Agenda — Marina City Council, March 21, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

WHEREAS, for the construction of impro vements for Phase 1B-Promenade, the Developer will post a bond in the amount of Two Million Se ven Hundred Forty Eight Thousand Two Hundred ninety Seven Dollars ($2,748,297.00), for completion of the public improvements and a bond in the amount of Two Million Seven Hundred Forty Eight Thousand Two Hundred ninety Seven Dollars ($2,748,297.00), to s ecure payment for labor and materials prior to the recording of the Final Map for Phase 1B-Promenade, and;

WHEREAS, continued maintenance of public streets, sidewa lks, streetlights and stormwater facilities shall be incorporated into the existing Dunes C ommunity Facilities District (CFD) and funded by the special tax assessment collected by the special District. Administration of the District shall be in accordance with City Ordinance 3.32.

NOW, THERE FORE, BE IT RESOLV ED that th e City Council of the City of Marina does hereby:

1. Approve the Phase 1B-Promenade Public Improvement Agreement between City of Marina and Shea Homes, LP, (“Developer”) (“EXHIBIT A”), and;

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Public Improvement Agreement on behalf of City subject to final review and approval by the City Attorney.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Marina at a regular meeti ng held on the 21st day of March 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

_____________________________
Bruce Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:

__________________________________
Anita Sharp, City Clerk

4 Exhibit A

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT

CITY OF MARINA

5 EXHIBIT A

TO STAFF REPORT
661\05\1647917.1

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
AG

REEMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT OF STREETS, INSTALLATION OF

STORM DRAINS AND OTHER PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES
“The Dunes on Monterey Bay” Project
– Phase 1B the Promenade –
This Agreement for Improvement of Streets, Installation of Storm Drains and Other Public Works Facilities (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ___ day of __________, 2022, by and between the City of Marina, herein called the “City,” a municipal corporation, and Marina Community Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company , a real property owner, developer or subdivider, herein called the “Developer.” WHEREAS, pursuant to the Development Agreement dated July 8, 2005, the Disposition and Development Agreement dated May 31, 2005, as amended by the Implementation Agreements, and the Quitclaim Deed dated September 21, 2006, Marina Community Partners, LLC, as the “Master Developer” is the owner of the land known as The Dunes Phase 1B; and
WHEREAS, on May 31, 2005, by Resolution 2005-130 the Master Developer received approval from the City for: (1) the University Village (now “The Dunes on Monterey Bay”) Specific Plan (Resolution 2005-130); and (2) a Tentative Subdivision Map (“Tentative Map”) consistent with the City’s General Plan and the Specific Plan (Resolution 2005-131) subject to Conditions of Approval attached to Resolution 2005-131 including: Condition 3 requiring a subdivision improvement agreement and bonding; and Condition 18 requiring establishment of a Landscape and Lighting District (“LLD”) prior to approval of the first Final Map; and
WHEREAS, the Master Developer conducted deconstruction and demolition activities affecting the Property (as defined below) under the terms of a Right of Entry Agreement from the City dated September 30, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Marina Redevelopment Agency and the Master Developer entered into the Implementation Agreement Regarding University Village on September 6, 2006, which provided for construction of the project in three major phases, Phases 1, 2 and 3 and which further split Phase 1 into three separate sub phases termed Phase 1A, Phase 1B and Phase 1C, and established Conforming Clarification(s) to the Schedule of Performance for each sub phase; and
WHEREAS, on October 2, 2007, in Resolution 2007-229 the City approved a Final Map that included Phase 1B and a Subdivision Improvement Agreement. However, due to subsequent changes in economic conditions the Phase 1B Final Map was never recorded and a Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Phase 1B was never executed. The October 2, 2007, approval of the Phase 1B Final Map and the authority to enter into the Subdivision 6 2
661\05\1647917.1
Improvement Agreement, were rescinded by the adoption of Resolution 2015-16 approving a Public Improvement Agreement for Phase 1A First Phase/Residential; and

WHEREAS, following the Master Developer’s invocation of an excused delay in the construction of Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 due to the impact of economic conditions on the feasibility of the project, on August 5, 2008, the Marina Redevelopment Agency and the Master Developer entered into the Second Implementation Agreement Regarding University Village to provide for the Master Developer’s continued construction of the project in spite of the economic downturn and made certain changes to the Disposition and Development Agreement and to the Conforming Clarifications to the Schedule of Performance; and

WHEREAS, on August 12, 2008, in accordance with Resolution 2008-173 the City and the Master Developer entered into a Public Improvement Agreement to provide for the improvement of streets, installation of storm drains and other public works facilities for a portion of Phase 1C and 2 designated as residential in the Specific Plan (the “Initial Phase/Residential”); and

WHEREAS, on October 21, 2008, by Resolution 2008-209 the City approved an amendment to the Tentative Map affecting Phase 1B, adopting two additional Conditions of Approval to the Tentative Map and thereby changing the numbering of Condition 18 to Condition 20; and

WHEREAS, on May 18, 2010, by Resolution 2010-13(MRA) the Marina Redevelopment Agency and the City, by Resolution 2010-75, approved a modification to the Schedule of Performance; and

WHEREAS, The Master Developer remains obligated under the Disposition and Development Agreement and Development Agreement for the balance of the Project not yet conveyed to third parties; and

WHEREAS, the Conditions of Approval of the Tentative Map, as adopted by Resolution 2005-131 and as amended by Resolution 2008-209 require the establishment of a Landscape and Lighting District prior to recording of a final map; and

WHEREAS, on June 2, 2015, by Resolution 2015-01 the City approved the formation of Community Facilities District No. 2015-01 (The Dunes); and

WHEREAS, by Resolution 2015-11 the Master Developer received approval from the City for an amendment to Conditions of Approval Nos.3 and 20 (Resolution 2008-209) for the Tentative Map which provided for the establishment of a Community Facilities District in lieu of a Landscape and Lighting District and permitted the Developer to record a final map for Phase 1C First Phase/Residential prior to the establishment of the Community Facilities District but that the City shall not accept any of the infrastructure improvements or easements for Phase 1C First Phase/Residential to be maintained by the 7 3
661\05\1647917.1
Community Facilities District, including infrastructure improvements to be completed by the Developer, until such time as the Community Facilities District is established; and

WHEREAS, on December 9, 2021, the City approved
the Site and Architectural
Design Review Application (SADRA) for the Promenade, a portion Phase 1B of the Dunes on Monterey Bay Specific Plan (the Project), Exhibit A; and

WHEREAS, on May 3, 2022, by Resolution 2022-52, the City approved a Tentative Subdivision Map amendment for Phase 1B of the Dunes On Monterey Bay (Exhibit B); and

WHEREAS, the Developer will subsequently submit for approval by the City and subsequent recording with the office of the Monterey County Recorder, a final map (“Final Map”) for Phase 1B; and

WHEREAS, revised improvement plans entitled “The Dunes on Monterey Bay, Phase 1B” herein the “Improvement Plans,” signed by the City Engineer on __________, 2022, and incorporated herein by reference, have been submitted to the City for approval and acceptance, including certain streets constituting a portion of Phase 1B of The Dunes on Monterey Bay Project, referred to herein as Phase 1B the Promenade development area, or the “Project,” located on and along 2nd Avenue, from Jetty Street to a portion of 8 th
Street, and the southerly end of General Stilwell Drive, herein the “Property”.

Improvements are to include new storm drain system, curb, gutter, asphalt concrete pavement, streetlights and electrical facilities, sidewalk, striping, traffic signs, and survey monuments, as shown on Exhibit C, herein the “Improvements;” and

WHEREAS, the City will not accept any of the Phase 1B public improvements to be constructed pursuant to this Agreement until all the conditions of this Agreement are satisfied in full; and

WHEREAS, the Developer requires certain utilities and public works facilities in order to service the Project under the minimum standards established by the City; and

WHEREAS, the City, by and through its City Council, has enacted certain Codes, Ordinances and Resolutions and certain Rules and Regulations have been promulgated concerning the subject matter of this Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the City has certain responsibilities for maintenance and operation of such Improvements, utilities and public service facilities after acceptance by City, and for providing the necessary connecting system, and the City has agreed to discharge those responsibilities following its acceptance of the Improvements.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and in order to carry on the intent and purpose of said Codes, Ordinances, Resolutions, Rules and Regulations, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows:

8 4
661\05\1647917.1
SECTION 1

The recitals to this Agreement are hereby incorporated into the terms of this Agreement. All applicable Codes, Ordinances, Resolutions, Rules and Regulations and established policies of the City and the laws of the State of California and the United States of America concerning the subject matter of this Agreement are hereby referred to and incorporated herein to the same effect as if they were set out a length herein. Said Codes, Ordinances, Resolutions, Rules and Regulations include, but are not limited to, the following: The Municipal Code of the City of Marina, including the current Zoning Ordinance, and the currently adopted California Building Code.

SECTION 2

The Developer agrees:

a. To perform each and every provision required by the City to be performed by the Developer in each and every one of the applicable Codes, Ordinances, Resolutions, Rules and other Regulations and to comply with the foregoing and all applicable laws.

b. To annex the Property to Community Facilities District No.2015-01 to provide for the imposition of special assessments on the Property providing funding for the maintenance of the Improvements to be constructed by the Developer pursuant to this Agreement in a timely manner in order to ensure that the annexation to the Community Facilities District is accomplished prior to the sale or conveyance of any portion of the Property.

c. To grant to the City or other entities entitled thereto, from property owned by the Developer, without charge and free and clear of monetary liens and encumbrances, any and all public, private, utility, drainage, construction or access easements and rights of way (herein “easements”) in and to the Property necessary for the City, in order that the storm drain and street improvements to said real property may be extended; however, City shall not be obligated to accept any such easement, right-of-way or improvements thereon prior to the annexation of the Property to the Community Facilities District. At no cost to the Developer, City and Developer will work cooperatively with the owners of other real property to acquire all easements necessary to construct the Improvements. At no cost to the City, City agrees to support Developer in acquisition of easements necessary to construct the Improvements and to accept said easements upon execution of easement grant deeds to the City by grantors, subject to the condition set forth above regarding the annexation to the Community Facilities District. City also agrees to issue Developer and/or Developer’s contractors encroachment permits necessary to accomplish said work.

Prior to acceptance of the Improvements by the City, to indemnify, defend with counsel of City’s choice and hold the City and any of its officials, boards and commissions and members thereof, agents and employees, free and harmless from all suits, fees, claims, demands, causes of action, costs, losses, damages, liabilities and expenses (including 9 5
661\05\1647917.1
without limitation attorney’s fees) because of or arising or resulting directly or indirectly from (i) any damage done to any utility, public facility or other material or installation of the City on said real estate as a result of the Developer or any contractor or subcontractor of the Developer, or any employee of the foregoing, grading or working upon said real estate; or (ii) any act or omission of Developer or Developer’s contractors, or subcontractors, or any employee of the foregoing in connection with the design, construction or other work performed by them in connection with this Agreement, including without limitation all claims relating to injury or death of any person or damage to any property, except for such claims, demands, causes of action liability, or loss arising out of the sole active negligence of the City or any of its officials, boards and commissions and members thereof, agents and employees. City shall not be responsible for the design or construction of the Improvements pursuant to the Improvement Plans, regardless of any negligent action or inaction taken by City in approving the Improvement Plans unless the particular improvement design was specifically required by City over written objection by Developer submitted to the City Engineer before construction and acceptance of the Improvements, which objection indicated that the particular improvement design was dangerous or defective and suggested an alternate safe and feasible design. Prior to acceptance, Developer shall remain obligated for routine maintenance. After acceptance, Developer shall remain obligated to eliminate any defect in design or dangerous condition caused by the design of construction defect, however, Developer shall not be responsible for routine maintenance. Provisions of this Section shall remain in full force and effect for ten years following acceptance by City of the Improvements. The Improvement security shall not be required to cover the provisions of this Section. Developer shall reimburse City for all costs and expenses (including but not limited to fees and charges of architects, engineers, attorneys, and other professionals, and court costs) incurred by City in enforcing the provisions of this Section

d. To construct and improve all public works facilities and other improvements described on the Engineer’s Estimate referenced in Section 3 of this agreement and the Improvement Plans submitted to the City in furtherance of this Agreement on file with the City. All construction and improvements shall be completed in accordance with all standards established in the applicable Codes, Ordinances, Resolutions, Rules and Regulations, all applicable laws and this Agreement, and in accordance with the grades, plans, and specifications approved by the City Engineer or his or her designee. Developer shall furnish two good and sufficient bonds, in an amount of 100% of the City Engineer’s, or his or her designee’s, estimated cost of the City’s public Improvements, guaranteeing Developer’s performance of this Agreement: (1) a Payment Bond on a form provided by the City; and (2) a Faithful Performance Bond, both of which must be secured from a surety company admitted to do business in California. Each bond shall set forth a time period for performance by the contractor of its obligations and the terms and conditions on which the City may obtain the proceeds of the bond. Alternatively, the Developer may provide a cash deposit in an amount of 100% of the City Engineer’s, or his or her designee’s, estimated cost of the City’s public Improvements to guarantee Developer’s performance of this Agreement.

10 6
661\05\1647917.1
The Faithful Performance Bond shall be in an amount not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the total estimated amount payable for the City’s public Improvements described in this agreement, and shall secure payment to City of any loss due to the default of the Developer or its contractors or their inability or refusal to perform this contract, and to guarantee or warranty the work done pursuant to this Agreement for a period of one year following acceptance thereof by City against any defective work or labor done or defective materials furnished. The performance bond shall by its terms remain in full force and effect for a period of not less than one year after completion of the Improvements by Developer and acceptance of the Improvements by the City, provided that Developer may substitute for the performance bond securing the warranty described above with a separate warranty bond issued by an admitted surety in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the total contract price of the Improvements (provided that amount of said bond shall not be less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) to cover the one-year warranty period. Government Code §66499.7, and as it may hereafter be amended, extended, or otherwise modified, shall apply to a request by Developer for release, in whole or in part, of the Faithful Performance Bond.

The Payment Bond shall be in an amount not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the total estimated amount payable for the City’s public Improvements described in this Agreement. The Payment Bond shall secure the payment of those persons or entities to whom the Developer may become legally indebted for labor, materials, tools, equipment or services of any kind used or employed by the contractor or subcontractor in performing the work, or taxes or amounts to be withheld thereon. The Payment Bond shall provide that the surety will pay the following amounts should the Developer, or its contractor or subcontractors fail to pay the same, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees to be fixed by the court if suit is brought upon the bond: (1) amounts due to any of the persons named in California Civil Code Sections 8520, 8530 and 9100; (2) amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor performed for the improvements described in this agreement; and (3) any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Employment Development Department from the wages of employees of the Developer, its contractors and subcontractors pursuant to Section 13020 of the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to the work and labor. The Payment Bond shall, by its terms, inure to the benefit of any of the persons named in Civil Code Sections 8520, 8530 and 9100 so as to give a right of action to those persons or their assigns in any suit brought upon the bond

The Developer shall submit the following for both the surety that furnishes the Payment Bond and the surety that furnishes the Faithful Performance Bond: (1) a current printout from California Department of Insurances website ( www.insurance.ca.gov) showing that the surety is admitted to do business in the State; or (2) a certificate from the Clerk of the County of Monterey that the surety’s certificate of authority has not been surrendered, revoked, canceled, annulled, or suspended or in the event that it has, than renewed authority has been granted.

e. At all times during the term of this Agreement and until the City’s public Improvements constructed by Developer are accepted by City, Developer shall, at no cost to City obtain and maintain (a) a policy of general liability and property damage insurance in the 11 7
661\05\1647917.1
minimum amount of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000), combined single limit for both bodily injury and property damage; (b) workers’ compensation insurance as required by law; and (c) broad form “Builder’s Risk” property damage insurance limits of not less than 100% of the estimated value of the City’s public Improvements to be constructed by Developer pursuant to this Agreement (Builders Risk Insurance is not required when only mass grading and roadway-related improvements consisting of no structures are to be constructed).

All such policies shall provide that thirty (30) days written notice must be given in advance to City prior to termination, cancellation or modification. The insurance specified in (a) above shall name City as additional insured and the insurance (b) shall name the City as a loss payee, and (c) shall provide that City, although an additional insured or loss payee, may recover for any loss suffered by reason of the acts or omissions of Developer or Developer’s contractors or their respective employees. Developer hereby waives, and Developer shall cause each of its contractors and subcontractors to waive, all rights to recover against City for any loss or damage arising from a cause covered by the insurance required to be carried pursuant to this Agreement, and will cause each insurer to waive all rights of subrogation against City in connection therewith. All policies shall be written on an occurrence basis and not on a claims made basis and shall be issued by insurance companies acceptable to City. Prior to commencing any work pursuant this Agreement, Developer shall deliver to City the insurance company’s certificate evidencing the required coverage, or if required by City a copy of the policies obtained.

f. Not to offer for dedication to and acceptance by the City any of the public improvements constructed by Developer and located on the Property until such time as the Property is annexed to the Community Facilities District.

g. Not to convey, transfer, assign, or sell in one transaction or a series of transactions, subsequent to recordation of the Final Map for Phase 1B – the Promenade and prior to the annexation to the Community Facilities District, any portion or interest of the Developer in the Property or the Project. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer may transfer, assign or sell in one transaction or a series of transactions all or any portion or interest of the Developer in the Property or the Project with consent of the City, such consent not to be unreasonably delayed, conditioned or withheld, to any entity which controls, is controlled by or is under common control with the Developer or the Master Developer, provided that said assignee assumes, in full, the obligations of Developer under this Agreement.

SECTION 3

An estimate of the cost for construction of the City’s public Improvements and performing land development work in connection with the public Improvements according to the Improvement Plans has been made and has been approved by the City Engineer or his or her designee. That estimated amount is Two Million Seven Hundred and Forty- 12 8
661\05\1647917.1
Eight Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Seven Dollars ($2,748,297). The basis for the estimate is on file in the Office of the City Engineer and is incorporated into this Agreement by reference.

SECTION 4

Developer will commence substantial construction of the Improvements required by this Agreement within the time period set forth in the Conforming Clarifications to the Schedule of Performance (“Schedule of Performance”) between City and Master Developer, as the Schedule of Performance may be subsequently amended. All the provisions of this Agreement and all work to be done pursuant to the terms of this Agreement are to be completed within the time periods set forth in such Schedule of Performance. Developer shall maintain such public works facilities and other improvements described in this Agreement at Developer’s sole cost and expense at all times prior to acceptance by City in a manner which will preclude any hazard to life or health or damage to property. City shall accept the Improvements no later than six (6) months after such time as the Improvements are (i) completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, (ii) the annexation to the CFD is completed and (iii) the City is in receipt of funds from the CFD to maintain the Improvements.

