WHEREAS, all required future phased final maps must meet all the appropriate cond itions of approval and will be presented to City Council for consideration at a future date, and;
WHEREAS, should the City Council approve this request, the Developer has provided payment to cover the costs associated with the production, review, and recording of the Final Map.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Marina that:
1. Approve the Phase 4B Final Map for Sea Haven Development Project Subdivision (“EXHIBIT A”), and;
2. Authorize the City Clerk to certify the Final Map on behalf of the City subject to final review and approval by the City Attorney.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City o f Marina at a regular meeting duly held on the 5th day of December 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_____________________________
Bruce Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk
4 CAL I FORNI A
1 PRESTON
PARK
CSUMB
EAST
GARRISON
HWY 1
2nd AVE
IMJIN PKWY
ABRAMS
DR
RESERVATION ROAD
BLANCO RD
MARINA MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT
DEL MONTE BLVD
SALINAS
RIVER
INTER-GARRISON RD
MARINA
PHASE 4B
M O N T E R E Y B A Y
CSUMB
PH4A
OWNER'S STATEMENT
·
·
·
·
OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
MARINA HEIGHTS
PHASE 4B
TRACT NO.
WHITSON ENGINEERS
6 HARRIS COURT, MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 4000'
COUNTY RECORDER'S STATEMENT
EXHIBIT A TO STAFF REPORT
5 MARINA HEIGHTS
PHASE 4B
TRACT NO.
WHITSON ENGINEERS
6 HARRIS COURT, MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
CITY CLERK'S STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISION STATEMENT
DEDICATION CERTIFICATE
SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
CITY ENGINEER AND SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
BENEFICIARY STATEMENT BENEFICIARY STATEMENT
SOILS REPORT STATEMENT
SIGNATURE OMISSIONS
BENEFICIARY'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENTBENEFICIARY'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 6 BASIS OF BEARNGS
5 6
7 4
5 LINE & CURVE DATA
MARINA HEIGHTS
PHASE 4B
TRACT NO.
WHITSON ENGINEERS
6 HARRIS COURT, MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
E
I
N
E S
O
N
WE
N IT
H
SG
R
LEGEND
BASIS OF BEARINGS
4 R U B I C O N C O U R T
I N Y O C T
S A M W I L L
C T
A R R O Y O D R I V E
NOTES:
RECORD REFERENCES
RECORD REFERENCES
S A M W I L L C T
SA MW
ILL C
T
7 937 938 940 941936935 942939
943
945 944948 946947949
PARCEL G4
ARROYO DRIVE
CARMEL AVENUE
928
931933 932 930912 929934
PARCEL N47
SALINAS AVENUE
BASIS OF BEARINGS
SALINAS AVENUE
MARINA HEIGHTS
PHASE 4B
TRACT NO.
WHITSON ENGINEERS
6 HARRIS COURT, MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
SEE SHEET 5
LEGEND
E
I
N
E S
O
N
WE
N IT
H
SG
R
BASIS OF BEARINGS
8 LINE & CURVE DATA
SAMWILL CT
SAMWILL CT
SAMWILL COURT
CARMEL AVENUE
PARCEL G4
929934
928
931933 932
PARCEL N47
930
918
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
917916
919
920
915
295 914 913 912
PARCEL N43
862
CARMEL AVENUE
915
MARINA HEIGHTS
PHASE 4B
TRACT NO.
WHITSON ENGINEERS
6 HARRIS COURT, MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
SEE SHEET 4
SEE SHEET 6
LEGEND
E
I
N
E S
O
N
WE
N IT
H
SG
R
BASIS OF BEARINGS
DETAIL A
SEE DETAIL A
9 LINE & CURVE DATA
RUBICON COURT
INYO COURT
851
224
867868 866
862864 863
850
849
859
860
852
858
853
861
856
855
854
857
N42
865
295 914
PARCEL N43
EL CAPITAN DRIVE
MacARTHUR DRIVE
MARINA HEIGHTS
PHASE 4B
TRACT NO.
