very disturbing situation in the Monterey County Sheriff’s office:

A former supervisor in the Monterey County Sheriff’s Office alleges that the husband of the county’s top administrator subjected her to months of severe sexual harassment and intimidation, and that county officials failed to stop the behavior and retaliated against her when she complained.

https://carmelpinecone.com/260807PC.pdf p. 14, 25

That man is Rodrigo De La Rosa, the husband of the Monterey County Chief Administrative Officer Sonia De La Rosa, and the details provided in the Pine Cone article are chilling.

This is just the latest incident. A series of lawsuits have been filed in the last few years that point to a dangerous culture of sexual harassment and protection of perpetrators by the County of Monterey and its Sheriff’s Office. They include:

September 2025

A lawsuit filed by Rosy Silva detailing the sexual harassment and retribution she experienced when she began working for the county sheriff’s office in 2010, spanning three sheriff administrations to the present Sheriff Nieto.
https://kioncentralcoast.com/news/monterey-county/2025/09/08/1218404/

The full court document:
https://kion546.b-cdn.net/2025/09/MCSO-LAWSUIT.pdf

January 2024

Whistleblower lawsuit by Bryan Hoskins against current Sheriff Nieto for wrongful termination due in part to his complaints about sexual harassment of multiple staff members by former undersheriff John Mineau.
https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/whistleblower-lawsuit-accuses-current-sheriff-18631999.php

October 2022

Lawsuit against Monterey County by a victim of former undersheriff Mineau
https://www.ksbw.com/article/monterey-county-undersheriff-mineau-victim-sues-county-over-misconduct/41547228

November, 2020

Christian Schneider complaint to the Fair Political Practices Commission against Sheriff Steve Bernal, including for affairs he had with subordinates
https://voicesofmontereybay.org/2020/11/13/monterey-county-sheriff-accused-of-serial-affairs-with-subordinates/

These were situations where the victim was willing to come forward. How many others have been harassed, pressured into sex for job advancement, or outright assaulted and remained silent for fear of retribution and their personal safety? How many had champions like Christian Schneider and Bryan Hoskins, versus how many were alone?

And if this is how female employees are treated who have freedom, how does the Sheriff’s office treat female suspects and inmates? How do they treat women drivers they pull over on county roads, especially women of color? How do they treat juvenile girls in their custody or they encounter in their work day? Is sexual harassment and assault taking place? Is it the norm? And are boys and men also experiencing sexual harassment or even assault in the criminal justice system? Is juvenile hall safe?

This is in addition to other problems reported in the sheriff’s office, including the deaths of inmates in the county jail, and this taxpayer-funded attack https://voicesofmontereybay.org/2020/06/14/why-are-taxpayers-paying-for-political-slime/

An unhealthy and lawless culture exists at the County of Monterey, and it is costing residents and businesses security, peace of mind, money, safety, and physical and mental well-being, while elected county supervisors and the district attorney do nothing. This must change. Monterey County’s CAO must be placed on leave, this situation investigated, and independent oversight brought into the Sheriff’s office to make needed changes. County supervisors satisfied with the dangerous status quo must be replaced.