SECTION 5

a) Default of Developer shall include, but not be limited to: (1) failure to timely commence construction of the Improvements; (2) failure to timely complete construction of the Improvements; (3) failure to timely commence and complete the annexation of the Property to the Community Facilities District; (4) failure to timely cure any defect of the Improvements; (5) failure to perform substantial construction work for a period of sixty calendar days after commencement of the work; (6) Developer’s insolvency, appointment of a receiver, or the filing of any petition in bankruptcy either voluntary or involuntary which Developer fails to discharge within thirty days; (7) commencement of a foreclosure action against the project or a portion thereof, or any conveyance in lieu or in avoidance of foreclosure; or (8) failure to perform any other obligation under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer shall not be in default under this Agreement if it cures any default within thirty days’ notice of such default, or if the default may not reasonably be curing within such time period, if it commences to cure within thirty days and thereafter diligently proceeds to complete the cure.

b) City reserves to itself all remedies available to it at law or in equity for breach of Developer’s obligations under this Agreement. City shall have the right, subject to this Section, to draw upon or utilize the appropriate security to mitigate City’s damages in the event of default by the Developer. The right of City to draw upon or utilize the security is additional to and not in lieu of any other remedy available to City. It is specifically recognized that the estimated costs and security amounts may not reflect the 13 9
661\05\1647917.1
actual cost of construction or installation of the Improvements and, therefore, City’s damages for Developer’s default shall not exceed the cost of completing the Improvements.

The sums provided by the security for the Improvements may be used by City for the completion of the Improvements in accordance with the Improvement Plans referenced herein.

c) In the event of Developer’s default under this Agreement, Developer authorizes City to perform such obligation sixty days after mailing written notice of default to Developer and to Developer’s surety, and agrees to pay the entire cost of such performance by City. City may take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or by any other method City may deem advisable, for the account and at the expense of Developer, and Developer’s surety shall be liable to the City for any excess cost or damages occasioned City thereby, including but not limited to fees and charges or architects, engineers, attorneys, other professionals and court costs. In such event, City without liability for doing so, may take possession of, and utilize in completing the work, such materials, appliances, plants and other property belonging to Developer as may be on the site of the work and necessary for performance of the work.

d) Failure of City to take an enforcement action with respect to a default, or to declare a breach, shall not be construed as a waiver of that default or breach or any subsequent default or breach of Developer.

SECTION 6

That the following General Stipulations and any attached stipulations shall be completed, subject to the approval of the City Engineer.

1. Locate and properly dispose of any wells, septic tanks and underground fuel storage facilities.

2. Schedule the construction of improvements along existing public roads so that the work affecting vehicular traffic is complete with a minimum interruption of traffic

3. All work within the public right-of-way shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer or his or her designee.

4. All construction work shall be coordinated so that the existing residents and/or businesses have access to their properties.

5. All improvements shall be installed per the approved Improvement Plans.

6. The Developer shall provide to the City of Marina electronic copy of the “As Built” Improvement Plans as an AutoCAD drawing file (DWG format, AutoCAD 2002 minimum or latest version).
14 10
661\05\1647917.1

7. Any reimbursements due the Developer, unless specified otherwise in writing in this agreement, will expire ten (10) years after the date of execution of this agreement.

8. Until the roads on the Property are open to the public, Developer shall give good and adequate warning to the public of each and every dangerous condition on the existing public roads, and will take all reasonable actions to protect the public from such dangerous condition.

SECTION 7

Developer shall, at Developer’s expense, obtain all necessary permits and licenses for the construction and installation of the Improvements, give all necessary notices and pay all fees and taxes required by law. Developer shall make a deposit for inspection services as required by City of Marina’s Municipal Code (Ordinance No. 2018-03) as may be updated from time to time. At any time the City’s costs associated with inspection services for the project exceed the deposit amount(s) provided, Developer shall deposit additional funds with the City within 30 days of a request made in writing by the City to the Developer. The City will provide Developer with quarterly statements of actual costs paid for inspection services and a final statement of costs as well as a refund of unused funds (if any) will be provided within 30 days of final acceptance of the public Improvements by the City, or as otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing.

SECTION 8

Neither Developer nor any of Developer’s agents, contractors or subcontractors are or shall be considered to be agents of City in connection with the performance of Developer’s obligations under this Agreement.

SECTION 9

Nothing contained in this Agreement shall preclude City from expending monies pursuant to agreements concurrently or previously executed between the parties, or from entering into agreements with other developers for the apportionment of costs of water and sewer mains, or other improvements, pursuant to the provisions of the City ordinance providing therefor, nor shall anything in this Agreement commit the City to any such apportionment.

15 11
661\05\1647917.1
SECTION 10

Developer shall not be entitled to assign its obligations under this Agreement to any transferee of all or any part of the property within the Project or to any other third party without the express written consent of City.

SECTION 11

Acceptance of the work, or any portion of the work on behalf of the City shall be made by the City Council upon recommendation of the City Engineer after final completion and inspection of all Improvements and only after the annexation of the Property to the Community Facilities District. Such acceptance shall not constitute a waiver of defects by City.

SECTION 12

The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the mutual consent of the parties.

SECTION 13

In the event that suit or arbitration is brought to enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to litigation costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

SECTION 14

This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Jurisdiction of all disputes of this Agreement shall be in the County of Monterey, State of California.

SECTION 15

Time is of the essence of this Agreement.

SECTION 16

This Agreement, the Conditions, the Disposition and Development Agreement as amended by the Implementation Agreements, the Agreement for Improvement of Streets, 16 12
661\05\1647917.1
Installation of Storm Drains and Other Public Works Facilities “The Dunes on Monterey Bay’ Project A Portion of Phase 1C – First Phase Residential, the Agreement Forming Community Facilities District No. 2015-01, and the Agreement for Improvement of Streets, Installation of Storm Drains and Other Public Works Facilities “The Dunes on Monterey Bay, Phase 1B the Promenade” constitute the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter. All modifications, amendments or waivers of the terms of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by an authorized representative of the parties.

SECTION 17

In the event the Schedule of Performance (including any Conforming Clarifications thereto) is tolled, the time for commencement of construction or completion of the Improvements hereunder shall be extended for the same duration as applies to the Schedule of Performance. Any such extension may be granted without notice to Developer’s surety and shall not affect the validity of this Agreement or release the surety on any security given for this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

ATTEST: CITY OF MARINA

__________________________ _____________________________ Layne Long
Acting Deputy City Clerk City Manager

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________________
City Attorney

17 13
661\05\1647917.1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF Developer has executed this agreement as of ____________.

MARINA COMMUNITY PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company.

BY: SHEA HOMES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
a California Limited Partnership

It’s: Sole Partner

By: ____________________________________

It’s: ____________________________________

By: ____________________________________

It’s: ____________________________________

NOTE: If Developer is a corporation, the complete legal name and corporate seal of the corporation and the corporate titles of the persons signing for the corporation shall appear above.

State of California County of __________ On _______________ before me, (here insert name and title of the officer), personally
appeared________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature __________________________________ (Seal)

Per GC Sec. 40814; CC Sec. 1181
18 14
661\05\1647917.1

EXHIBIT A

19 15
661\05\1647917.1

EXHIBIT B

20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
16 661\05\1647917.1

EXHIBIT C

30 31
March 8, 2023 Item No. 13c

Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Marina City Council of March 21, 2023

CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 20 23-,
APPROVING THE PHASE 1B-PROMENADE FINAL MAP FOR THE

DUNES ON MONTE REY BAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

SUBDIVISION (FORMERLY UNIVERSITY VILLAGE), AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE FINAL MAP

ON BEHALF OF CITY SUBJECT TO FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL

BY THE CITY ATTORNEY

RECOMMENDATION:

It is requested that the City Council:

1. Consider adopting Resolution No. 2023 -, approving the Phase 1B-Promenade Final Map for The Dunes on Monterey Bay Development Project Subdivision (“EXHIBIT A”), and;

2. Consider authorizing the City Clerk to execute the Final Map on behalf of City subject to final review and approval by the City Attorney.

BACKGROUND:

At the regularly scheduled meeting of May 31, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-127, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the University Vil lage Development Project.

At the r egularly scheduled meeting of May 31, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-128, approving the General Plan Amendments, Resolution No. 2005 -130, for the Specific Plan, Resolution No. 2005 -131, f or the Tentati ve Map and Resolution No. 2005 -132, Design Review for the r egional retail, the Vill age Promenade and all residential phases for the former University Village Development Project.

At the regularly scheduled meeting of December 17, 20 19, the City Council a dopted Resolution No. 2019 -140, approving a n Operating Agreement as an admi nistrative amendment of the Development Agreement clarifying and modifying certain project approvals for Specific Plan for The Dunes on Monterey Bay including to the Conforming Clarifications to the Schedule of Performance.

At the regularly scheduled meet ing of May 3, 202 2, the City Council a dopted Resolution No. 2022-52, approving an amendment to University Village Phase 1B-Promenade Tentative Map.

ANALYSIS:

Shea Homes Limited Partnership (“Developer”) has submitted t he Phase 1B-Promenade Final Map to the City for review and approval . Staff has reviewed the improvement plans for construction and approved the plans on December 13, 202 2. It has been determined that the Tentative Map Conditions of Approval as amended have been met. The Community Development Director and Public Works Director will sign off on the Final Map in accordance with their respective findings.

1 The Developer has also submitted a Public Improvement Agreement and will pr ovide labor and materials and faithfu l performance bonds r equired for the recordation of the Final Map . The Agreement is on this Agenda as a separate item for consideration of approval.

A review of water supply availabil ity to serve Phase 1B-Promeande also been provided by Bowman Consulting Group (dated December 21, 2022) (“EXHIBIT B”) pursuant to Section II A of t he University Villages S ettlement Agreement with Save Our Peninsula Committee. T he required finding is made in the draft Resolution.

All required futur e phased final maps must meet all the appropriate conditions of approval and will be presented to City Council for consideration at a future date.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Should the C ity Council approve this request, the City requires the developer to provide satisfactory evidence of their ability to complete the public improvements by the posting of labor and material and faithful performa nce subdivision improvement bonds in an amount of 100% of the City Engineer's estimate of the cost to perform the work.

CONCLUSION:

This request is submitted for City Council consideration and possible action.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________
Edrie Delos Santos, P.E.

Senior Engineer
Public Works Department
City of Marina

REVIEWED/CONCUR:

____________________________
Brian McMinn, P.E., P.L.S.

Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Marina

_____________________________
Layne P. Long
City Manager
City of Marina

2 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA
APPROVING THE PHASE 1B-PROMENADE FINAL MAP FOR THE DUNES

ON MONTEREY BAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SUBDIVISION
(FORMERLY UNIVERSITY VILLAGE), AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

CLERK TO EXECUTE THE FINAL MAP ON BEHALF OF CITY SUBJECT

TO FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ATTORNEY

WHEREAS, at the regularly scheduled meeting of May 31, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2 005-127, certifying th e Final Environmental Impact Report for the University Village Development Project, and;

WHEREAS, at the r egularly scheduled meeting of May 31, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005 -128, approving the General Plan Amendm ents, Resolution No. 2 005-130, for the Specific Plan, Resolution No. 2005 -131, for the Tentative Map and Resolution No. 2005 - 132, Design Review for the regional retail, the Vill age Promenade and al l residential phases for the former University Village Development Project, and;

WHEREAS, at the regularly scheduled meeting of December 17, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019 -140, approving an Operating Agreement as an admi nistrative amendment of the Developme nt Agreement clarifying and modifying certain project approvals for Specific Plan for The Dunes on Monterey Bay including to the Conforming Clarifications to the Schedule of Performance, and;

WHEREAS, at the regularly scheduled meet ing of May 3, 202 2, the City Council a dopted Resolution No. 2022-52, approving an amendment to University Village Phase 1B-Promenade Tentative Map, and;

WHEREAS, Shea Homes Limited Partnership (“Developer”) has submitted t he Phase 1B- Promenade Final Map to the City for review and approval . Staff has reviewed the improvement plans for construction and approved the plans on December 13, 2022. It has been determined that the Tentative Map Conditions of Approval as amended have been met. The Community Development Director and Public Works Director will sign off on the Final Map in accordance with their respective findings, and;

WHEREAS, the Developer has also submitted a Public Improvement Agreement and will provide labor and materials and faithful performance bonds required for the recordation of the Final Map. The Agreement is on this Agenda as a separate item for consideration of approval, and;

WHEREAS, a review of water supply av ailability to serve Phase 1B-Promeande also been provided by Bowman Consulting Group (dated December 21, 2022) (“EXHIBIT B”) pursuant to Section II A of t he Universit y Villages S ettlement Agreement with Save Our Peninsula Committee. The required finding is made in the draft Resolution, and;

WHEREAS, all required future phased final maps must meet all the appropriate conditions of approval and will be presented to City Council for consideration at a future date, and;

3 Resolution 2023-

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, should the C ity Council approve this request, the City requires the developer to provide satisfactory evidence of their ability to complete the public improvements by the posting of labor and material and faithful performa nce subdivision improvement bonds in an amount of 100% of the City Engineer's estimate of the cost to perform the work, and;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Coun cil of the C ity of Marina does hereby approve the Phase 1B-Promenade Final Map for The Dunes on Monter ey Bay Development Project Subdivision (“EXHIBIT A ”), and authorizing the City Clerk to execute the Final Map on behalf of City subject to final review and approval by the City Attorney based on the following finding:

Findings:

1. Based on substantial eviden ce in the record, sufficient water supplies from water allocations that have been made or may be made by the City will be available for development encompassed by this Final Map.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Marina at a regular me eting held on the 21st day of March 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

_____________________________
Bruce Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:

__________________________________
Anita Sharp, City Clerk

4 OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENTOWNER'S STATEMENT CITY ENGINEER'S & CITY SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT Sheet of 8
JOB # 3089015
FEBRUARY 2023
ALL OF LOTS 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24 AND A PORTION OF THE

REMAINDER PARCEL AS SHOWN ON THE PARCEL MAP FILED IN
VOLUME 23 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 27.

ALSO RESULTANT LOT 11 AND RESULTANT LOT 20 AS DESCRIBED IN CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED NOVEMBER 29, 2021
AS INSTRUMENT NOs. 2021079916, 2021079918

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MONTEREY COUNTY

CITY OF MARINA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY
FINAL MAPTHE DUNES PROMENADE - PHASE 1B

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS ONE PROJECT AT A TIME
4670 WILLOW ROAD, STE 125Tel 925.847.1556
Fax 925.847.1557PLEASANTON, CA 94588
1 COUNTY RECORDER'S STATEMENT

OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

PLANNING COMMISSION STATEMENT

CITY CLERK'S STATEMENT

EXHIBIT A
5 7
25 36
34 2 4 53
111098
14 31
15 24
26 NAP
20 21
22 28
6 32
18 35
19 16
27 33
12 13
29 17
1 30
23 Sheet of 8
JOB # 3089015
FEBRUARY 2023
ALL OF LOTS 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24 AND A PORTION OF THE

REMAINDER PARCEL AS SHOWN ON THE PARCEL MAP FILED IN
VOLUME 23 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 27.

ALSO RESULTANT LOT 11 AND RESULTANT LOT 20 AS DESCRIBED IN CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED NOVEMBER 29, 2021
AS INSTRUMENT NOs. 2021079916, 2021079918

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MONTEREY COUNTY

CITY OF MARINA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY
FINAL MAPTHE DUNES PROMENADE - PHASE 1B

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS ONE PROJECT AT A TIME
4670 WILLOW ROAD, STE 125Tel 925.847.1556
Fax 925.847.1557PLEASANTON, CA 94588
2 SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT

SOILS REPORT STATEMENT
SHEET 4
SHEET 5
SHEET 6
SHEET 7
NOTES

BASIS OF BEARINGS

DEDICATION CERTIFICATE
LEGEND

SHEET INDEX

EASEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS OF RECORD
SHEET 8

EXHIBIT A
6 2ND AVENUE
STILWELL DR.
9TH STREET
9TH STREET
10TH
STREET
8TH
STREET

GENERAL
Sheet of 8
JOB # 3089015
FEBRUARY 2023
ALL OF LOTS 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24 AND A PORTION OF THE

REMAINDER PARCEL AS SHOWN ON THE PARCEL MAP FILED IN
VOLUME 23 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 27.

ALSO RESULTANT LOT 11 AND RESULTANT LOT 20 AS DESCRIBED IN CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED NOVEMBER 29, 2021
AS INSTRUMENT NOs. 2021079916, 2021079918

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MONTEREY COUNTY

CITY OF MARINA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY
FINAL MAPTHE DUNES PROMENADE - PHASE 1B

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS ONE PROJECT AT A TIME
4670 WILLOW ROAD, STE 125Tel 925.847.1556
Fax 925.847.1557PLEASANTON, CA 94588
3 NOTES

REFERENCES

SEE BELOW

SEE ABOVE

EXHIBIT A
7 RESULTANT LOT 19
2021082674

NOT A PART OF

THIS SUBDIVISION

JETTY STREET

GENERAL STILWELL DRIVE
10TH STREET

SAND DUNE AVENUE

MARITIME STREET

OCEAN BLUFF AVENUE
9 8

14 15
21 2
3 19

20 18

7 31

13 1

Sheet of 8
JOB # 3089015
FEBRUARY 2023
ALL OF LOTS 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24 AND A PORTION OF THE

REMAINDER PARCEL AS SHOWN ON THE PARCEL MAP FILED IN
VOLUME 23 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 27.

ALSO RESULTANT LOT 11 AND RESULTANT LOT 20 AS DESCRIBED IN CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED NOVEMBER 29, 2021
AS INSTRUMENT NOs. 2021079916, 2021079918

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MONTEREY COUNTY

CITY OF MARINA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY
FINAL MAPTHE DUNES PROMENADE - PHASE 1B

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS ONE PROJECT AT A TIME
4670 WILLOW ROAD, STE 125Tel 925.847.1556
Fax 925.847.1557PLEASANTON, CA 94588
4 NOTE:

EXHIBIT A
8 10TH STREET

JETTY STREET
2ND AVENUE

MARITIME STREET
6 32

4 5

11 16

31 7

10 12

1 30

11 12

Sheet of 8
JOB # 3089015
FEBRUARY 2023
ALL OF LOTS 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24 AND A PORTION OF THE

REMAINDER PARCEL AS SHOWN ON THE PARCEL MAP FILED IN
VOLUME 23 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 27.