WHITSON ENGINEERS
6 HARRIS COURT, MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
SEE SHEET 7
SEE SHEET 5
LEGEND
E
I
N
E S
O
N
WE
N IT
H
SG
R
BASIS OF BEARINGS
10 CURVE TABLE
MacARTHUR DRIVE
SANTA YNEZ WAY
824
825
826
827
823
832
831
830
PARCEL N48
828
829
822
PARCEL N40
808
809
805
806
807
816
820
819
818
817
821
813
814
815
810
811
812
EL CAPITAN DRIVE
856
857
N42
855
CARMEL AVENUE
INYO
CT
PARCEL 4A5
MacARTHUR DRIVE
MARINA HEIGHTS
PHASE 4B
TRACT NO.
WHITSON ENGINEERS
6 HARRIS COURT, MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
SEE SHEET 6
LEGEND
BASIS OF BEARINGS
EI N E
S
ON
W
E
N
I TH S
G R
11 ARROYO DR
ARROYO DR
ARROYO DR
APO WAYSAMWILL CTRUBICON CT
INYO CT
EL CAPITAN DRIVE
SANTA YNEZ WAY
SANTA LUCIA WAY
CAHOON CT
711
LANE 1
LANE 2
LANE 3 LANE 7
LANE 9
LANE 9
LANE 8
LANE 5
LANE 4
ANDESITE DR
LANE 6
MADERA WAY
LAMONT WAY
MacARTHUR DR
FUJI WAY
ABRAMS DRIVE
CARMEL AVE
SALINAS AVENUE
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
724
725
726
727
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762 763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774775776777778779
780781782783784785
810811812813814815
816817818819820821
830
831 832
786
787
788
789
790
791 792
793
794
795
796
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
829
828
822
823
824
825
826
827
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862863864865866867868
869
870
871
872
873874875876877878879880
881882
883
884
885
224
295 912913914
915 916 917 918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928929930931932933934
935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942
943944945946947948949950951952953954955956957958959960961962963964965 1 2 310 312 417 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898
899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 9111618216225
CARMEL AVE
MacARTHUR DR
CARMEL AVE
PHASE 4A
PHASE 4B
PHASE 4B
PHASE 4A
PHASE 4B
NOT TO SCALE NORTH
SEA HAVEN
PHASE 4
MARINA, CALIFORNIA
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
SITE PLAN
PROJECT TEAM
RESERVATION ROAD
MARINA
GENERAL JIM MOORE BVLD
CAL I FORNIA
INTER GARRISON ROAD
MONTEREY
BAY
IMJIN PKWY
2ND AVE
ABRAMS
CARMEL AVE
CALIF AVE
E
I
N
E S
O
N
WE
N I T
H
SG
R
BENCHMARK NOTES
“ ”
“ ”
“ ”
“ ”
SHEET
OF
SCALE:
DRAWN:
JOB No.: SUBMITTAL / REVISION
Civil Engineering
Land Surveying
6 Harris Court
Monterey, California
831.649.5225
whitsonengineers.com
2/18/2022
APH
APPROVED PLANS
AS SHOWN
APH
4007.04
1 76
SEA HAVEN - PHASE 4
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
TITLE, LEGEND AND VICINITY MAP
MARINA, CALIFORNIA
APN 031-271-006,017
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICTANIRAM
COAST
DRETAW
IS T RICT
EXHIBIT B TO
STAFF REPORT
12 November 14, 2023 Item No: 10j(1)
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Marina City Council of December 5, 2023
CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 2023-,
RECEIVING AND FILING THE 2023 INFORMATION REPORT ON THE
ADJUSTMENT OF THE MITIGATION FEES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT
REQUEST:
It is requested that City Council consider:
1. Adopting Resolution No. 2023-, receiving and filing the 2023 Information Report on the adjustment of mitigation fees for new development.
BACKGROUND:
At the regular meeting of August 7, 2007 , the City Council passe d and adopted Ordinance No. 2007-10, amending Chapter 3.26 of the Marina Municipal Code allowing the mitigation fees for new development to be increased/decrease on January 1 o f each calendar year based on the percentage change in the Construction Cost Index (CCI) estimate approach that is typically used by public agencies as an estimated measure of the c osts of construction of public infrastructure.
The added provision states:
Section 3.26.055 Indexing.
“The City Council directs that the fee levels established by Section 3.26.050 shall be reviewed prior to January 1 of each year by the director. The fee levels shall be compared to the Engineering News Record (“ENR”) Constru ction Cost Index.
The fee levels may be changed in accordance with the percentage change in the ENR index from November 1 to November 1 of each preceding year, but in no case shall the indexing percentage increase or decrease in fees allowed by this section exceed that shown in the ENR index. When calculating th e fee level to be charged for the coming calendar year, increments of less than one dollar shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. Before January 1 of each year, the director shall prepare an info rmational report to the city council containing the calculations required by this section. If any index adjustments and fee changes are appropriate, the same shall be effective on January 1.”
At the regular City Council meeting of July 19, 2016 , the City Council passe d and adopted Ordinance No. 2016 -04, amending Chapter 3.26 of the Marina Municipal Code updating developer impact mitigation fees which are charged for new development. This update was a major update of all the capital improvement master plans and a major update of impact fees.
\ANALYSIS:
Staff has completed the review of the Engineering News Record (“ENR” ) Construction Cost Index Value for November 2022 through November 2023. The November 2022 value was 13174.98 and the value for November 2023 was 13510.57 which is an increas e of 2.55 percent.
The Municipal Code requ ires that this informational report be p rovided to the City Council before January 1 which shows the new fee calculations. Unless directed otherwise by the City Council, these indexed adjustments and fee changes become effective January 1, 2024. 1 The atta ched (“EXHIBIT A ”) shows the current and proposed new Development Public Facilities Impact Fees effective January 1, 20 24. These fees are applied to all new development unless there is a previously approved Development Agreement.
The Dunes (formerly University Villages) Development Agreement The Dunes D evelopment Agreement approved in 2005 established city impact and other development fees and monetary exactions specific for their development. Exhibit D of this agreement states these fees are, “ subject to increase only for escalation in accor dance with the construction cost index, identified in the City’s fee adoption ordinances”.
The development impact fees for the Dunes Developm ent are also being adjusted by the same Construction Cost Index percentage increase calculated above . The attache d (“ EXHIBIT B ”) shows the current impact mitigation fees and the new impact mitigation fees for The Dunes development effective January 1, 2024.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The increased development Public Facilities Impact Fees will result in increased revenues for the various development impact fee fund accounts . These will be used for development of new parks, public facilities, public safety facilities, and transportation system imp rovements to mitigate the demands of an increasing population.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Receiving an informational report on the adjustments to mitigation fees is not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378(b).
CONCLUSION:
This report is submitted to City Council for information.
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
2 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA
RECEIVING AND FILING THE 2023 INFORMATION REPORT ON THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE MITIGATION FEES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT.
WHEREAS, on August 7, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2007-10, increasing the City’s Public Facilities Impact Fees and adding a provision for indexing the fees each January 1, and;
WHEREAS, the Engineering News Record (“ENR”) Construction Cost Index Value for November 2022 was 13174.98 and the Value for November 20 23 was 13510.57 which is an increas e of 2.55 percent, and;
WHEREAS, the attached “Exhibit A” shows th e new Public Facilities Impac t Fees effective January 1, 2024, and;
WHEREAS, Impact mitigation fees for the Dunes (formerly referred to as “ University Villages”) were established per the Development Agreement between the City of Marina and Marina Communit y Partners, LLC approved on May 31, 2005 by Resolution 2005-135 and executed on July 8, 2005, and;
WHEREAS, the Develo pment Agre ement provides for the adjustment of impact fees per the Construction Cost Index, and;
WHEREAS, the same Engineering News Reco rd (“ENR”) Construction Cost Index i ncrease of 2.55 percent will be applied to the impact mitigation fees for the Dunes, and;
WHEREAS, the attached “Exhibit B” shows the new Dunes Impact Fees effective January 1, 2024, and;
WHEREAS, the indexed Public Fa cilities Impact F ees will result in increased revenues to the City’s Public Facilities Impact Fees Fund, and;
WHEREAS, receiving an informational report on the adjustments to mitigation fees is not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378(b).