ALSO RESULTANT LOT 11 AND RESULTANT LOT 20 AS DESCRIBED IN CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED NOVEMBER 29, 2021
AS INSTRUMENT NOs. 2021079916, 2021079918

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MONTEREY COUNTY

CITY OF MARINA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY
FINAL MAPTHE DUNES PROMENADE - PHASE 1B

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS ONE PROJECT AT A TIME
4670 WILLOW ROAD, STE 125Tel 925.847.1556
Fax 925.847.1557PLEASANTON, CA 94588
5 DETAIL A
NOTE:

EXHIBIT A
9 SAND DUNE AVENUE
9TH STREET

OCEAN BLUFF AVENUE

MARITIME STREET
24 26

22 28

27 25

29 ±
23 Sheet of 8
JOB # 3089015
FEBRUARY 2023
ALL OF LOTS 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24 AND A PORTION OF THE

REMAINDER PARCEL AS SHOWN ON THE PARCEL MAP FILED IN
VOLUME 23 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 27.

ALSO RESULTANT LOT 11 AND RESULTANT LOT 20 AS DESCRIBED IN CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED NOVEMBER 29, 2021
AS INSTRUMENT NOs. 2021079916, 2021079918

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MONTEREY COUNTY

CITY OF MARINA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY
FINAL MAPTHE DUNES PROMENADE - PHASE 1B

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS ONE PROJECT AT A TIME
4670 WILLOW ROAD, STE 125Tel 925.847.1556
Fax 925.847.1557PLEASANTON, CA 94588
6 NOTE:

DETAIL A

EXHIBIT A
10 9TH STREET
35 34

36 33

17±
Sheet of 8
JOB # 3089015
FEBRUARY 2023
ALL OF LOTS 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24 AND A PORTION OF THE

REMAINDER PARCEL AS SHOWN ON THE PARCEL MAP FILED IN
VOLUME 23 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 27.

ALSO RESULTANT LOT 11 AND RESULTANT LOT 20 AS DESCRIBED IN CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED NOVEMBER 29, 2021
AS INSTRUMENT NOs. 2021079916, 2021079918

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MONTEREY COUNTY

CITY OF MARINA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY
FINAL MAPTHE DUNES PROMENADE - PHASE 1B

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS ONE PROJECT AT A TIME
4670 WILLOW ROAD, STE 125Tel 925.847.1556
Fax 925.847.1557PLEASANTON, CA 94588
7 NOTE:

EXHIBIT A
11 9TH STREET
1ST AVENUE
SEE SHEET 7
9TH STREET DEDICATION

Sheet of 8
JOB # 3089015
FEBRUARY 2023
ALL OF LOTS 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24 AND A PORTION OF THE

REMAINDER PARCEL AS SHOWN ON THE PARCEL MAP FILED IN
VOLUME 23 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 27.

ALSO RESULTANT LOT 11 AND RESULTANT LOT 20 AS DESCRIBED IN CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED NOVEMBER 29, 2021
AS INSTRUMENT NOs. 2021079916, 2021079918

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MONTEREY COUNTY

CITY OF MARINA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY
FINAL MAPTHE DUNES PROMENADE - PHASE 1B

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS ONE PROJECT AT A TIME
4670 WILLOW ROAD, STE 125Tel 925.847.1556
Fax 925.847.1557PLEASANTON, CA 94588
8 NOTE:

SEE ABOVE

SEE BELOW
1ST AVENUE
2ND AVENUE

EXHIBIT A
12 700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 360, Walnut Creek, California 94598 925.476.4944
brezack.com | bowman.com
1 De
cember 21, 2022
Doug Yount
Project Director Shea Homes
2630 Shea Center Drive
Livermore, CA 94551
Su
bject: Water Review – MCP Phase1B Promenade
Dear Mr. Yount:

We have completed a review of the background materials provided for the entire Dunes on Monterey Bay developments and have made projections of water demands throughout. We understand that this review was required as a condition of approval of the tentative map for the proposed Project. This letter provides the results of our review and modeling.

Introduction:

The City of Marina (City), California is currently reviewing conditions for the final map for Phase 1B Promenade of The Dunes on Monterey Bay Project (proposed Project). The proposed Project is a part of the area formerly known as the University Villages Project. The Applicant is Marina Community Partners, and the proposed Project is located in the Dunes Specific Plan Area.

Bowman was contracted by Marina Community Partners to determine the water demand projected for the proposed Project, based on local unit water demand factors, and the adequacy of water supplies allocated to the proposed Project.

Bowman staff prepared this review with assistance from and coordination with Marina Community Partners.

Bowman staff previously prepared water demand estimates for the City that are used in this evaluation.

Water demand reviews for Phases 1 and 2 of 1C were completed in February and October 2015 and the review of Phase 3 of 1C was completed in March 2016. Review of Phase 2 East was completed in January of 2021.

Task 1 Water Demand Analysis
A land use spreadsheet was developed to inventory the type and amount of residential and non- residential land uses in each phase of the planned development. The current Department of Real Estate exhibits (DREs) and tentative maps were used for each project phase to estimate the water demands.

Once verified, the inventory was imported into the existing water model. The water demand estimate was used to determine the total water demands of the project’s residential and nonresidential uses with interior and exterior uses identified separately.

The running tally of water usage both initial and current was updated to facilitate future accounting of water demands and remaining water supplies for future phases of project development.

EXHIBIT B
13 700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 360, Walnut Creek, California 94598 925.476.4944
brezack.com | bowman.com
2 The following is an estimate of the overall water demands for the proposed phases of development:
• Total interior potable water demand for residential properties of approximately 137.95 AFY • Total interior potable water demand for nonresidential properties of approximately 134.00AFY • Total exterior potable water demand for residential properties of approximately 66.70 AFY • Total exterior water demand for nonresidential properties of approximately 34.52 AFY A more detailed presentation of the estimated water demands for the proposed Project is provided below.

Baseline Conditions:

On May 17, 2005, the City approved an allocation of 593 AFY of potable water in Resolution No. 2005-129 Reserving and Allocating Water Sufficient to Serve the Marina Community Partners (MCP) Development.

The University Villages Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement) imposes the following requirements for the installation of water conserving facilities in residences throughout the Specific Plan Area with the objective of maximizing water conservation:
• Drought-tolerant plant materials in landscaping
• Satellite controlled Evapotranspiration-based (ET) irrigation control systems • Tankless hot water heaters
• Dual Flush / Ultra low flow toilets
• Hot water return pumping
• Conversion to the use of recycled water for exterior non-residential demands as available.

Potable water will remain in use for landscape irrigation until recycled water becomes available to the Project.

Several redevelopment projects have occurred throughout the Specific Plan Area from land transfers by MCP to other parties. The following is a list of these projects:
• Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula (CHOMP), Marina Campus • Veterans Administration Monterey Health Care Center
• Springhill Suites (Marriott) Hotel
• Phase 1A (Marina Village Retail Center)
• Planning Area B1 (Cinemark Theater and Fast Casual Dining Project) • Phase 1C Residential
• University Village Apartments
A detailed breakdown of the water allocation for the Specific Plan Area including built projects and proposed projects is included in Table 1.

EXHIBIT B
14 700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 360, Walnut Creek, California 94598 925.476.4944
brezack.com | bowman.com
3 Table 1:Development Projects in MCP Specific Plan Area

A B C D
D=A-(B+C)
Project
Allocation
(AFY)
Constructed
or Approved
Project (AFY)
Proposed
Project (AFY)
Remaining
Allocation
(AFY)
Dunes on Monterey Bay Project Total 593 593
Constructed or Approved Projects
Dunes Shopping Center (Planning Area 1A)

34.0 CHOMP

22.3 QSR (Shops at the Dunes) Planning Area B1

12.9 Cinemark (allocation included in Retail/Restaurant Planning Area B1)

9.3 UV Apartments

14.0 Phase 1C Residential

69.5 VA Clinic

20.7 Springhill Suites

30.0 Phase 2 East Residential 55.3
Subtotal of Approved Projects 268 325
Proposed Projects
Phase 1 Promenade Residential 19.8

Phase 1 Promenade Non-Residential (Buildings A-G) 20.0 Subtotal Proposed Projects 39.8 285.2
Future Projects
Phase 1B Office Park 12.7
Phase 2/3 BMR Housing 41.2
Phase 2 West Residential 18.0
Phase 2 West Non-Residential 3.4
Phase 2 North Residential 15.9
Phase 2 North Non-Residential 66.9
Phase 3 Residential 66.9
Phase 3 Non-residential 53.1
Subtotal of Future Project 278.1 7.1

EXHIBIT B
15 700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 360, Walnut Creek, California 94598 925.476.4944
brezack.com | bowman.com
4 Phase 1B Promenade Water Supply Availability
A water demand estimate was prepared for the proposed Project based on information provided by the project Applicant. Water demands are separately identified for interior potable water use, and exterior uses, to facilitate an accounting of the potential future use of recycled water and potable water conservation resulting therefrom.

The proposed Project’s unit and total water demands for residential land uses also references data from similar projects. Provided in Exhibit 1 is the site plan for the Project.

Table 2 presents a list of the residential land uses planned for construction in the proposed Project.

Table 2: Proposed Project Description – Phase 1B- Promenade Product Type Numbers of Units Approximate Lot Area
(Square-feet)
Livework 13 1,740
Townhomes 18 1,740
Flats 53 1,740
TOTAL 84
Tables 3a-3d provides a more detailed presentation of the estimated water demands for the proposed Project. It is based on water demands for similar local projects and Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for the installation and use of water conservation facilities and practices similar to those required by MCWD and the Settlement Agreement. These assumptions result in a total estimated water demand for the proposed Project of 39.84 AFY that includes residential units, and parks and common areas.

Table 3a Phase 1B Promenade Residential Interior Water Demands Type of
Resident
Number of
Units
Occupancy
(People/Unit)
Interior Unit
Demand
(GPC/Day)
Demand
(AFC/Y)
Unit
Residential
Demand
(AFY)
Residential
Interior
Demand
(AFY)
Phase 1B
Promenade
Proposed
Project
(AFY)
Phase 1B
Promenade
84 14.25
Livework 13 2.5 55.0 0.06 0.154 2.00
Townhomes 18 2.8 55.0 0.06 0.173 3.11
Flats 53 2.8 55.0 0.06 0.173 9.17

EXHIBIT B
16 MARINA, CALIFORNIA

THE DUNES PROMENADE -

06.10.22 L-3
A
B
G
C
D
E
F
2 nd AVENUE
10th STREET
9 th STREET

APARTMENTS

SOUTH COUNTY HOUSING

EXISTING RETAIL/RESTAURANTS

VA DOD OUTPATIENT
CLINIC
STATE ROUTE 1

GENERAL

STILWELL DRIVE

FUTURE CITY PARK
CINEMA
(EXISTING)
8th STREET

NORTHERLY ACCESS STREET

SOUTHERLY ACCESS STREET

GENERAL STILLWELL
OVERALL ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN Ex hibit 1

EXHIBIT B
17 700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 360, Walnut Creek, California 94598 925.476.4944
brezack.com | bowman.com
6 Table
3b Phase 1B Promenade Residential Exterior Water Demands Type of
Resident
Irrigable
Area
(Acres)
%
Irrigable
Area
% Turf
Planting
Turf
Irrigated
Area
(Acres)
%
Ornamental
Plantings
Ornamental
Irrigated
Area
(Acres)
Unit Turf
Demand
(AFY/Unit)
Unit
Ornamental
Demand
(AFY/Unit)
Unit
Exterior
Factor
(AFY/Unit)
Exterior
Demand
(AFY/Unit)
Phase 1B
Promenade

5.59 Livework 0.024 100% 7% 0.002 86% 0.012 0.026 0.020 0.084 1.092 Townhomes 0.016 100% 0% 0 100% 0.012 0.026 0.020 0.057 1.029 Condos 0.024 100% 7% 0.012 41% 0.023 0.048 0.036 0.065 3.471 Table 3c Phase 1B Promenade Non-Residential Interior Water Demands Land Use Interior Area (Sq.ft.) Unit Demand (AFY/unit) Interior Demands (AFY Phase 1B Promenade 32,686 17.49
Retail Buildings F, G 9,893 0.00005 0.49
Grocery 12,500 0.00033 4.13
5 Restaurants Buildings B, C, D, E 10,293 0.00125 12.87

EXHIBIT B
18 700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 360, Walnut Creek, California 94598 925.476.4944
brezack.com | bowman.com
7 Table 3d Phase 1B Promenade Non-Residential Exterior Open Space and Parks Water Demands Land Use Irrigable
Area
(Acres)
% Turf
Planting
Turf Irrigated
Area
(Acres)
% Ornamental
Plantings
Ornamental
Irrigated Area
(Acres)
Unit Turf
Demand
(AFY/Unit)
Unit Ornamental
Demand
(AFY/Unit)
Exterior
Demand
(AFY/Unit)
Phase 1B
Promenade 1.53 0.35 1.01 0. 840 0.714 2.50
Commercial
Landscape 0.96 12% 0.113 88% 0.848 0.22 1.49 1.71
Linear Park 0.40 59% 0.236 41% 0.164 0.50 0.29 0.79
Conclusion:

An adequate supply of water appears to be available to the Phase 1B Promenade Project based on the allocation of 593 AFY of Potable Water to the MCP Specific Plan Area per City Resolution No. 2005-129. Table 4 provides a summary of the current water entitlements. Approximately 45% of the Specific Plan water allocation has been constructed or approved. Approximately 54% of the Specific Plan water allocation or 317.9 AFY is available for future or proposed development . There remains approximately 1 % or 7.1 AFY of the total water supply currently not allocated after proposed development. By current estimates, 34.52 AFY of the Specific Plan water allocation will remain with the implementation of recycled water irrigation. Therefore, there is adequate water available for The Dunes Phase 1B Promenade
Table 4 Summary of Water Allocation
Summary Area AFY
TOTAL SUPPLY (MCP UV Entitlement) 593.0
Running Tally of Development Built to Date 268
Phase 1 Projection 52.6
Phase 2 Projection 104.1
Phase 2/3 Affordable Housing 41.2
Phase 3 Projection 120.0
Total Proposed Demand 317.9
Water Balance =
TOTAL SUPPLY – (Running Tally+Phase 1+2+3)

7.1 Less Non-Residential Exterior (Convert to Recycled Water) 34.52 TOTAL AFTER RECYCLED Water CREDIT 41.62
James Brezack Christie Robinson
Director, Water Resources Senior Planner
Bowman Bowman

EXHIBIT B
19 March 16, 2023, Item No. 13d

Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Marina City Council of March 21,2023

CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 202 3-,

RECEIVING A PRESENTATION AND, PROVIDING INPUT ON THE

DUNES CITY PARK PROJECT

REQUEST:

It is requested that the City Council consider approving and adopting Resolution No. 20 23-, for the following actions:

1. Receiving a presentation, EXHIBIT A, for the four options for the proposed Dunes City Park Project.

2. Providing input on the design for the proposed Dunes City Park Project.

BACKGROUND:

On May 17,2005, the City Council passed Resolution 2005-130 adopting the University Village Specific Plan. Included in the University Village Specific Plan is the park at the Dunes, now known as Dunes City Park.

Several parks have been planned for development within Marina. On June 21, 2005, City Council passed Resolution 2005-159 Adopting a Negative Declaration and Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. The Master Plan served as the basis for the preliminary planning for the city parks.

Community outreach for parks planning was held on November 13, 2018. The design consultant team retained by the City, Verde Design (Verde), prepared parks concept plans for City various parks, including the Dunes City Park, that were presented to a joint Public Works Commission and Recreation and Cultural Services Commission on February 21, 2019.

On April 9, 2019, Resolution 2019 -36 the city council received a presentation and provided comments on several city parks including the Dunes City Park, EXHIBIT B. Comments for this park included space for the Tatum’s Garden/Treehouse, FORTAG Trail, consideration of stabilizing examples of barracks, phasing for barracks removal, phasing for existing trees and other amenities. Concerns were raised about the extent of retaining walls on the site with 40 feet of grade difference and the impact of grading on existing trees.

A struc tural and cost analysis was completed by WRD for the three barracks considered for stabilization. The report concluded that either rehabilitating or demolishing and rebuilding is feasible, however one of the buildings was recommended for rebuild due to str uctural difficulty and expense to retrofit. The cost to rehabilitate versus demolish and rebuild is comparable . The Barracks Blight Removal project is on its final phase and estimated to be completed mid -April 2023.

At a regular meeting on May 1, 2019, th e City Council approved the FY 2019-20 & 2020 -21 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget , The Dunes Park Project, QLP 2017, was included and with appropriated budget amount of $500,000. Additional funding of $1,000,000 for FY 2021- 2022 was appropriated and $8,400,000 of developer contribution was anticipated for FY 2022 - 2023. $3.8 million of the $8.4 million has been received by the City with the remaining $4.6 million due upon a future phase of land sale.

As part of the Blight Removal project, Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc was hired to survey and prepare report on the health and impact of the blight removal and soil remediation to existing trees at the Dunes City Park (EXHIBIT C). On March 10, 2022, the C ity Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 2022 -05b, approving the removal of trees and required replacement of 2:1 ratio. Existing trees shown on Options 1-4 of EXHIBIT D are trees that remained after the Blight Removal project.

A topographic survey of the site was completed to assess grading requirements and impacts to trees. Four concept plan options were prepared by Verde with Option 4 incorporating the majority of the comments from the April 9, 2019, City Council Meeting.

On January 26, 2023, an on-site Marina community engagement open house was held and was followed by an in-person public presentation in the City Council Chambers. There were 35 and 42 attendees of the community engagement and public presentation, respectively . Participant preferred option, questions and comments were received at the community engagement as well as through the email address created specifically for this project (EXHIBIT E).

ANALYSIS:

Verde prepared four options for the proposed Dunes City Park Project, EXHIBIT D. The following are brief narratives on these four options.

OPTION 1: GREAT LAWN, MUSEUM and SPORTS PAVILION
This option does not have sports fields. It includes a generous informal lawn area, an inclusive playground, a 250-person capacity amphitheater, and sports courts. It also includes a sports pavilion and historical military buildings. It retains all the s ignificant existing and legacy trees. This option includes 326 parking spaces and parking demand at maximum use is 273. The current estimate for the development of Option 1 is $27.7 million with $6.5 million being for the barracks buildings and sports pavilion. The sports pavilion, at an estimated cost of $3.5 million is not included in Options 2 thru 4 but is included with the sports and aquatic center planning and design effort.

OPTION 2: LAWN and ONE MULTI SPORTS FIELD
This option has one (1) multi-sports field. It includes an inclusive playground, a 250-person capacity amphitheater, reduced informal lawn areas, and sports court. It retains all the significant existing and legacy trees. This option includes 326 parking spaces and parking demand at maximum use is 419. The current estimate for the development of Option 2 is $23.8 million.

OPTION 3: TWO MULTI SPORTS FIELD WITH AMPHITHEATER
This option has two (2) multi -sports fields. It includes an inclusive playground, an 80- person capacity amphitheater, and sports court. It retains the existing trees along the south side of the park and the legacy trees (8). This option includes 304 parking spaces and parking demand at maximum use is 420. An estimate was not prepared for Option 3 but development of Option 3 is expected to be between the cost of Option 2 ($23.8 million) and Option 4 ($27.7 million).

OPTION 4: TWO MULTI SPORTS FIELD
This option has two (2) multi-sports fields. Only legacy trees (8) are retained . This option includes 349 parking spaces and parking demand at maximum use is 420. The current estimate for the development of Option 2 is $2 7.7 million.

The City received 124 comments with preferred options; thirty-five (35) indicated Option 1, twenty (20) for Option 2, fifty-four (54) for Option 3 and seven (7) for Option 4. Comments and option preferences are tabulated and included as EXHIBIT E.

In response to questions and comments at the public presentation, staff is working with SSA Landscape Architect for the concept design to optimize ballfield programs and update Preston Park. A preliminary concept drawing is included as EXHIBIT F. This preliminary concept for Preston Park will provide the much-needed additional ballfield for the community should Option 1 or 2 be selected for the Dunes City Park. A community engagement and presentation for the Preston Park Upgrade will be scheduled in the future.

on March 16th, 2023, the Public Works Commission received a presentation and provided input on the Dunes Parks options. Input and comments from the meeting will be provided to City Council prior to the March 21st, 2023 meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal implications at this time.

Partial funding for the Dunes Park Project is included in the Capital Improvement Program budget, QLP 2017.

Preliminary project cost estimates are between $23,764,474 (Option 2) and $27,680,751 (Option 4). Option 1 project cost estimates is $27,661,702. The project cost estimates for the option selected will be updated as the project design progress. The estimated cost of expansion and rehabilitation of Preston Park to include additional play fields is $12,000,000.

The City currently does not have sufficient staffing to maintain additional park space. Based upon maintained acreage, the City currently needs four additional maintenance workers with an annual cost of $440,000. Full development of the Dunes Park would increase that number by one lead worker at an annual cost of $150,000 and one maintenance worker at an annual cost of $110,000.

Materials and equipment costs to maintain the Dunes Park are estimated at $100,000 per year above the staffing costs.

CONCLUSION:

This request is submitted for City Council for consideration and input.

Respectfully submitted,

Brian McMinn, P.E., P.L.S.

Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Marina

REVIEWED/CONCUR:

Layne P. Long
City Manager
City of Marina

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA

RECEIVING A PRESENTATION AND, PROVIDING INPUT ON THE DUNES

CITY PARK PROJECT

WHEREAS, On May 17,2005, the City Council passed Resolution 2005-130 adopting the University Village Specific Plan. Included in the University Village Specific Plan is the park at the Dunes, now known as Dunes City Park; and

WHEREAS, several parks have been planned for development within Marina. On June 21, 2005, City Council passed Resolution 2005-159 Adopting a Negative Declaration and Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. The Master Plan served as the basis for the preliminary planning for the city parks; and

WHEREAS, community outreach for parks planning was held on November 13, 2018. The design consultant team retained by the City, Verde Design (Verde), prepared parks concept plans for City various parks, including the Dunes City Park, that were presented to a joint Public Works Commission and Recreation and Cultural Services Commission on February 21, 2019; and

WHEREAS, on April 9, 2019, Resolution 2019 -36 the City Council received presentation and provided comments on several city parks including the Dunes City Park, EXHIBIT B; and

WHEREAS, Verde prepared four options for th e proposed Dunes City Park Project attached as EXHIBIT C; and

WHEREAS, on January 26, 2023, an on-site Marina community engagement open house was held and was followed by an in-person public presentation in the City Council Chambers. There were 35 and 42 attendees of the community engagement and public presentation, respectively.

Participant preferred option, questions and comments were received at the community engagement as well as through the email address created specifically for this project (EXHIBIT E); and

WHEREAS, the City received 124 comments with preferred options; thirty-five (35) indicated Option 1, twenty (20) for Option 2, fifty-four (54) for Option 3 and seven (7) for Option 4.

Comments and option preferences are tabulated and included as EXHIBIT E; and

WHEREAS, in response to questions and comments at the public presentation, staff is working with SSA Landscape Architect for the concept design to optimize ballfield programs and update Preston Park. A preliminary concept drawing is included as EXHIBIT F. This preliminary concept for Preston Park will provide the much-needed additional ballfield for the community should Option 1 or 2 be selected for the Dunes City Park. A community engagement and presentation for the Preston Park Upgrade will be scheduled in the future park.

WHEREAS, on March 16th, 2023, the Public Works Commission received a presentation and provided input on the Dunes Parks options.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Marina that does hereby:

1. Receive a presentation on the four options for the proposed Dunes City Park Project; and

2. Provide input on the design for the proposed Dunes City Park Project.

Resolution No. 2023-
Page Two

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Marina at a regular meeting duly held on the 21st day of March 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_____________________________
Bruce C. Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:

____________________________
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk

Dunes Park
Public Works Commission
March 16, 2023

EXHIBIT A
1 • Introductions
• Existing Conditions
• Preliminary Design Plan
• Park Elements
• Design Options
• Community Input
• Next Steps
Agenda

EXHIBIT A
2 Existing Conditions

FORT ORD
CHAPEL

AQUATICS
CENTER
SPORTS
CENTER

EXHIBIT A
3 Existing Conditions - Topography
Without Blight
With Blight

EXHIBIT A
4 Existing Conditions - Trees

EXHIBIT A
5 Existing Conditions - Buildings
Chapel Aquatics Center Sports Center

EXHIBIT A
6 Preliminary Design Plan
• Tree Protection
• Program
elements and
topography

EXHIBIT A
7 Park
Elements

EXHIBIT A
8 Park Elements – Multi-Use Fields
Multi-Use Field with Soccer, Baseball, and Lacrosse

EXHIBIT A
9 Park Elements – Multi-Use Fields
Multi-Use Field with Soccer, Baseball, and Lacrosse

EXHIBIT A
10 Park Elements – All Inclusive Play

EXHIBIT A
11 Park Elements – Performance
• Amphitheater
• Music
• Seating

EXHIBIT A
12 Park Elements – Tennis/Pickleball

EXHIBIT A
13 Park Elements – Basketball/Multi-Use

EXHIBIT A
14 Park Elements – Sand Volleyball

EXHIBIT A
15 Park Elements – Bocce Court

EXHIBIT A
16 Concept
Diagrams

EXHIBIT A
17 Option 1

EXHIBIT A
18 Option 2

EXHIBIT A
19 Option 3

EXHIBIT A
20 Option 4

EXHIBIT A
21 Option 1 Option 2
Option 3 Option 4

EXHIBIT A
22 Community Input
• Held on 1/26/23 with GJT
Park
• Boards and Q&A Session,
comments cards provided
for voting
• Evening presentation

EXHIBIT A
23 Comment Card Results
• Most people that voted for
Option 4 had Option 3 as
their 2nd option
• Most people that voted for
Option 1 had Option 2 as
their 2nd option

EXHIBIT A
24 Presentation Comments
• Option 3 is preferred by coaches and parents as it has more existing trees preserved than option 4 while still having all the park elements shown in the other options.
• The less inclined sports people prefer Option 2 as it has (1) multi- sports field while preserving all trees and having more space for other elements such as the amphitheater.
• Comments on Option 1 for versatility of informal lawn area and inclusion of Museum to memorialize Fort Ord. Sports Pavilion is included in this concept and the cost estimate
• Playgrounds in Options 3 and 4 are accessible but may be more expensive due to the topography. One suggestion was to flip the playground for the amphitheater in these options.

EXHIBIT A
25 Cost Estimates
• Option 1: $27.7 MM* ($19.3 MM)
• Option 2: $23.8 MM* ($16.6 MM)
• Option 4: $27.7 MM* ($19.3 MM)
* Includes the following:
▪ Staking, Permits, Traffic, SWPPP 2%
▪ Bonding 2%
▪ Mobilization & PM 10%
▪ Design Contingency 10%
▪ Bidding & Inflation Contingency 6%
▪ Construction Contingency 10%
▪ City Construction Management 3.5%

EXHIBIT A
26 Maintenance Estimate
• Staffing $260,000 per year
1 Lead Worker
1 Maintenance Worker
• Materials and Equipment $100,000 per year
• Total Annual Maintenance $360,000 per year

EXHIBIT A
27 • Develop a preferred concept
based on feedback received
• City Council presentation –
3/21/23
• Develop a grading plan and cost
estimate
• Programming of construction
funding
Next Steps

EXHIBIT A
28 Thank you!
Dunes Park
Public Works Commission

EXHIBIT A
29 SECOND AVENUE

NINTH STREET
X X X
X
X
X
X X X
XXX
X
X
X
XXX
X X X
X

X X X X X

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

X X X X X X
X
XXXXXX
XXX
X
X
X
XXX
XXX
X
X
X
XXX

X X X X X X X X

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

XXXXXXXXXXX

X X X X X X X X
210'-0"
210'-0"
300'-0"
XXXX

X X X X X X

XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX

XXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X
0 15 306090'
NORTH

CONCPEPTUAL PLAN - PREFERRED CONCEPT
The Dunes "City Park"
City of Marina
Marina, CA
B1RENOVATED INDOOR SWIMMING POOL

RENOVATED SPORTS CENTER

FUTURE SPORTS CENTER ANNEX

CHAPEL/COMMUNITY BUILDING

RESTROOM/CONCESSIONS BUILDING

ADAPTIVE REUSE OF EXISTING BARRACK

BUILDINGS

MULTI-USE FIELD WITH MULTI-AGE
BASEBALL/SOFTBALL AND (2) 70X 110

YARD SOCCER FIELDS WITH DUGOUTS,

SAFETY NETTING, AND SPORTS LIGHTING
PLAYGROUND AGES 2-5
PLAYGROUND AGES 5-12

PICNIC AREA

BOCCE COURT AREA

CORNHOLE AREA

TENNIS/PICKLEBALL/VOLLEYBALL COURT

BASKETBALL COURT

PASSIVE RECREATION/EXERCISE AREA

PEDESTRIAN PLAZA WALKWAY AND

FORTAG CONNECTION WITH SPACE FOR

FOOD TRUCKS AND VENDOR STALLS

EXISTING TREE WITH NEW BENCH

FUTURE OVERPASS OR UNDERPASS OVER
2ND STREET FOR UNINTERRUPTED

FORTAG TRAIL CONNECTION
April 5, 2019
B2
B3
B4
B5
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
10 7 7
8 10
B1
B2
B3
B4
B6
B6B6B6B6B6B6
9 1
9 B5
2 3
44 4
5 5
6 6
10 4
11 11
12 12
30 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, INC.

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com

MEMORANDUM
Date: March 7, 2022
To: Brian McMinn, Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Marina
From: Patric Krabacher, ISA Certified Arborist 11759
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

RE: Arborist Report for the City of Marina Blight Removal Project 2022 – City Park Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. (DD&A) is contracted by the City of Marina (City) to provide on- call environmental consulting services for City projects. In support of the Blight Removal Phase of the City Park Project (project or proposed project) , located within City limits and within the boundaries of the University Villages Specific Plan (UVSP), DD&A conducted an analysis of trees within the vicinity of 47 buildings which are proposed for demolition. The analysis is based on a tree inventory conducted by DD&A in October 2019 for the Dunes on Monterey Bay Project (Dunes Project) and on a site visit conducted by DD&A in December 2021 to update the results of the tree inventory. This Arborist Report documents the results of the tree analysis, recommends tree removal, or trimming where necessary to facilitate remediation and demolition, and recommends mitigation to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse impacts of tree removal, or trimming.

METHODS
Limitations
This report only identifies potential project impacts to trees and potential adverse impacts resulting from tree removal; no other protected or sensitive biological resources are addressed. To determine potential project impacts to other sensitive biological resources (i.e., sensitive habitats, special- status plants, and special-status wildlife), additional analysis (e.g., biological resources study, focused botanical surveys, and protocol wildlife surveys) may be required.

31 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 – City Park 2 Arborist Report Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com Regulatory Setting
City of Marina Municipal Code
Marina Municipal Code (MMC or City Code) Section 17.62.030 requires a tree removal permit to remove, damage, or relocate, or cause to be removed, damaged, or relocated any tree on any property within City limits, unless exempted by MMC Sections 17.62.040 or 17.62.050. MMC Section 17.62.030 also prohibits construction activities within the dripline of any tree, unless these activities are conducted in compliance with tree protection guidelines adopted by resolution of the planning commission.

City Code defines “tree” as any living woody perennial plant having a single stem of six inches or more diameter at breast height (D BH) or a multi-stemmed plant having an aggregate diameter of ten inches or more measured at DBH , and any living woody perennial plant which was planted in accordance with requirements of an approved compensation plan or was planted as part of a landscaping plan approved by the City. MMC defines “dripline” as the greater of the outermost edge of the tree’s canopy, or fifteen times DBH measured from the center point of the tree.

UVSP Tree Standards
UVSP Tree Standards call for the preservation of as many healthy Monterey cypress trees and oak trees as practicable. In accordance with the UVSP Tree Standards, Monterey cypress trees and oak trees that are in good or fair condition must be protected during construction and preserved wherever practicable. If relocation is possible, Monterey cypress and oak trees shall be removed by machinery, be immediately replanted at a new site, and be watered and fertilized. Monterey cypress and oak trees in good or fair condition that are removed shall be replaced on- site at a ratio of two replacement trees for every one removed (2:1). UVSP classifies tree health based on the following definitions:
• Good. Tree is healthy and vigorous as indicated by color of foliage and density, has no apparent signs of insect, disease, structural defects or mechanical injury. Tree has good form and structure. • Fair. Tree is in average condition and vigor for the area, but may show minor insect, disease, or physiological problems. Trees rated as Fair/Poor may be improved with correctional pruning. • Poor. Tree that is in a general state of decline and may show severe structural or mechanical defects which may lead to failure, may have insect or disease damage, but is not dead. • Dead/Snags. Dead standing trees.

California Fish and Game Code
Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Section 3503.5 prohibits the killing, possession, or destruction of any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey). Section 3511 prohibits take or possession of fully protected birds. Section 3513 prohibits the take or possession of any migratory nongame birds designated under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Section 3800 prohibits take of nongame birds.

32 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 – City Park 3 Arborist Report Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com Survey Methods
2019 Tree Inventory
In support of the Dunes Project, DD&A biologists ( led by ISA Certified Arborist Patric Krabacher ) conducted an inventory of trees within the boundaries of the Dunes Project (which encompassed the buildings which are proposed for demolition as part of the City Park Proje ct) on October 4, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 17, 2019. The tree inventory included the mapping and tagging of all trees, as defined by City Code, within the survey area. Trees were inventoried with City requirements and UVSP Tree Standards, as follows:
• All trees 6” diameter at breast height (DBH) or greater were tagged with a global positioning system (GPS) location and a numbered aluminum marker (on the most feasible/visible location possible). • Diameter was recorded at breast height (4.5 feet above ground) or, for multi-stemmed trees, at the most representable location.
• Multi-stemmed trees were recorded as one tree if the root crown (the point where the trunk meets natural grade) was contiguous. Multi-stemmed tree DBH was calculated by taking the square root of the squared sum of all stems measured (√[Stem 1 DHB2+ Stem 2 DBH2+ Stem 3 DBH2...]). This equation returns the diameter at the base of the tree (Chojnacky, 1999). • Species, size, and health class were recorded for each tree. Tree health was based on the UVSP classification system and was evaluated by visually inspecting each tree from its root crown to its foliar canopy for signs of decay, disease, or insect infestations.

GPS data were collected using a Trimble® TDC600 GPS and were then digitized using Trimble® TerraFlex and ESRI® ArcGIS 10. 4. GPS data were collected using geographic coordinate system Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 10 North and the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84) datum. 2021 Tree Survey
On December 20, 2021, DD&A biologis ts (led by ISA Certified Arborist Patric Krabacher ) conducted a survey of the project site to determine any changed circumstances since the 2019 tree inventory was prepared. The survey included updating the health class of trees and determining which trees may need to be removed to facilitate the remediation and demolition phase of the proposed project.

RESULTS
DD&A inventoried 72 trees in the vicinity of the buildings proposed for demolition, including 36 Monterey cypresses (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa), 17 acacias (Acacia sp.), 13 Monterey pines (Pinus radiata), three (3) Eucalyptus ( Eucalyptus sp.), one (1) coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia), one (1) Bishop pine ( Pinus muricata), and one (1) Australian cheesewood ( Pittosporum undulatum) ( Figure 1, Appendix A , and Appendix B). Most trees are in average vigor for the area; however, 18 trees are dead or are in poor condition and showing severe signs of decay, disease, and insect infestations, including pitch canker (Fusarium circinatum), oak branch cank er, foamy bark canker, oak ambrosia beetles, and Phytophthora root and crown rot (Appendix A and Appendix B). No symptoms of sudden oak death were observed.

33 8th Street
2ndAvenue
1275
1276
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1287 1289
1313
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
12981299 1301
13021303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1312
1314
1315
1316
1317
1319 1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1328
1329
13301331
13321333
1334 1335
13361337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
13471348
1349
13501351
1352
1406
T-2210
T-2149
T-2211
T-2150 T-2151
T-2212
T-2171
T-2116
T-2173
T-2153
T-2131
T-2156T-2152
T-2174T-2172
T-2114
T-2154
T-2209
T-2175T-2169 T-2176T-2170
T-2155
T-2215T-2213
T-2135
T-2130
T-2132 T-2133 T-2136T-2129
T-2134
T-2196T-2189 T-2190 T-2191 T-2193
T-2110
T-2195
T-2112 T-2115T-2114T-2109
T-2116
T-2194
T-2113
Tree Survey Results
1 in = 100 ft
1 2/17/2022
Path: C:\GIS\GIS Projects\2021-72 City of Marina On-Call\Final Products\City Park\Trees.mxd Scale
Date
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Planning and Environmental Consulting
Figure
0 100 200 Feet
Building Demolition
Soil Removal
Tree Dripline
Recommended Removal
Trees
Monterey Cypress
Monterey Pine
Coast Live Oak
Bishop Pine
Trees (cont.)
Acacia
Eucalyptus
Australian Cheesewood
1290
34 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 – City Park 5 Arborist Report Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com

DISCUSSION
Per conversations with Wallace Group, the City's engineering consultant for the project, excavation due to building demolition in the proposed City Park would be limited to three (3) inches deep within the footprints of all existing 47 buildings (to remove debris) and excavation due to soil remediation would extend to six (6) inches deep and six (6) feet out from five buildings (buildings T-2150, T-2170, T-2189, T-2191, and T- 2213).