NOW, THEREFOR E, BE IT R ESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Marina does hereby receive and file the 2023 City of Marina Public Facilities Impact Fees Adjustment Index Report.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of th e City of Marina at a regular meeting du ly held on the 5th day of December 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
3 EXHIBIT A
Land Use (a) 2023 Public
Buildings Fee
(b) Public
Buildings Fee
(c) 2023 Public
Safety Fee
(d) Public
Safety Fee
(e) 2023
Roadways Fee
(f) Roadways
Fee
(g) 2023
Intersections
Fee
(h)
Intersections
Fee
(i) 2023 Parks
Fee (j) Parks Fee 2023 Total Fee
(a+c+e+g+i) Total Fee
Residential
Single Family Dwelling Units 4,815$ 4,938$ 1,038$ 1,064$ 9,081$ 9,312$ 2,199$ 2,255$ 10,429$ 10,695$ 27,562$ 28,264$ Senior Homes 3,211$ 3,293$ 690$ 708$ 3,511$ 3,600$ 851$ 873$ 6,953$ 7,130$ 15,216$ 15,604$ Assisted Living - Senior 1,784$ 1,829$ 383$ 393$ 2,519$ 2,583$ 611$ 627$ 3,862$ 3,960$ 9,159$ 9,392$ Multi-Family Dwellings 4,460$ 4,574$ 960$ 984$ 6,342$ 6,504$ 1,539$ 1,578$ 9,656$ 9,902$ 22,957$ 23,542$ Mobile Home Park 4,460$ 4,574$ 960$ 984$ 4,759$ 4,880$ 1,152$ 1,181$ 9,656$ 9,902$ 20,987$ 21,521$ Campground/RV Park 4,460$ 4,574$ 960$ 984$ 2,576$ 2,642$ 625$ 641$ 9,656$ 9,902$ 18,277$ 18,743$ Non-residential
Office/Research 335$ 344$ 629$ 645$ 10,340$ 10,603$ 2,506$ 2,570$ -$ -$ 13,810$ 14,162$ Retail/Service 202$ 207$ 376$ 386$ 17,379$ 17,822$ 4,213$ 4,320$ -$ -$ 22,170$ 22,735$ Industrial 68$ 70$ 125$ 128$ 6,535$ 6,701$ 1,583$ 1,623$ -$ -$ 8,311$ 8,522$ Hotel 91$ 93$ 171$ 175$ 7,660$ 7,855$ 1,856$ 1,903$ -$ -$ 9,778$ 10,026$ Church 68$ 70$ 125$ 128$ 8,540$ 8,758$ 2,069$ 2,122$ -$ -$ 10,802$ 11,078$ Day Care Center 269$ 276$ 504$ 517$ 69,431$ 71,200$ 16,830$ 17,259$ -$ -$ 87,034$ 89,252$ Animal Hospital/Veterinary Clinic 403$ 413$ 754$ 773$ 44,250$ 45,377$ 10,726$ 10,999$ -$ -$ 56,133$ 57,562$ Medical/Dental Office Building 403$ 413$ 754$ 773$ 33,872$ 34,735$ 8,209$ 8,418$ -$ -$ 43,238$ 44,339$ Casino/Video Lottery 403$ 413$ 754$ 773$ 125,906$ 129,113$ 30,516$ 31,293$ -$ -$ * * Casino 403$ 413$ 754$ 773$ 36,964$ 37,906$ 8,960$ 9,188$ -$ -$ * * Notes:
Public Facilities Impact Fee Summary
Indexed for 2024
* Specifically for the Casino uses, the fees for Public Buildings, Public Safety, and Parks are based on the 1,000 square feet of gaming area, while Roadways and Intersection fees are based on 1,000 square feet of building space, excluding hotel uses.