Due to the shallow depth of excavation required for demolition, demolition is not likely to significantly impact the dripline of any adjacent tree and tree removal would not be required to successful implement this portion of project; however, it is recommended that trees whose canopies overlap or abut buildings are limbed or trimmed prior to demolition. In accordance with the City’s Tree Protection Guidelines and with California Fish and Game Code, the following measures are recommended to avoid or minimize impacts potential adverse impacts resulting from tree trimming:

1. Trimming must conform to the guidelines and best management practices established in Appendix C, must be performed by a qualified tree removal contractor, and must not remove more than 30 percent of any one tree's canopy. Trees shall be allowed to develop their na tural forms and shall not be trimmed as topiaries or other unnatural forms.

2. Work should be timed to avoid the breeding and nesting season for raptors and other protected avian species. If work must occur during the avian breeding and nesting season (approximately February 1 through September 15), surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to project activities in all areas within 300 feet of the project footprint that may provide suitable nesting habitat. If nesting birds are identified during surveys, an appropriate buffer shall be imposed within which no work or disturbance will take place (generally 300 feet in all directions). A qualified biologist shall be on-site during work re-initiation in the vicinity of the nest offset to ensure that the buffer is adequate and that the nest is not stressed and/or abandoned. No work shall proceed in the vicinity of an active nest until such time as all young are fledged, or until after September 16, when young are assumed fledged.

Due to the level of excavation required for soil remediation, tree removal would be required around buildings T-2150, T-2170, T-2189, T-2191, and T-2213 and would include the following trees:
• Tree 1278 (acacia in fair condition),
• Tree 1279 (acacia in fair condition),
• Tree 1281 (acacia in fair condition),
• Tree 1282 (Australian cheesewood in fair condition), and • Tree 1319 (Monterey pine in poor condition).

Per UVSP Tree Standards, mitigation (i.e., replacement) would not be required for removal of these trees, which are non-native species or native trees in poor condition. However, in accordance with City Code, a tree removal permit from the City would be required to remove all living trees, including trees in p oor condition. Therefore, a completed tree removal permit application for Trees 1278, 1279, 1281, 1282, and 1319 is included in this report as Appendix D. Tree removal must conform to any requirements established 35 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 – City Park 6 Arborist Report Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com by the City in the approved tree removal permit. In addition, it is recommended that Mitigation Measure 2, above, and the following mitigation be implemented as part of tree removal:

3. Pursuant to Section 17.62.030 of City Code , the project must comply with the City’s Tree Protection Guidelines. To r educe impacts to trees not scheduled for removal, the tree removal contractor shall implement the best managements practices for working near trees established in Appendix C. Trees which will be retained on site shall be allowed to develop their natural forms and shall not be trimmed as topiaries or other unnatural forms.

Although not required to implement the project, it is also recommended that the remaining 14 acacia trees be removed due to this non-native species being a locally problematic plant which spreads quickly and is known to outcompete native species 1. It is further recommended that the remaining 13 trees in poor condition (nine [9] Monterey pines, one [1] Monterey cypress, one [1] Bishop pine, and one [1] eucalyptus) and the remaining six (6) trees which are dead (three [3] Monterey pines, two [2] Monterey cypresses, and one [1] eucalyptus) be removed to maintain the health of the urban forest within City Park and to reduce tree-related hazards to persons or structures. See Appendix A for the complete list of trees which are recommended for removal.

Per UVSP Tree Standards, mitigation (i.e., replacement) would not be required for removal of these non- native or unhealthy trees. In addition, a tree removal permit would not be required to remove the seven (7) dead trees. However, in accordance with City Code, a tree removal permit from the City would be required to remove the 31 living trees. A completed tree removal permit application for these trees is included in this report as Appendix D. Tree removal must conform to any requirements established by the City in the tree removal permit. In addition, it is recommended that Mitigation Measure s 2 and 3, above be implemented to avoid or minimize potential project impacts resulting from tree removal.

CONCLUSION
To facilitate demolition of 47 buildings and soil remediation around five [5] of these buildings within the proposed City Park, it is recommended that trees directly adjacent to these buildings or trees withing the boundaries of soil remediation be limbed , trimmed, or removed prior to demolition . In addition, it is recommended that all non-native trees and/or trees in poor or dead be removed to prevent spread of non- native invasive species, maintain the health of the urban forest within City Park, and reduce tree- related hazards to persons or structures. A tree removal permit from the City is required to remove all living trees.

A completed tree removal permit application for trees which are recommended for removal is included in this report as Appendix D. Implementation of the measures identified above and any additional measures established by the City in the tree removal permit would avoid or minimize potential impacts resulting from tree trimming, and removal.

If you have any comments or questions about this report, please contact Patric Krabacher at [email protected] or (831) 373-4341 ext. 29.

1 Additional acacia and Australian cheesewood individuals occur within the project site; however, they are smaller than six (6) inches DBH and, as such, are not considered "trees" and were not inventoried as part of this report. It is recommended that all these plants be removed from the proposed City Park to reduce the spread of non -native species. A tree removal permit is not required for plants smaller than six (6) inches DBH.
36 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 – City Park 7 Arborist Report Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com

REFERENCES
David C. Chojnacky. 1999. Converting Tree Diameter Measured at Root Collar to Diameter at Beast Height.
37 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 – City Park Appendix A Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com

APPENDIX A

Tree Table
38 Remediation and Demolition Phase of the City Park Project 1 Tree Table Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name Individual Stem DBH (in) Total DBH (in) Dripline (ft) Health Recommendation 1275 Acacia sp. Acacia 9

9 11 Fair Remove
1276 Acacia sp. Acacia 8 6

10 13 Fair Remove
1277 Acacia sp. Acacia 6

6 8 Fair Remove
1278 Acacia sp. Acacia 6 6 6 6

12 15 Fair Remove
1279 Acacia sp. Acacia 9

9 11 Fair Remove
1280 Acacia sp. Acacia 7

7 9 Fair Remove
1281 Acacia sp. Acacia 6

6 8 Fair Remove
1282 Pittosporum undulatum Australian Cheesewood 11 9 12 14

23 29 Fair Remove
1283 Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 21

21 26 Dead Remove
1284 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 60

60 75 Fair Retain
1287 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 6 6 6

10 13 Dead Remove
1289 Pinus muricata Bishop Pine 15

15 19 Poor Remove
1290 Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 30

30 38 Poor Remove
1291 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 10 8 6

14 18 Fair Retain
1292 Acacia sp. Acacia 6 6

8 11 Fair Remove
1293 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 58

58 73 Fair Retain
1294 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 47

47 59 Poor Remove
1295 Acacia sp. Acacia 7

7 9 Fair Remove
1296 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 45

45 56 Fair Retain
1297 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 66

66 83 Fair Retain
1298 Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 33

33 41 Poor Remove
1299 Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 16

16 20 Poor Remove
1300 Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 24

24 30 Poor Remove
1301 Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 14

14 18 Dead Remove
1302 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 43

43 54 Fair Retain
1303 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 30

30 38 Fair Retain
1304 Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 25

25 31 Poor Remove
1305 Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 18

18 23 Poor Remove
1306 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 45

45 56 Fair Retain
1307 Acacia sp. Acacia 15

15 19 Fair Remove
1308 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 72

72 90 Fair Retain
1309 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 33

33 41 Fair Retain
1310 Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 39

39 49 Poor Remove
1312 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 52

52 65 Fair Retain
39 Remediation and Demolition Phase of the City Park Project 2 Tree Table Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name Individual Stem DBH (in) Total DBH (in) Dripline (ft) Health Recommendation 1313 Eucalyptus sp. Eucalyptus 17 20

26 33 Fair Retain
1314 Acacia sp. Acacia 15

15 19 Fair Remove
1315 Acacia sp. Acacia 16

16 20 Fair Remove
1316 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 24 30

38 48 Fair Retain
1317 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 54

54 68 Fair Retain
1319 Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 24

24 30 Poor Remove
1320 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 61

61 76 Fair Retain
1321 Acacia sp. Acacia 6 11 9

15 19 Fair Remove
1322 Eucalyptus sp. Eucalyptus 30

30 38 Dead Remove
1323 Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 31

31 39 Poor Remove
1324 Eucalyptus sp. Eucalyptus 40

40 50 Poor Remove
1325 Acacia sp. Acacia 6

6 8 Fair Remove
1326 Acacia sp. Acacia 6 6

8 11 Fair Remove
1328 Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 33

33 41 Dead Remove
1329 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 12

12 15 Fair Retain
1330 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 32

32 40 Fair Retain
1331 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 24

24 30 Fair Retain
1332 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 26

26 33 Fair Retain
1333 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 36

36 45 Fair Retain
1334 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 48

48 60 Fair Retain
1335 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 32

32 40 Fair Retain
1336 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 19

19 24 Fair Retain
1337 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 30 18 13 15

40 50 Fair Retain
1338 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 32

32 40 Fair Retain
1339 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 32 40 25

57 71 Fair Retain
1340 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 72

72 90 Fair Retain
1341 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 7

7 9 Good Retain
1342 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 24

24 30 Fair Retain
1343 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 35

35 44 Fair Retain
1344 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 30

30 38 Fair Retain
1345 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 8 8

11 14 Fair Retain
1346 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 22

22 28 Dead Remove
1347 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 10 18

21 26 Fair Retain
1348 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 11

11 14 Fair Retain
40 Remediation and Demolition Phase of the City Park Project 3 Tree Table Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name Individual Stem DBH (in) Total DBH (in) Dripline (ft) Health Recommendation 1349 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 34 36 28 10

58 72 Fair Retain
1350 Acacia sp. Acacia 8 6

10 13 Fair Remove
1351 Acacia sp. Acacia 8 8

11 14 Fair Remove
1352 Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 20

20 25 Poor Remove

41 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 – City Park Appendix B Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com APP

ENDIX B
Phot
o Log
42 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 - City Park 1 Appendix B Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com Photo 1. Tree 1290
Photo 3. Tree 1292
Photo 2. Tree 1300
Photo 4. Tree 1294
43 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 - City Park 2 Appendix B Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com Photo 5. Tree 1295 Photo 6. Tree 1299
Photo 8. Tree 1304
Photo 7. Tree 1289
44 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 - City Park 3 Appendix B Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com Photo 9. Tree 1305
Photo 11. Tree 1310
Photo 10. Tree 1307
Photo 12. Tree 1314
45 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 - City Park 4 Appendix B Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com Photo 13. Tree 1315
Photo 15. Tree 1319
Photo 16. Tree 1321
Photo 14. Tree 1282
46 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 - City Park 5 Appendix B Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com Photo 19. Tree 1324
Photo 18. Tree 1323
Photo 20. Tree 1325
Photo 17. Tree 1352
47 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 - City Park 6 Appendix B Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com Photo 21. Tree 1326
Photo 23. Tree 1351
Photo 22. Tree 1350
Photo 24. Tree 1278
48 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 - City Park 7 Appendix B Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com Photo 25. Tree 1275
Photo 2 7. Tree 1277
Photo 26. Tree 1276
Photo 28. Tree 1281
49 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 - City Park 8 Appendix B Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com Photo 29. Tree 1279
Photo 30. Tree 1280
Photo 31. T ree 1298
50 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 – City Park Appendix C Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com APP

ENDIX C
Best
Management Practices
51 Appendix C
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WHEN WORKING NEAR TREES
Best Management Practices
The following BMPs are recommended to reduce impacts to trees:
• Do not deposit any fill around trees, which may compact soils and alter water and air relationships. Avoid depositing fill, parking equipment, or staging construction materials near existing trees. Covering and compacting soil around trees can alter water and air relationships with the roots. Fill placed within the critical rootzone or dripline may encourage the development of oak rot fungus (Armillaria mellea). As necessary, trees may be protected by boards, fencing or other materials to delineate protection zones. • Pruning shall be conducted to avoid unnecessary injuries to the tree. General principals of pruning include placing cuts immediately beyond the branch collar, making clean cuts by scoring the underside of the branch first, and for live oak, avoiding the period from February through May.
• Native live oaks are not adapted to summer watering and may develop crown or root rot as a result. Do not regularly irrigate within the critical rootzone or dripline of oaks. Native, locally adapted, drought resistant species are the most compatible with this goal. • Root cutting should occur outside of the springtime. Ideal time for root pruning will take place late June and July. Pruning of the live crown should not occur February through May. • Oak material greater than 3 inches in diameter remaining on site more than one month that is not cut and split into firewood should be covered with thick clear plastic that is dug in securely around the pile. This will discourage infestation and dispersion of bark beetles. • A mulch layer up to approximately 4 inches deep may be applied to the ground under selected oaks following construction. Only 1 to 2 inches of mulch should be applied within 1 to 2 feet of the trunk, and under no circumstances should any soil or mulch be placed against the root crown (base) of trees. The best source of mulch would be from chipped material generated on site.

Tree Protection Standards:
• All trees scheduled for preservation which may be at risk of injury or harm during the removal of trees approved for removal or during grading, trenching or other activities associated with the development or use of a property shall be temporarily fenced during such tree during such activities. Fencing shall be installed prior to the beginning of tree removals, grading or building.

Fencing shall be installed at the edge of the root zone unless alternate location is determined essential to the construction of the project as approved. The root zone is determined to be the area located within a distance of 15 times the trunk diameter in all directions. Fencing shall consist of chain link or plastic link fence, rigidly supported and maintained during all construction at a minimum height of 4' 0" above grade. Removal of fencing shall only be at the direction of the City planning department. All trees to be fenced shall be clearly marked to notify all personnel and city inspectors that the subject tree(s) are to be fenced at all times during construction. • Fenced areas shall not be used for material stockpile, storage or vehicle parking. Dumping of materials, chemicals or garbage shall be prohibited within the fenced area. Fenced areas shall be maintained in a natural condition and not compacted. Fenced areas shall be maintained at natural or existing grade.
52 Appendix C
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com • Utility and drain lines shall be located outside the root zone of all preserved trees unless essential to develop property as approved. Where alternative routes are not available, any digging or trenching necessary for utility conduit, pipe, wire and drain lines shall not cut any major root.

Major roots are those with a diameter of 2 inches or more. Utility lines shall not be within 3 feet of the trunk of any tree.
• All approved const
ruction within the root zone shall observe the following construction practices:

1. Hand trenching at point or line of grade cuts closest to the trunk to expose major roots 2" or more in diameter.

2. In cases where rock or unusually dense soil prevents hand trenching, mechanical trenching may be permitted provided that work inside the dripline is closely supervised to prevent tearing or other damage to major roots.

3. Exposed major roots shall be cut with a saw to form a smooth surface and avoid tearing or jagged edges.

4. Absorbent tarp or heavy cloth fabric shall be placed over grade cuts where roots are exposed and secured with stakes and 2" to 4" of compost or wood chips spread over the tarp to prevent moisture loss. Care shall be taken that moisture levels beneath tarped areas remain comparable to surrounding areas until backfilling occurs. Some watering of these areas may be necessary to maintain moisture levels, and such measures shall remain in effect through all phases of construction, including all delays and other periods of inactivity.

Tree Pruning
Pruning is to be minimal but performed only when necessary in accordance to American National Safety Institute ANSI A300 P runing Standards. Pruning may include the larger canopied trees that have deadwood or are exhibiting some minor structural defect or m inor disease that must be compensated.

Should the health and vigor of any tree decline it will be treated as appropriately recommended by a certified arborist or qualified forester.

The following are offered as guidelines when pruning;
• In general trees will be assessed then pruned first for safety, next for health, and finally for aesthetics. No more than 25% of the tree overall crown will be pruned in one season. • Type of pruning is determined by the size of branches to be removed. General guidelines for branch removal are:

1. Fine Detail pruning-limbs under 2-inch diameter are removed

2. Medium Detail Pruning–Limbs between 2- and 4-inch diameter

3. Structural Enhancement–limbs greater than 4-inch diameter.

4. Broken and cracked limbs-removed will be removed in high traffic areas of concern.

Crown thinning is the cleaning out of or removal of dead diseased, weakly attached, or low vigor branches from a tree crown and consist of the following steps:
• All trees will be pre-assessed on how the tree will be pruned from the top down. 53 Appendix C
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com • Tree trimmers will favor branches with strong, U-shaped angles of attachment and where possible remove branches with weak, V-shaped angles of attachment and/or included bark.
• Lateral branches will be evenly spaced on the main stem of young trees and areas of fine pruning.
• Branches that rub or cross another branch will be removed where possible. • Lateral branches will be no more than one-half to three-quarters of the diameter of the stem to discourage the development of co-dominant stems where feasible. • In most cases trimmers will not remove more than one-quarter of the living crown of a tree at one time. If it is necessary to remove more, it will be done over successive years.

Crown-raising removes the lower branches of a tree to provide clearance for buildings, vehicles, pedestrians and vistas and performed as follows:
• Live branches on at least two -thirds of a tree’s total height will be maintained wherever possible. The removal of too many lower branches will hinder the development of a strong stem.
• All basal sprouts and vigorous epicormic sprouts will be removed where feasible.

Crown reduction is used to reduce the height and/or spread of trees and is used for maintaining the structural integrity and natural form of a tree and conducted as follows:
• Crown reduction pruning is used only when absolutely necessary. Pruning cuts will be at a lateral branch that is at least one-third the diameter of the stem to be removed wherever possible.
• When it is necessary to remove more than half of the foliage from a branch it may be necessary remove the entire branch.

Crown restoration is used to improve the structure and appearance of trees that have been topped or severely pruned using heading cuts. One of three sprouts on main branch stubs s hould be selected to reform a natural appearing crown. Selected vigorous sprouts may need to be thinned to ensure adequate attachment for the size of the sprout. Restoration may require several years of pruning. 54 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 – City Park Appendix D Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com

APPENDIX D

Tree Removal Application
55 City of Marina City of Marina
Community Development Department
Mailing: 211 HILLCREST AVENUE
Office: 209 CYPRESS AVENUE
MARINA, CA 93933
831.884.1220; FAX 831.384.0425
www.cityofmarina.org

PLANNING APPLICATION
Project Address/Location: _____________ APN:____________________________________ Applicant(s):

Name:
___ Email: _____________________________
Property Owner:

Name:

Mailing Address:

Phone: ___ Email: _____________________________
Property Owner Authorization:

By signing this application I certify that I have reviewed this completed application and the attached material and consent to its filing. I agree to allow the Community Development Department to duplicate and distribute plans to interested persons as it determines is necessary for the processing of the application.