1 Fee in this table refers to "fee per dwelling unit or mobile home park/campground/RV space," "fee per 1,000 square feet of building space (non-residential) or gaming space," and "fee per hotel room." 4 EXHIBIT B
Land Use
(a) 2023 DA
Traffic
Intersections
(b) DA Traffic
Intersections
(c) 2023 DA
Roadways
(d) DA
Roadways
(e) 2023 DA
Parks (f) DA Parks (g) 2023 DA
Facilities
(h) DA Public
Facilities
(i) 2023 DA
Public Safety
(j) DA Public
Safety
2023 DA Total
Fee
(a+c+e+g+i)
DA Total Fee
Residential
Single Family Dwelling Units 4,009.88$ 4,112.02$ 5,897.60$ 6,047.82$ 11,299.86$ 11,587.68$ 2,475.87$ 2,538.93$ 1,029.64$ 1,055.86$ 24,712.83$ 25,342.31$ Town Homes 2,455.13$ 2,517.67$ 3,612.18$ 3,704.19$ 10,462.84$ 10,729.35$ 2,475.87$ 2,538.93$ 1,029.64$ 1,055.86$ 20,035.66$ 20,546.01$ Senior 1,256.54$ 1,288.55$ 1,848.74$ 1,895.83$ 6,696.22$ 6,866.79$ 2,475.87$ 2,538.93$ 1,029.64$ 1,055.86$ 13,307.00$ 13,645.96$ Multi-Family Dwellings 2,815.62$ 2,887.34$ 4,142.58$ 4,248.10$ 10,462.84$ 10,729.35$ 2,475.87$ 2,538.93$ 1,029.64$ 1,055.86$ 20,926.55$ 21,459.59$ Non-residential
Office (per building sq. ft.) 4.25$ 4.36$ 6.25$ 6.41$ -$ -$ 1.92$ 1.97$ 1.65$ 1.69$ 14.07$ 14.43$ Hotels (room) 3,153.03$ 3,233.35$ 4,638.96$ 4,757.13$ -$ -$ 2,063.20$ 2,115.75$ 840.16$ 861.56$ 10,695.36$ 10,967.79$ Commercial/Retail (per building sq. ft.) 17.10$ 17.54$ 25.17$ 25.81$ -$ -$ 1.17$ 1.20$ 0.99$ 1.02$ 44.43$ 45.56$ Industrial (per building sq. ft.) 2.70$ 2.77$ 3.96$ 4.06$ -$ -$ 0.39$ 0.40$ 0.34$ 0.35$ 7.38$ 7.57$ University Villages (the Dunes) Impact Fees Summary Indexed for 2023 5 December 1, 2023 Item No. 11a
Mayor and Members of the City Council Meeting
City Council of December 5, 2023
CITY COUNCIL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTING
RESOLUTION NO. 2023 -, APPROVING THE FINAL SIXTH CYCLE
HOUSING ELEMENT AND FORWARD IT TO STATE HCD TO BEGIN A
SIXTY (60) -DAY REVIEW PERIOD AND FIND THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061(B)(3) OF THE CEQA
GUIDELINES
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open a public hearing and consider adopting Resolution No. 2023-, approving the Final Sixth Cycle Housing Element and forward it to State HCD to begin a sixty (60)-day review period and find the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
PROJECT TIMELINE
July 19, 2022 -the City of Marina City Council approved a contract with Rincon Consulting and Veronica Tam and Associates to kick off the update to the City’s Housing Element for the 2023-2031 planning period.
November 9, 2022 -Housing Element Workshop #1 occurred with several interested parties. The Housing Element process and timelines were discussed and ways to get involved were shown to the public.
November 10, 2022-a study session with the Planning Commission occurred.
November 2022-January 2023-stakeholder interviews were conducted by Rincon Consulting and city staff to better understand the housing issues facing the City of Marina
March 15, 2023-the second Housing Element Workshop on March 15, 2023 took place. Fair housing regulations and requirements were discussed, as well as an in-depth discussion about the fair housing problems community members have faced in the city in the past few years.
May 2023 -city staff met with the Asian Communities of Marina to solicit input on the Housing Element, General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan.
June 2023-the internal draft Housing Element was reviewed by city staff and the document made available to the public on the City website. 1 The Planning Commission provided input and recommended the City Council forward on the document to HCD to begin a 90-day review period.
July 2023-The City Council recommended the draft Housing Element be forwarded onto California Department of Housing and Community Development (State HCD) after edits were made to the
1 City of Marina Sixth Cycle Housing Element Website: https://cityofmarina.org/1186/6th-Cycle-Housing-Element- Update
1 document per the July 5, 2023 Council meeting. On July 31, 2023 the draft Housing Element was submitted to HCD.