Signed Date
Applicant/Representative Certification:

I understand the City might not approve what I am applying for or might set conditions of approval. I agree to allow the Community Development Department to duplicate and
distribute plans to interested persons as it determines is necessary for processing of the application.

Signed Date
Permission to Access Property
This section is to be completed by the property owner and/or occupant who controls access to the property. To adequately evaluate many project proposals Community Development Department Staff, Commissioners and City Council Members will have to gain access to the exterior of the real property in order to adequately review and report on the proposed project. Your signature below certifies that you agree to give the City permission to access the project site from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, as part of the normal review of this planning application.

Signed Date
Indemnification Agreement:

The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City’s approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner / Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect.

Signed Date
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:

Date Application Submitted: Fee Collected: $
Date Application Complete: Receipt Number:

File Number(s):

Planner Initials: Associated Permits:

Remediation/Demo at City Park
City of Marina
Mailing Address:

Phone:

SAME AS ABOVE
Project Description: What do you want to do?
Remove 37 trees to facilitate the project and maintain health and safety of the urban forest in City Park. 56 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, INC.

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING

Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com

MEMORANDUM
Date: May 13, 2022
To: Brian McMinn, Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Marina
From: Patric Krabacher, ISA Certified Arborist 11759
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

RE: Supplem ental Arborist Report for the City of Marina Blight Removal Project 2022 – City Park
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. (DD&A) is contracted by the City of Marina (City) to provide on- call environmental consulting services for City projects . Due to changes in the soil remediation plan for the Blight Removal Phase of the City Park Project (project or proposed project), located within City limits and within the boundaries of t he University Villages Specific Plan (UVSP) . DD&A conducted an analysis of trees within the vicinity of 47 buildings which are proposed for demolition and an added a five (5) foot buffer surrounding driplines of all buildings with a removal of soil to a depth of nine (9) inches (Attachment A). The analysis is based on a tree inventory conducted by DD&A in October 2019 for the Dunes on Monterey Bay Project (Dunes Project) and follow-up site visit s conducted by DD&A in December 2021 and again in March 2022 to update the results of the tree inventory. This Arborist Report was written as a supplemental report to the initial Arborist Report prepared for the project, dated March 7, 2022 (DD&A, 2022), and documents the changes to the project and soil remediation and how those changes impact the results of the tree analysis. This report also provides recommendations for tree removal, potential tree removals, or trimming where nec essary to facilitate updated soil remediation and demolition, and recommends mitigation to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse impacts of tree removal, or trimming.

It is not the intent of this report to provide a monetary valuation of the trees or provide risk assessment for any tree on this parcel, as any tree can fail at any time. No clinical diagnosis was performed on any pest or pathogen that may or may not be present within the site. In addition to an inspection of the property, DD&A relied on information provided by the City and/or the City's consultants (e.g., survey boundaries, property boundaries, project description ) to prepare this report, and must reasonably rely on the accuracy of the information provided. DD&A shall not be responsible for another's means, methods, techniques, schedules, or procedures, or for contractor safety or any other related programs, or for another's failure to complete work in accordance with approved plans and specifications. 57 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 – City Park 2 Arborist Report Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com Regulatory Setting
City of Marina Municipal Code
Marina Municipal Code (MMC or City Code) Section 17.62.030 requires a tree removal permit to remove, damage, or relocate, or cause to be removed, damaged, or relocated any tree on any property within City limits, unless exempted by MMC Sections 17.62.040 or 17.62.050. MMC Section 17.62.030 also prohibits construction activities within the dripline of any tree, unless these activities are conducted in compliance with tree protection guidelines adopted by resolution of the planning commission.

City Code defines “tree” as any living woody perennial plant having a single stem of six (6) inches or more diameter at breast height (D BH) or a multi-stemmed plant having an aggregate diameter of ten inches or more measured at DBH , and any living woody perennial plant which was planted in accordance with requirements of an approved compensation plan or was planted as part of a landscaping plan approved by the City. MMC defines “dripline” as the greater of the outermost edge of the tree’s canopy, or fifteen times DBH measured from the center point of the tree.

58 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 – City Park 3 Arborist Report Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com Survey Methods
On March 9, 2022, DD&A biologists (led by ISA Certified Arborist Patric Krabacher) conducted a survey of the project site to determine any additional trees that may be damaged or should be proposed for removal due to the change in soil remediation and demolition plans from the initial report (DD&A, 2022). The survey included updating GPS locations of trees (see Figure 1) and revisiting all trees directly adjacent to existing buildings and determining which trees may need to be rem oved or damaged to facilitate the remediation and demolition phase of the proposed project . The tree inventory included the remapping of some trees, as defined by City Code , within the survey area. Trees were inventoried in accordance with City requirements and UVSP Tree Standards, as follows:
• All trees 6” diameter at breast height (DBH) or greater were tagged with a GPSlocation and a numbered aluminum marker (on the most feasible/visible location possible). • Diameter was recorded at breast height (4.5 feet above ground) or, for multi-stemmed trees, at the most representable location.
• Multi-stemmed trees were recorded as one tree if the root crown (the point where the trunk meets natural grade) was contiguous. Multi-stemmed tree DBH was calculated by taking the square root of the squared sum of all stems measured (√[Stem 1 DHB2+ Stem 2 DBH2+ Stem 3 DBH2...]). This equation returns the diameter at the base of the tree (Chojnacky, 1999). • Species, size, and health class were recorded for each tree. Tree health was based on the UVSP classification system and was evaluated by visually inspecting each tree from its root crown to its foliar canopy for signs of decay, disease, or insect infestations.

RESULTS
In addition to the removals identified in the initial report (DD&A, 2022), DD&A recommends that trees 1302 (Monterey cypress [ Hesperocyparis macrocarpa]), 1309 (Monterey cypress), and 1345 ( coast live oak [Quercus agrifolia]) be removed because greater than 40% of their critical root zone (CRZ) or dripline (defined by MMC) would be damaged as a result of soil remediation and demolition (Figure 1, Attachment A, Attachment B, and Attachment C). Per MMC Section 17.62.030, removal of these trees would require a tree removal permit from the City. DD&A also recommends that a tree removal permit be acquired for trees 1316 (Monterey cypress) and 1339 (Monterey cypress) (Figure 1, Attachment A, Attachment B, and Attachment C). These trees are within the boundaries of soil remediation and demolition; however, due to their size o r proximity to project activities, there is a potential that they can be preserved. It is recommended that the City minimize impacts to these two trees to the greatest extent feasible.

59 !(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!( !(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
#*
D
D
D
l
l
1284
1291
1293
1296
1297
13021303
1306
1308
1309
1312
1313
1316
1317
1320
1329
1330
1331
13321333
1334 1335
13361337
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
13471348
1349
T-2210
T-2149
T-2211
T-2150 T-2151
T-2212
T-2171
T-2116
T-2173
T-2153
T-2131
T-2156T-2152
T-2174
T-2172
T-2114
T-2154
T-2209
T-2175T-2169 T-2176T-2170
T-2155
T-2215T-2213
T-2135T-2130 T-2132 T-2133 T-2136T-2129 T-2134
T-2196
T-2189 T-2190 T-2191 T-2193
T-2111T-2110
T-2195
T-2112 T-2115T-2114T-2109 T-2116
T-2194
T-2113
Supplemental Tree Survey Results 1
5/13/2022
Path: C:\GIS\GIS Projects\2021-72 City of Marina On-Call\Final Products\City Park\2021-72 City of Marina On-Call 2021\2021-72 City of Marina On-Call 2021.aprx Scale
Date
D e n i s e D u f f y & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c .

Planning and Environmental Consulting
Figure
00 100100 200200 FeetFeet
. Tree Dripline
D Recommended Removal
l Potential Removal
T r e e s
!( Monterey Cypress
!( Coast Live Oak
#* Eucalyptus
1:1,250
60 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 – City Park 5 Arborist Report Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com

DISCUSSION
Per conversations with Wallace Group, the City's engineering consultant for the project, excavation due to building demolition in the proposed City Park will be increased from three (3) inches deep to nine (9) inches deep within the footprints of all existing 47 buildings (to remove debris) and five (5) feet surrounding the driplines of all 47 buildings, not just the previously indicated buildings T-2150, T-2170, T-2189, T-2191, and T-2213.

In accordance with the City’s Tree Protection Guidelines and with C alifornia Fish and Game Code, the following measures are recommended to avoid or minimize impacts potential adverse impacts resulting from tree trimming:

1. Trimming must conform to the guidelines and best management practices established in Attachment D, must be performed by a qualified tree removal contractor, and must not remove more than 30 percent of any one tree's canopy. Trees shall be allowed to develop their natural forms and shall not be trimmed as topiaries or other unnatural forms.

Due to the level of excavation required for soil remediation, tree removal permits would be required around all 47 buildings and would include the following trees (in addition to the trees identified in the initial report [DD&A, 2022]):
• Tree 1302 (Monterey cypress in fair condition),
• Tree 1309 (Monterey cypress in fair condition),
• Tree 1316 (Monterey cypress in fair condition),
• Tree 1339 (Monterey cypress in fair condition), and
• Tree 1345 (Coast live oak in fair condition).

In accordance with City Code, a tree removal permit from the City would be required to remove or damage all living trees. Therefore, a completed tree removal permit application for Trees 1302, 1309, 1316, 1339, and 1345 is included in this report as Attachment E. Tree removal must conform to any requirements established by the City in the approved tree removal permit. In addition, it is recommended that Mitigation Measure 2, above, and the following mitigation be implemented as part of tree removal:

61 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 – City Park 6 Arborist Report Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com

3. Pursuant to Section 17.62.030 of City Code , the project must comply with the City’s Tree Protection Guidelines. To reduce impacts to trees not scheduled for removal, the tree removal contractor shall implement the best managements practices for working near trees established in Attachment D. Trees which will be retained on site shall be allowed to develop their natural forms and shall not be trimmed as topiaries or other unnatural forms.

CONCLUSION
To facilitate project changes to soil remediation and demolition of 47 buildings within the proposed City Park, it is recommended that trees directly adjacent to these buildings or trees withing the boundaries of soil remediation be limbed, trimmed, or removed prior to demolition. In addition, it is recommended that impacts to trees 1316 and 1339 be minimized to the greatest extent feasible . A tree removal permit from the City is required to remove all living trees. A completed tree removal permit application for trees which are recommended for removal is included in this report as Attachment E. Implementation of the measures identified above and any additional measures established by the City in the tree removal permit would avoid or minimize potential impacts resulting from tree trimming, and removal.

If you have any comments or questions about this report, please contact Patric Krabacher at [email protected] or (831) 373-4341 ext. 29.

REFERENCES
David C. Chojnacky. 1999. Converting Tree Diameter Measured at Root Collar to Diameter at Beast Height.

Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc. (DD&A). 2022. Arborist Report for the City of Marina Blight Removal Project 2022 – City Park.

ATTACHEMENTS
Attachment A. Project Plans
Attachment B. Tree Table
Attachment C. Photo Log
Attachment D. Best Management Practices
Attachment E. Tree Removal Permit Application
62 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 – City Park Attachment A Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.co m

ATTACHMENT A

Project Plans
63 C I T Y O F M A R I N A

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
612 CLARION COURT
T 805 544-4011 F 805 544-4294
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
www.wallacegroup.us

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

SURVEYING / GIS SOLUTIONS

WATER RESOURCES

PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION

PLANNING

CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
®
Elvira Nodora Morla-Camacho

C I V I L
No. 60577
AL
AT T
S
OFE C
A
O NRFI
I

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
May 5, 2022
REVISED DM-1 PER ADDENDUM No. 5
64 C I T Y O F M A R I N A

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
612 CLARION COURT
T 805 544-4011 F 805 544-4294
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
www.wallacegroup.us

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

SURVEYING / GIS SOLUTIONS

WATER RESOURCES

PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION

PLANNING

CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
®
Elvira Nodora Morla-Camacho

C I V I L
No. 60577
AL
AT T
S
OFE C
A
O NRFI
I

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
May 5, 2022
REVISED DM-3 PER ADDENDUM No. 5
65 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 – City Park Attachment B Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.co m

ATTACHMENT B

Tree Table

66 Attachement B
Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name Total DBH (in) Dripline (ft) Health Recommendation Comments 1284 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 60 60 75 Fair Retain 1291 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 10 8 6 14 18 Fair Retain 1293 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 58 58 73 Fair Retain 1296 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 45 45 56 Fair Retain 1297 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 66 66 83 Fair Retain 1298 Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 33 33 41 Fair Retain
1302 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 43 43 54 Fair Remove Tree directly adjacent to building. Greater than 40% of CRZ proposed for removal 1303 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 30 30 38 Fair Retain 1306 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 45 45 56 Fair Retain 1308 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 72 72 90 Fair Retain 1309 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 33 33 41 Fair Remove Tree top damage. Greater than 40% of CRZ proposed for removal 1312 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 52 52 65 Fair Retain 1313 Eucalyptus sp. Eucalyptus 17 20 26 33 Fair Retain
1316 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 24 30 38 48 Fair Potential Removal Tree requires significant trimming. Work proposed within 40% of CRZ 1317 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 54 54 68 Fair Retain 1320 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 61 61 76 Fair Retain 1329 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 12 12 15 Fair Retain 1330 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 32 32 40 Fair Retain 1331 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 24 24 30 Fair Retain 1332 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 26 26 33 Fair Retain 1333 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 36 36 45 Fair Retain 1334 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 48 48 60 Fair Retain 1335 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 32 32 40 Fair Retain 1336 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 19 19 24 Fair Retain 1337 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 30 18 13 15 40 50 Fair Retain 1338 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 32 32 40 Fair Retain 1339 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 32 40 25 57 71 Fair Potential Removal Tree requires significant trimming. Work proposed within 40% of CRZ 1340 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 72 72 90 Fair Retain 1341 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 7 7 9 Good Retain 1342 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 24 24 30 Fair Retain 1343 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 35 35 44 Fair Retain 1344 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 30 30 38 Fair Retain 1345 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 8 8 11 14 Fair Remove Tree directly adjacent to building. Greater than 40% of CRZ proposed for removal 1347 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 10 18 21 26 Fair Retain 1348 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 11 11 14 Fair Retain 1349 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 34 36 28 10 58 72 Fair Retain 1352 Pinus radiata Monterey Pine 20 20 25 Fair Retain
1392 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 7 7 9 Fair Retain 1394 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 66 66 83 Fair Retain 1395 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 72 72 90 Fair Retain Individual Stem DBH (in)
67 Attachement B
Tree ID Scientific Name Common Name Total DBH (in) Dripline (ft) Health Recommendation Comments 1396 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 64 64 80 Fair Retain 1397 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 64 25 69 86 Fair Retain 1398 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 66 66 83 Fair Retain 1399 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 16 16 23 28 Fair Retain 1400 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 31 30 43 54 Fair Retain 1401 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 12 12 11 11 13 15 16 34 43 Fair Retain 1403 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 8 8 10 Fair Retain 1404 Eucalyptus sp. Eucalyptus 19 19 24 Fair Retain
1405 Eucalyptus sp. Eucalyptus 35 8 9 37 46 Fair Retain 1406 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 20 9 9 10 6 10 11 18 32 48 60 Fair Retain 1409 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 6 6 8 Good Retain 1410 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 9 9 11 Good Retain 1411 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 6 6 8 11 Good Retain 1412 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 8 6 6 12 15 Good Retain 1413 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 12 12 15 Good Retain 1414 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 9 9 11 Good Retain Individual Stem DBH (in)
68 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 – City Park Attachment C Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com

ATTACHMENT C

Photo Log
69 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 - City Park 1 Appendix C Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com Photo 1. Tree 1302
Photo 3. Tree 1345
Photo 2. Tree 1309
Proposed Removals
70 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 - City Park 2 Appendix C Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com Photo 5. Tree 1316 Photo 6. Tree 1339
Potential Removals
71 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 – City Park Attachment D Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.co m

ATTACHMENT D

Best Management Practices

72 Attachment D
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com

Fencing shall be installed at the edge of the root zone unless alternate location is determined essential to the construction of the project as approved. The root zone is determined to be the area located within a distance of 15 times the trunk diameter in all directions. Fencing shall consist of chain link or plastic link fence, rigidly supported and maintained during all construction at a minimum height of 4' 0" above grade. Removal of fencing shall only be at the direction of the City planning department. All trees to be fenced shall be clearly marked to notify all personnel and city inspectors that the subject tree(s) are to be fenced at all times during construction. • Fenced areas shall not be used for material stockpile, storage or vehicle parking. Dumping of materials, chemicals or garbage shall be prohibited within the fenced area. Fenced areas shall be maintained in a natural condition and not compacted. Fenced areas shall be maintained at natural or existing grade.
73 Attachment D
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com • Utility and drain lines shall be located outside the root zone of all preserved trees unless essential to develop property as approved. Where alternative routes are not available, any digging or trenching necessary for utility conduit, pipe, wire and drain lines shall not cut any major root.

Major roots are those with a diameter of 2 inches or more. Utility lines shall not be within 3 feet of the trunk of any tree.
• All approved construc
tion within the root zone shall observe the following construction practices:

1. Hand trenching at point or line of grade cuts closest to the trunk to expose major roots 2" or more in diameter.

3. Exposed major roots shall be cut with a saw to form a smooth surface and avoid tearing or jagged edges.

Should the health and vigor of any tree decline it will be treated as appropriately recommended by a certified arborist or qualified forester.

1. Fine Detail pruning-limbs under 2-inch diameter are removed

2. Medium Detail Pruning–Limbs between 2- and 4-inch diameter

3. Structural Enhancement–limbs greater than 4-inch diameter.

4. Broken and cracked limbs-removed will be removed in high traffic areas of concern.

Crown thinning is the cleaning out of or removal of dead diseased, weakly attached, or low vigor branches from a tree crown and consist of the following steps:
• All trees will be pre-assessed on how the tree will be pruned from the top down. 74 Attachment D
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com • Tree trimmers will favor branches with strong, U-shaped angles of attachment and where possible remove branches with weak, V-shaped angles of attachment and/or included bark.
• Lateral branches will be evenly spaced on the main stem of young trees and areas of fine pruning.
• Branches that rub or cross another branch will be removed where possible. • Lateral branches will be no more than one-half to three-quarters of the diameter of the stem to discourage the development of co-dominant stems where feasible. • In most cases trimmers will not remove more than one-quarter of the living crown of a tree at one time. If it is necessary to remove more, it will be done over successive years.

Crown restoration is used to improve the structure and appearance of trees that have been topped or severely pruned using heading cuts. One of three sprouts on main branch stubs s hould be selected to reform a natural appearing crown. Selected vigorous sprouts may need to be thinned to ensure adequate attachment for the size of the sprout. Restoration may require several years of pruning. 75 City of Marina Blight Removal 2022 – City Park Attachment C Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. | 947 Cass Street, Suite 5 | Monterey, CA 93940 | (831) 373 – 4341 | www.ddaplanning.com

ATTACHMENT E

Tree Removal Permit Application
76 City of Marina City of Marina
Community Development Department
Mailing: 211 HILLCREST AVENUE
Office: 209 CYPRESS AVENUE
MARINA, CA 93933
831.884.1220; FAX 831.384.0425
www.cityofmarina.org

PLANNING APPLICATION
Project Address/Location: _____________ APN:____________________________________ Applicant(s):

Name:
___ Email: _____________________________
Property Owner:

Name:

Mailing Address:

Phone: ___ Email: _____________________________
Property Owner Authorization:

Signed Date
Applicant/Representative Certification:

Signed Date
Indemnification Agreement:

Signed Date
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:

Date Application Submitted: Fee Collected: $
Date Application Complete: Receipt Number:

File Number(s):

Planner Initials: Associated Permits:

Remediation/Demo at City Park
City of Marina
Mailing Address:

Phone:

SAME AS ABOVE
Project Description: What do you want to do?
Removal permit request for 5 trees to facilitate the project and maintain health and safety of the urban forest in City Park.
77 VICINITY MAP - CITY OF MARINA
Possible Ballfield locations
Existing park, no ballfields
Existing park with ballfieldsPlanned park
Glorya Jean
Tate Park
Windy Hill
Park
Vince Di
Maggio Park
Los Arboles
Sports Complex
Preston
Park
Locke-Paddon
Park
Hilltop Park
Dunes Park
Sea Haven
Park
Marina Station
Potential Sports Fields
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 85
86 87
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
FIELD LAYOUT - CONCEPT 2

PRESTON PARK

PRESTON DRIVE

MARINA, CA
1" = 50'-0"
03 . 08 . 2023
01 OF 01

RENOVATED BASEBALL FIELDRENOVATED SOFTBALL FIELD

PROPOSED BASEBALL

FIELD LOCATION

PROPOSED SOCCER

FIELD LOCATION

PROTECTED MONTEREY

GILIA SPECIES

PROPOSED SOCCER

FIELD LOCATION

PROPOSED RESTROOM &

CONCESSIONS BUILDING

PROPOSED SOFTBALL

FIELD LOCATION

PROPOSED PARKING LOT

EXISTING PARKING LOT

PRESTON DRIVE
219
March 13, 2023 Item No: 13e

Honorable Mayor and Members City Council of the City Council March 21, 2023

CITY COUNCIL RECEIVE A PRESENTATION ON OBJECTIVE
DESIGN STANDARDS (ODS) FROM THE CITY’S CONSULTANT,
RAIMI+ASSOCIATES (R+A). AS THIS IS A PRESENTATION ONLY, NO ACTION IS REQUESTED AT THIS TIME. THE PRESENTATION IS
EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PER SEC. 15378 OF THE
CEQA GUIDELINES.

REQUEST:

It is requested that the City C ouncil receive the consultant’s Objective Design Standards (ODS) presentation, receive any input from the public, and provide its own feedback on the key takeaways and community feedback presented. There is no action required by the City Council at this time.

BACKGROUND:

On September 14, 2022, the City executed an Agreement f or Professional Services (Agreement) with Raimi+Associates (R+A) to prep are Objective Design Standards (ODS) in compliance w ith Senate Bill (SB) 330. The State has defined ODS as standards that:

“[Involves] no personal or subjective judgement by a pub lic official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or cr iterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public offic ial before submittal of an application.”
- California State Senate Bill 330 (Section 66300.7)

Senate Bill 330 , effective January 1, 2020, requires individual jurisdi ctions to establish a clear and impartial approval process for all housing projects. The act requires a local agency to approve a housing development project that complies with applicable objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria that were in effect at the time the application was deemed to be complete . A project may not be denied or its density lowered if it meets all objective standards. In order to deny a project the City must base its decision upon demonstrable and written health and safety findings that places the burden of proof on the local agency.1 Furthermore, the courts could impose a $10,000/unit fine on a local agency if that agency denies a project under these circumstances.

In other words, a multi-family housing p roject that is consistent with the existi ng general plan an d zoning code at the time the project is dee med complete must be approved by the local agency and the City’s current subjective design review guidelines cannot be applied.

ANALYSIS:

Since these efforts began in September of last year, the c onsultant and staff team have developed and/or completed the following tasks:

1. Completed a City tour to understand existing condition s, revi ewed re cently appr oved multi - family and mixed-use developments, and reviewed the City’s existing Design Review ordin ance and related design guidelines;

1 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB330 1 2. Conducted stakeholder interviews with loca l designers and architects as well as with local developers including Eden Housing, an affordable developer with several properties in the City;

3. Created an ODS website and sent o ut Facebook and Nextdoor social media blasts to inform residents about the proce ss and opportuni ties to provide input through the Visual Pre ference Survey. The con sultants also prepared a Fact Sheet (EXHIBIT A) which has been housed on the website;

4. With the results of the existing conditions review, stakeholder interviews, and survey responses, R+A prepared a Site Analysis & I ssue Identification Summary Memo (EXHIBIT B) which will help inform the ODS Framework Plan and draft ODS Ordinance; and

5. Presented a status update to the Planning Commission on March 9, 2023.

As noted in the Fact Sheet, the goal of objective design standar ds is to eliminat e the need for personal interpretation and uncertainty, in favor of language that encourages a transparent and streamlined review process. Previously, local development standards often con tained ambiguous or unclear standards and requirements for residential development. Individual applicants and planners would both have to interpret and negotiate vague termin ology such as “ high quality,” “ consistent design ,” or “sensitive to loc al context.” This level of subjectivity and lack of clarity of ten resulted in i nconsistent interpretations, as well as prolonged approv al processes that impeded the creation of new housing and development.

Another important aspect of ODS is that these sta ndards focus on building height, bu lk, massing, setbacks, useable open space, the pedestrian experience in terms of proximity t o the street and building openings onto the street , and façade articulation rather than architectural style, per se. Although certain architectural styles may a ppear through the imp lementation of these aspect s of site development , the ODS neither encourage nor discourage any specific architectural styles. Rather than focusing on a particular architectural style (e.g., Asian, Adobe, Contemporary), the developer would be encouraged to incorporate features of site and architectural design that draws on the cultural diversity of Marina.

As with many recent statutes and regulations passed through the State legislature, SB 3 30 is intended to create a more streamlined pathway to encourage the development of new housing to reduce the impacts of the State’s ongoing housing crisis. As mentioned previously, this law went into effect in January 2020 and the City of Marina is behind on the adopt ion of th ese required standards and, therefore, subject to the penalties incorporated into the bill. These standards will apply citywide, but outside the Coastal zone and outside the areas already regulated for design by adopted Specific Plans.

CONCLUSION:

This presentation to the City Council is for informational purposes and to discuss the overall direction and takeaways from the public process to date.

Respectfully submitted, REVIEWED/CONCUR:

_________________________ ________________________ _____________________ Alyson Hunter, AICP Guido Persicone, AICP Layne Long Interim Planning Manager Director City Manager
Community Development Dept. Community Development Dept. City of Marina City of Marina City of Marina

2 Project Overview
The City of Marina is embarking on a project to create objective design standards for all new residential and residential mixed-use projects in the city. Recent State laws require local jurisdictions to adopt objective standards and streamline their housing development and review process to ensure high quality design and facilitate efficient delivery of new residential units.

California State Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) requires individual jurisdictions to establish a clear and impartial approval process for all housing projects.

Today, the City primarily relies on the Zoning Ordinance and five Specific Plans to address the character of new residential development. These documents include objective development regulations and subjective design guidelines. The goal of this project is to create objective design standards that apply citywide to areas outside of these Specific Plans. These design standards will allow flexibility in design, but require key elements that support the pedestrian experience, create human-scaled buildings, and preserve the character of Marina’s neighborhoods. These objective design standards will be formally incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance once approved by City Council.

City of Marina
Objective Standards Fact Sheet
Why are Objective Design Standards Necessary?
The goal of objective design standards is to eliminate the need for personal interpretation and uncertainty, in favor of language that encourages a transparent and streamlined review process. Previously, local development standards often contained ambiguous or unclear standards and requirements for residential development.

Individual applicants and planners would both have to interpret and negotiate vague terminology such as “high quality,” “consistent design, ” or “sensitive to local context. ” This level of subjectivity and lack of clarity often resulted in inconsistent interpretations, as well as prolonged approval processes that impeded the creation of new housing and development.

What are Objective Design Standards?
Objective Design Standards are defined by State law as standards that:
“[Involves] no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal of an application.” - California State Senate Bill 330 (Section 66300.7)
These standards typically contain concise and quantifiable language that are designed for consistent interpretation by designers, reviewers applicants, and approval bodies.

The language is clear and explicit in its direction, and balances flexibility in design with a universal set of rules that facilitate an efficient review process and result in buildings that are appropriate for their context and environment.

EXHIBIT A
3 Examples of Subjective Guidelines and Objective Standards Where will these standards apply? How long will this project last? Where can I learn more?
Objective design standards will apply to new projects
that are either:

The City of Marina is collaborating with a consultant to prepare objective design standards in the upcoming
months. The final standards are expected to be presented to City Council for adoption by late Summer 2023.

The Planning Department will soon be launching a new
webpage where updates will be shared.

Questions? Please Contact:

Alyson Hunter, Senior Planner, City of Marina
[email protected] | (831) 884-1251
www.CityofMarina.org
Project Schedule
Fall/ Winter
2022

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Review Legislation,
Zoning, & Specific Plans +
Identify Issues &
Opportunities

PROJECT

UNDERSTANDING
Fall 2022/
Spring 2023
Staﬀ & Public
Engagement

OBJECTIVE

STANDARDS

DIRECTION
Winter 2022/
Spring 2023
Draft Standards &
Site Analysis

OBJECTIVE

STANDARDS

PREPARATION
Summer 2023
Public Review &
Adoption Hearings
REVIEW +

ADOPTION
• Single-family Residential Projects
(of more than 1 dwelling unit)
• Multi-Family R
esidential Projects
• Mixed-use Pr
ojects
(with at least two-thirds residential component)
New individual single-family homes, commercial-
only projects, and other project types still need to
meet existing development standards in the Zoning
Ordinance, Specific Plan design guidance (if applicable), and if discretionary approval is required, additional
standards on a project-by-project basis.

Subjective Language
Provide articulation to reduce the apparent
mass and scale of the building, and to be
sensitive to the neighborhood context.

Objective Language
For every 100 feet of building length, there shall
be a vertical massing break along the facade
comprised of an offset of at least 5 feet in depth
and 10 feet in length.

Attachment 1
4 Marina Objective Design
Standards: Site Analysis +
Issue Identification
Summary Memo
February 16, 2023

EXHIBIT B
5 Marina Objective Design Standards: Site Analysis + Issue Identification Summary Memo

raimi + associates 2

Site Analysis + Issue Identification Summary Memo

Table of Contents
I. Introduction + Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 3 Key Takeaways ................................................................................................................................................ 3 II. Staff & Community Feedback .................................................................................................................... 4 Staff Feedback ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Focus Group Feedback .................................................................................................................................. 4 Visual Preference Survey Feedback .............................................................................................................. 5 III. Existing Regulations ............................................................................................................................... 7 Zoning Ordinance and Citywide Design Guidelines and Standards......................................................... 7 Specific Plans ................................................................................................................................................... 7 General Plan .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Local Coastal Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 8 IV. Existing Regulations: Issues + Opportunities ...................................................................................... 9 Zoning Ordinance and Citywide Design Guidelines and Standards......................................................... 9 V. Site Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 13 Areas of the City where ODS will Apply .................................................................................................... 13 Zoning and Parcel Characteristics .............................................................................................................. 14 Opportunity Sites ......................................................................................................................................... 15 VI. Recently Approved/Pending Projects ............................................................................................... 16 Summary of Findings from Recent Projects .............................................................................................. 16 VII. Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................ 16

Attachment 2
6 Marina Objective Design Standards: Site Analysis + Issue Identification Summary Memo

raimi + associates 3

I. Introduction + Purpose
The City of Marina is embarking on a project to create objective design standards for all new residential and residential mixed-use projects in the city. Recent State laws require local jurisdictions to adopt objective standards and streamline their housing development and review process to ensure high quality design and facilitate efficient delivery of new residential units.

Development of residential multi-family projects and mixed-use projects in the City of Marina is currently regulated by a number of documents and policies. These regulatory documents include the City’s General Plan (update in progress), Zoning Ordinance, four specific plans and several master plans, and other key ordinances and documents.

As an introductory exercise for the Objective Design Standards (ODS) effort, this memo provides:
• A high-level summary of feedback from City Staff and the Community Development Director • A high-level summary of feedback from focus group participants • A brief summary of the City’s current regulatory language as it applies to development and design regulations for multi-family and mixed-use projects • A review and analysis of recently approved or pending project plans for single-family and/or multi-family housing in the City
• Identification of issues and opportunities, and key topic areas for the ODS to address • Identification of areas in the City where the ODS will apply and key opportunity sites • Results of the community Visual Preference Survey
• Next steps in the process

Key Takeaways

• Staff and Practitioner Feedback:
o Conversations with City staff and local developers and designers have revealed a lack of a single defining historical architectural character in the City and identified several weaknesses in the existing regulations as they apply to the design of individual projects, and their subsequent review.
o Topics such as site context, parking, building massing, articulation, and materiality emerged as areas where the regulations need to be improved. o There was general consensus that objective design standards should allow flexibility and creativity in design.
• Existing Regulatory Documents:
o The City of Marina does not have consistent objective design standards across its various regulatory documents. Design standards and guidelines appear in the zoning code, specific plans and master plans, the General Plan, and additional documents such the City of Marina Design Guidelines and Standards for Landscape, Site and Parking Lot Design, Site Lighting, and Signs. The content, structure, and level of clarity vary significantly, presenting both reviewers and applicants with a challenging range of design considerations scattered across multiple documents. This project presents an opportunity to pull together this disparate design guidance into one complete and comprehensive set of objective design standards that will cover a broad range of topic areas including site planning, building design, open space, parking, landscaping, and lighting.

Attachment 2
7 Marina Objective Design Standards: Site Analysis + Issue Identification Summary Memo

raimi + associates 4

o Since many of the specific plan areas are already built out, and/or are in the process of being updated (e.g., Downtown Vitalization Plan), this memo does not analyze the four existing documents in detail. However, the City could consider applying these Objective Design Standards to the Downtown area in the interim before the Downtown Vitalization Plan is adopted.
• Recently Approved and Pending Projects: A review of recently approved and pending projects revealed several key topic areas to focus on in the Objective Design Standards, including building orientation and entries, appropriate setbacks and transitions both to the street and neighboring development, building modulation, articulation, colors, and materials, parking orientation and design, and open space.

• Community Feedback: Results from the community visual preference survey suggest that the topics or characteristics most important to the community are architectural features (e.g., windows, roof style/pitch, level of detail, trim, articulation), colors and materials, and massing and modulation.

• Site Analysis: Most of the areas of the City where the Objective Design Standards will apply are largely single -family neighborhoods that are built out and unlikely to redevelop in the short term. However, there are two large opportunity sites for new multi -family and/or mixed -use development: Cypress Knolls and the City-owned vacant parcels along the eastern boundary of the City at Imjin Rd, 6th Ave, and 8th St.

II. Staff & Community Feedback
Staff Feedback
The project team has thus far completed several meetings with City staff to gather feedback and insight regarding project review, engagement with Objective Design Standards, and project examples.

Summary of Staff Feedback
• Marina lacks a defining architectural style or character. • Recent projects are trending towards modern architecture. • Current height and parking requirements hinder development. • Because the Downtown Vitalization Plan has not been adopted, most projects that fall within Downtown must go through a Specific Plan process that establishes specific development and design standards for the project.
• Objective Design Standards should be flexible and accommodate a range of architectural styles.

Focus Group Feedback
Recognizing that design standards will impact the work of both City s taff as well as design practitioners and applicants, two focus group meetings were facilitated where developers and designers were invited to share insights, with particular emphasis on past or ongoing projects located in Marina.

Summary of Focus Group Feedback
• Character/Style:
o Marina lacks historical character and a defining architectural style. o The focus should be more on the direction/style Marina wants to embrace in the future, rather than looking to the past.

Attachment 2
8 Marina Objective Design Standards: Site Analysis + Issue Identification Summary Memo

raimi + associates 5

o Appropriate architectural styles could include Monterey and California/Mediterranean forms and finishes, alongside more contemporary/modern architecture, or bringing in style influences from Fort Ord (barracks style).
• Modulation/Articulation:
o Focus on creating façade rhythm and pattern, but do not require it to repeat at regular/specified intervals.
o Simplicity of design is preferred over heavily articulated facades. • Parking: Parking requirements are overly burdensome
• Open Space:
o Balconies are highly desirable in Marina.
o Roof decks are a good way to provide common open space but can be problematic in Marina due to climate and durability (i.e., water issues). • Materials:
o Encourage variation in materials.
o Materials need to be durable to withstand the local climate. • Context: Need better site and context sensitivity.
• Other:
o Vertical mixed-use and retail ground-floor development is challenging in Marina. o ODS should allow flexibility in design.
• City Review Processes:
o Current processes and timelines work well and are not overly burdensome to developers.

Visual Preference Survey Feedback
The proj ect team released a month- long visual preference survey to better understand community priorities and concerns that should be considered when creating O bjective Design Standards. There was a total of 103 survey responses, mostly from residents who have liv ed in the City for less than five years. Most respondents were between 35 – 55 years in age, or older. The graphs below show the demographic breakdown of the survey respondents.

Attachment 2
9 Marina Objective Design Standards: Site Analysis + Issue Identification Summary Memo

raimi + associates 6

The following provides a brief summary of the survey results.

Summary of Visual Preference Survey Responses
• Generally, the community regards the following three characteristics as most important for designing a successful building (in order of importance):
o Architectural features (e.g., windows, roof style/pitch, level of detail, trim, articulation) o Colors and materials
o Massing and modulation (e.g., projections, recesses, ground- floor pedestrian -scale, corner treatments, etc.)
• Character/Architectural Style
o Several of the contemporary/modern building examples received more positive overall responses from the community.
o However, some of the individual comments were mixed, with several respondents discouraging modern architecture in favor of Craftsman, Mediter ranean, or Midcentury styles for Marina.
o Some respondents echoed focus group feedback, calling for a unique identity for Marina.
• Height/Intensity
o In general, the height/intensity of the building examples did not seem to impact respondents’ views on how successful the building was in terms of design quality. o However, individual comments were more mixed, with some respondents calling for more housing and others asking the City to limit buildings to 2 -3 stories in the areas where the ODS will apply.
• Materials
o Community members seem to prefer buildings that use a mix of materials and textures (e.g., wood, stucco, metal).
• Frontage/Setbacks
o Individual survey responses indicated a desire for larger setbacks with more landscaping along the street frontage.

Attachment 2
10 Marina Objective Design Standards: Site Analysis + Issue Identification Summary Memo

raimi + associates 7

• Other
o Many of the individual comments were regarding parking, and requests to require sufficient garage parking for new housing developments. o Building maintenance seems to be a concern, suggesting that architectural elements and materials need to be selected with Marina’s climate and durability in mind.

III. Existing Regulations
At present, development standards and design guidance appear in the Zoning Ordinance, specific plans, and other guiding documents such as the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and City of Marina Design Guidelines and Standards for Landscape, Site and Parking Lot Design, Site Lighting, and Signs .

Although the degree of detail, specificity, and subjectivity varies considerably across these documents , the City is responsible for developing a new and consistent set of objective standards that are uniformly understood and accessible to both project applicants and internal reviewers.

Zoning Ordinance and Citywide Design Guidelines and Standards The current Zoning Ordinance does not include a dedicated chapter for design standards, and these are generally absent from the code. Instead, many of the City’s development and design standards are located in the City of Marina Design Guidelines and Standards for Landscape, Site and Parking Lot Design, Site Lighting, and Signs. Refer to Section IV below for more detailed analysis of the Zoning Ordinance and citywide Design Guidelines and Standards.

Specific Plans
There are four specific plans that uniquely regulate portions of the city:
• Downtown Vitalization (In progress)
• University Villages (Dunes)
• Seahaven (formerly Marina Heights)
• Marina Station
These specific plans represent unique areas of influence within the City of Marina and feature unique and individual sets of development requirements and criteria. This objective design standards project will be complimentary yet independent of efforts to update specific plans. The expectation is that each specific plan update will be individually responsible for updating its design guidelines and regulations to feature clear and objective design standards.

Since many of the specific plan areas are already built out, and/or are in the process of being updated (e.g., Downtown Vitalization Plan), this memo does not analyze these existing documents in detail.

However, the City could consider applying these Objective Design Standards to the Downtown area in the interim before the Downtown Vitalization Plan is adopted.

General Plan
The General Plan includes limited design guidance for development of multi-family and mixed-use residential projects.

The Community Design & Development Element provides some broad guidance on community character and design principles for the City’s edges , as well as spe cific development and design principles for three areas of the City: University Village, Reservation Road Shopping Area, and Armstrong Ranch. The Land Use Element contains a mix of broad policy statements as well as detailed zoning-type language, such as use lists for each designation.

Attachment 2
11 Marina Objective Design Standards: Site Analysis + Issue Identification Summary Memo

raimi + associates 8

The General Plan goals and policies most frequently cited as findings during the review of multi -family and mixed-use projects are as follows:

General Plan Goals and Policies
Community Goals
• Goal 1.17: The overall goal of the Marina General Plan is the creation of a community which provides a high quality of life for all its residents; which offers a broad range of housing, transportation, and recreation choices; and which conserves irreplaceable natural resources. • Goal 1.18.1: Housing within the means of households of all economic levels, ages and lifestyles, and therefore, a diversified and integrated housing supply in which new residential development emphasizes a mix of housing types and lot sizes at the neighborhood level. • Goal 1.18.5: A city designed for and attractive to pedestrians, in which most of the housing, shops, businesses, and community facilities are within easy walking distance of each other. • Goal 1.18.8: A city physically and visually distinguish- able from the other communities of the Monterey Bay region, with a sense of place and identity in which residents can take pride. • Goal 1.18.15: Attractive, distinctive residential neighborhoods and commercial districts which contribute to the overall vitality, image and identity of the city.

Community Land Use Policies
• Policy 2.4.5: Future land development, whether it involves development of new areas, infilling of existing neighborhoods or commercial areas…shall be organized and have sufficient intensity…to create a pedestrian -oriented community.

Housing Policies
• Policy 2.31.6: New housing shall be constructed at densities and in patterns which conserve land, reduce reliance on the private automobile and result in walkable, attractive neighborhoods. • Policy 2.31.8: New housing shall be integrated into the fabric of the City in such a way that it complements existing housing areas and contributes to the overall stability, image, and sense of community of the City.

Transit and Supportive Land Use Polices
• Policy 3.35.1: Safe and secure bicycle parking shall…be provided in all new multi -family residential projects.
• Policy 3.38.6: Internal Circulation. Parking lots should be attractively landscaped and the pedestrian circulation paths clearly evident to provide direct, well lit, internal pedestrian circulation networks provided to building entrances, adjacent public rights -of-way and public transit.

The City is currently undergoing an update to the General Plan, which will be used to guide the development of the objective design standards as feasible given the timelines for each project. The ODS team will engage directly with the General Plan Update project in the coming months.

Local Coastal Plan
The City of Marina Local Coastal Plan provides guidance on coastal planning issues in Marina, including ecological issues, public access to and along the beach, and land use designations which are consistent with the policies of the local plan and Coastal Act. The local coastal zone boundary includes a very small area of single-family homes in the area east of Highway 1 known as the Vernal Pond -Brown Bulb Ranch Planning Area (around Robin Drive). The land use designation in this area is “Low -Density Residential,” Attachment 2
12 Marina Objective Design Standards: Site Analysis + Issue Identification Summary Memo

raimi + associates 9

which has an average density of five to eight dwelling units per acre. The Local Coastal Plan provides the following guidance for residential uses in this area:
• New housing units in the Coastal Zone shall be designed on the site to protect existing sensitive habitat areas, reduce the cost of the unit and conserve energy. Clustering and other techniques of minimizing visual impacts and enhancing the feasibility of desirable forms of housing may be required.
• Residential land uses are appropriate as long as visual resource objectives are met and proper setbacks and protection are provided to the vernal ponds and their adjacent wetlands. • Adjacent development shall be designed to provide adequate setbacks fo r habitat protection, preclude unauthorized access to the ecological reserve, and provide for interception of street drainage and other measures required for maintenance of water quality in the pond.

Residential properties in the Local Coastal Zone are not exempt from the requirements of SB330, therefore the Objective Design Standards will apply to this area. The City will need to amend the Local Coastal Plan to adopt the Objective Design Standards for residential parcels in the Local Coastal Zone.

IV. Existing Regulations: Issues + Opportunities
Design guidelines, in some form, are currently scattered throughout many regulatory documents. For the purposes of this memo, the guidelines have been condensed into broader topics and key categories that are shared across single-family, multi-family, and residential mixed-use development.

These topics have been analyzed for weaknesses and deficiencies, to help understand which areas necessitate minor revisions versus significant additions or alterations. Key takeaways and recommendations are summarized at the end of this section.

Zoning Ordinance and Citywide Design Guidelines and Standards Analysis and Issue Identification
• Heights and Density. Maximum density standards for multi-family and mixed-use development are very low at 25-35 du/acre, which will likely be addressed through the General Plan Update process.

• Single-Family Residential Development: Design standards specific to single-family residential development (attached or detached) are completely absent from the zoning ordinance and citywide Design Guidelines and Standards. The Objective Design Standards do not apply to the construction or renovation of individual single-family homes, but will address single-family residential developments of more than one unit.

• Mixed Use Development: The Zoning Ordinance contains limited design criteria/findings for mixed-use development in Section 17.16.170 (Development standards—Mixed use developments) for the C-R zone and Section 17.18.020 (Development standards—Mixed use developments) for the C-1 zone. The criteria are broad and subjective in nature, focusing on compatibility and privacy.
o Example Language. Site and Architectural Design Review. The design review approval of mixed use projects shall be based upon the following criteria:

1. Promoting internal compatibility between the different uses on the same site; Attachment 2
13 Marina Objective Design Standards: Site Analysis + Issue Identification Summary Memo

raimi + associates 10

2. Minimizing effects potentially detrimental to on-site or neighboring residential use such as, but not limited to, potential noise, glare and odors;

3. Ensuring that the design of residential units of a mixed use development is of a residential character, and that privacy between residential units and between other uses on the site is maximized through careful siting and design;

4. Encouraging integration of the street pedestrian environment with retail commercial uses on the site through the use of plazas, courtyards, walkways, and street furniture. • Ground Floor Interface and Commercial Design: Design standards specific to ground floor spaces are completely absent from the Zoning Ordinance and citywide Design Guidelines and Standards document. Additionally, current regulatory documents lack any design guidance for the interface between the ground floor and public realm, including building frontages/entries, setback character, etc.

• Building Design: Building design standards (massing, modulation, articulation, materials, etc.) are completely absent from the Zoning Ordinance and citywide Design Guidelines and Standards.

• Neighborhood Transitions: Per the Zoning Ordinance, multi-family residential and residential mixed-use development is required to provide deeper rear setbacks abutting single-family zoned properties. However, the current regulations lack additional transition standards such as upper level stepbacks or other standards to address daylight, privacy, and compatibility between new development and existing neighborhoods.

o Example Language: Minimum rear yard required in the R-4 districts shall be ten feet except where the rear yards abuts any lot in the R-1 or R-2 district, in which case the required rear yard shall be twenty feet.

• Site Design and Parking: Parking standards are dispersed between the Zoning Ordinance and citywide Design Guidelines and Standards. Parking ratios for multi-family residential uses are regulated by unit size and are quite burdensome:
o Example Language from Section 17.44.020: Multiple Dwellings.

1. One-bedroom units and efficiencies: one space for each dwelling unit which shall be covered plus one additional space for each five dwelling units or fraction thereof,

2. Two-bedroom units: one and one-half spaces for each dwelling unit, one of which shall be covered plus one additional space for each five dwelling units or fraction thereof,

3. Three or more bedroom units: two spaces for each dwelling unit, one of which shall be covered plus one additional space for each five dwelling units or fraction thereof, Condominiums approved under Section 17.66 (Development Standards for Condominium/Planned Development Projects and Condominium Conversions) are even more burdensome at 2 covered spaces required for a 2-bedroom unit. However, the code does provide for parking reductions for mixed-use developments, senior housing, and developments within a quarter mile of a transit center.

All site and parking design standards are contained within the citywide Design Guidelines a nd Standards document. There are minimal, if any, design guidelines for parking Attachment 2
14 Marina Objective Design Standards: Site Analysis + Issue Identification Summary Memo

raimi + associates 11

placement/frontage, structured parking, and parking lot screening. The site design, access, and parking landscaping standards are predominantly subjective in nature. o Example L anguage: Potentially large expanses of paved areas accommodating automobile parking shall be broken/softened by the introduction of planting areas or alternatively by the use of paving materials such as “turf block.” Buildings shall be located as close to the street as practical with as little parking as possible separating buildings from the street.
• Fences and Walls: Currently regulated under the Zo ning Ordinance Chapter 17.42 (General Zoning Regulations), the code regulates the height of fences and walls, but does not include any design guidelines or standards. Additionally, there is one subjective guideline related to fences in the citywide Design Guidelines and Standards:

o Example Language: Any perimeter fencing shall be in accordance with the heig ht limitations of Section 17.06.060 of the Zoning Ordinance and shall be a “good neighbor” design; i.e., have the “structural” side of the fence facing in towards the project site or have an identical appearance on both sides of the fence.

• Usable Open Space: The Zoning Ordinance includes requirements for both common and private usable open space for multi-family residential developments, regulated by the unit size/number of bedrooms. The code provides some minimum objective dimensions for private open space/balconies, but lacks minimum area and linear dimensions for common open spaces. Additionally, common open space includes interior side and rear setback areas, but without a minimum dimension, which could lead to narrow and unusable setbacks being counted towards common open space. There are opportunities to improve on these standards by regulating open space requirements by building type/density rather than unit size, and adding additional design standards for minimum dimensions, landscaping, and ameniti es.

o Example Language from the R-4 Zone: Total Open Space Required. The minimum area of common and private open space required for multiple-family dwellings or three or more single-family dwellings on a building site in the C-R district shall be two hundred fifty square feet per single-room occupancy unit, three hundred square feet per efficiency or one-bedroom unit, and fifty additional square feet for each additional bedroom. A portion or all of the required open space shall be private; otherwise it shall be shared in common.

• Landscaping: Landscaping is not covered in the Zoning Ordinance, but extensive development and design requirements are included in the citywide Design Guidelines and Standards. Language regulating landscaping is much closer to objective, with requirements for drought tolerant species, non-plant materials/mulch, limitations on turf, tree species/placement, etc. The scope of this work effort will focus on providing supplemental landscape design standards for screening and buffering between uses which are absent in the Design Guidelines and Standards document.
o Example Language: A minimum of 65 percent of the total of all landscaped areas shall be landscaped with drought -tolerant plant material requiring minimal irrigation once established and shall be irrigated separately from any areas, which have higher water demands.

Attachment 2
15 Marina Objective Design Standards: Site Analysis + Issue Identification Summary Memo

raimi + associates 12

• Lighting: The citywide Design Guidelines and Standards document includes some limited guidelines for lighting, but most are broad and subjectively written, witho ut reference to measurement/thresholds for illumination levels or color. Standards and guidelines for height and type/design of fixtures are absent, and an area that can be addressed by the Objective Design Standards project.

o Example Language: General site and parking lot lighting should tend towards warmer color spectrum, which is typical of incandescent and sodium-vapor lighting sources.

• Utilities, Service Areas, and Equipment: Design guidelines regarding utilities, service areas, and equipment (e.g., trash enclosures, building equipment, etc.) are minimal, and currently located within the “Site and Parking Lot Guidelines and Standards” section of the citywide Design Guidelines and Standards. They lack objective and comprehensive standa rds for dimensions, screening, and materials.

Key Takeaways and Recommendations
• The City’s current regulatory documents lack standards and guidelines for single -family residential development, mixed -use development and ground -floor interface and commercial space, and building design (massing, modulation, articulation, materials, etc.). This project will address this gap by providing a comprehensive set of site and building design standards for single-family residential/townhome development, multi -family residential, and residential mixed-use focusing on supporting the pedestrian experience, creating human-scaled buildings, ensuring high-quality building design and materials, and preserv ing the character of Marina’s neighborhoods.
• While current regulations address neighborhood transitions, landscaping, site design, parking, and lighting, existing standards and guidelines are limited and predominantly written in a subjective manner that lacks clarity and leaves room for interpretation. The language for some of the exi sting standards and guidelines should be revised to make them clear and o bjective.

There is also an opportunity to expand on the current standards and guidelines to address deficiencies, focusing on the priorities identified by s taff, practitioners, and community members.
• While outside of the scope for this project, the City may wish to consider the following code revisions to promote multi-family housing and mixed-use development:
o Lowering the parking requirements for multi-family residential developments. o Revising open space standards such that they are regulated by density /building type rather than unit size , and adding minimum dimensions and area requirements for common open space.
o Increasing the maximum density for multi-family residential and mixed-use zones.

Attachment 2
16 Marina Objective Design Standards: Site Analysis + Issue Identification Summary Memo

raimi + associates 13

V. Site Analysis
The following site analysis provides a visual inventory of where the Objective Design Standards will apply within the City, as well as an understanding of key parcel characteristics and opportunity sites for new single-family, multi-family, and residential mixed-use development in these areas.

Areas of the City where ODS will Apply
Much of the City is governed by four specific plans and several master plans . The following maps highlight the residential parcels that fall outside of the specific plan areas, and thus where the citywide ODS will apply, as well as the zoning for these parcels.

Areas in the City where ODS will Apply

Attachment 2
17 Marina Objective Design Standards: Site Analysis + Issue Identification Summary Memo

raimi + associates 14

Zoning and Parcel Characteristics
The following map shows the zoning/land use for all of the parcels where the Objective Design Standards will be applicable. The majority of the parcels covered by the citywide ODS are zoned for single-family residential development. Typical parcel sizes for detached single-family homes are 7,000 – 9,000 square feet. Multi-family parcels range greatly in size, with no typical parcel size.

Zoning for ODS Applicable Areas

Attachment 2
18 Marina Objective Design Standards: Site Analysis + Issue Identification Summary Memo

raimi + associates 15

Opportunity Sites
The following map shows only the areas of the City where the O bjective Design Standards will apply, and highlights vacant and underutilized parcels (defined as parcels where the building to land value is less than 0.5). There are only a few large parcels or opportunity sites where significant MFR/mixed use residential development could occur in areas of the city outside of SPs – namely Cypress Knolls and the City-owned mixed-use parcels bounded by Imjin Rd ., 6
th Ave., and 8 th St. Most other vacant and
underutilized parcels are small single-family parcels scattered across with city, with few opportunities for consolidation.

Vacant and Underutilized Parcels in ODS Applicable Areas

Pending Project
Attachment 2
19 Marina Objective Design Standards: Site Analysis + Issue Identification Summary Memo

raimi + associates 16

VI. Recently Approved/Pending Projects
The team analyzed recently built, approved, and pending residential projects in the City of Marina to understand how current standards are being applied and glean insights into the key design characteristics of each project, including key concerns and sent iment from the public and decision makers on these projects. Several themes emerged that point towards key topic areas to focus on in the objective design standards.

Summary of Findings from Recent Projects
• Entries. Most projects lack a defining building entry. Instead, residential entries are oriented towards parking areas.
• Setbacks: Front and rear setback are minimal:
o Shallow front setbacks provide limited transition between buildings and the sidewalk/street.
o Shallow rear setbacks provide limited transition between new projects and surrounding residential development in terms of both privacy and solar access. • Parking: Surface parking lots take up a large portion of the project site. Most projects requested and were granted a reduction in required vehicle parking spaces. • Open Space:
o Most projects include a considerable amount of private and common open space. o Many projects lack common landscaped open space at the ground level. The majority of the open space is being accommodated via balconies and common roof decks. • Modulation/Articulation: Some projects lack suffic ient modulation (e.g., vertical massing breaks) to break up the façade plane.
• Most projects required/requested height/density and parking concessions in exchange for providing affordable housing.

VII. Next Steps
Over the next month, the project team will colle ct additional community feedback and conduct study sessions with the Planning Commission and City Council to brief them on the project, provide an overview of the issues and opportunities presented in this memo, and get direction from decision makers that will be used to shape the draft Objective Design Standards.

Attachment 2
20

Marina City CouncilMarch 21, 2023

Marina City Council
March 21, 2023