September 14, 2023-meeting #1 with State HCD and city staff
October 5, 2023-meeting #2 with State HCD and city staff.
For the past two years, City staff have worked extensively with Rincon Consulting, Veronica Tam and Associates and State HCD to seek compliance with both the Fifth and Sixth Cycle Housing Elements.1 Workshops with the community and study sessions with both the Planning Commission have transpired to get input from both legislative bodies during this timeframe.
In July after receiving input from the Council, the Draft Housing Element was forwarded onto State HCD for a ninety (90) day review period. As a courtesy, at the forty-five (45) day mark on September 14, 2023, State HCD staff met and conferred with City s taff and Rincon Consulting to give their preliminary comments.
On October 5, 2023, HCD staff met again City staff and Rincon to ask clarifying questions and to further refine the comments they would be sending the City. The city provided additional edits to the draft Housing Element to seek compliance with HCD input. As required by law, these additional edits to the document were posted on the city website.2
As a result of this collaborative arraignment between the City and State HCD staff, the official comments letter from the state was relatively “clean” with only clarifying edits and inputs requested of the city.3 If no programs are policies are removed from the document, recirculation will not be required and the City can send to the state by the December 15, 2023 deadline.
The next step in the process is for the Planning Commission and Council to approve the document as is and then direct staff to send the Housing Element to the State to begin a sixty (60) day review period. Considering minor edits received on the first state review, city staff are requesting that any minor modifications or non -substantive edits received on the second round of review by HCD be incorporated by reference by the city.
STATE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (STATE HCD) The entire list of HCD comments can be found via a link on the city website. 4 City staff will focus on 3-4 key areas for discussion.
1 On April 27, 2023 State HCD certified the Fifth Cycle Housing Element.
2 October 2023 Marina Housing Element Edits https://cityofmarina.org/DocumentCenter/View/13794/October- 2023-Draft-Housing-Element-Resubmittal-Green-Highlights-?bidId=
3 State HCD October 2023 Draft Marina Housing Element comment letter:
https://cityofmarina.org/DocumentCenter/View/13862/Letter-from-Department-of-Housing-and- CommunityDevelopment-Department-of-Housing-Policy-Development?bidId=
4 https://cityofmarina.org/1186/6th-Cycle-Housing-Element-Update 2 Affirming Fair Housing-The element must also incorporate and analyze past data on familial status to fully describe the impacts of familial status on fair housing choice and opportunity. The Housing Element was revised to provide a comparison of past and present data on familial status within the region and locally. This has been added and can be found on pg. A-25 of the document.
Marina Station-The element identifies the Marina Station Specific Plan as a significant strategy to meet the RHNA. Given the reliance on pending developments to accommodate the RHNA, future submittals of the housing element should include up-to-date information on the processing of building permits for Phases 1 and 2 of the Specific Plan. The Housing Element was revised to include up -to- date information on the processing of building permits for Phases 1 and 2 of the Specific Plan, which are now expected by the Summer of 2024. An objective to Program 1.1 was added to the Housing Action Plan to monitor the progress of housing projects and ensure there are adequate sites throughout the planning period. This information was added to the document and can be found on pg. 3-3 of the Housing Element
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): While the element provides information on the zones where ADUs are permitted, there appear to be zones where residential uses are permitted and ADUs are not permitted. Specifically, the C-R, C-1, and C-2 zones allow for residential uses, but do not allow for ADUs; Program 2.1. The Housing Element’s Program 3.1 was revised to include that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to ensure ADUs be permitted in all zones in which residential uses are permitted, which includes the C-R, C-1 and C-2 zones. The language has been modified and can be found on pg. 3-8 of the document.
GENERAL PLAN ANALYSIS
The proposed project is consistent with the City of Marina General Plan as detailed in Exhibit A (Findings of Fact).
EX PARTE COMMUNICATION DISCLOSURES
The review of the draft Housing Element is a legislative act of the Planning Commission and City Council and therefore the ex parte disclosures do not apply.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Housing Element would not facilitate specific development projects nor require zoning or land use changes as part of its adoption or implementation, which could result in physical changes to the environment. The City of Marina currently has enough avai lable sites and appropriate zoning to accommodate the RHNA without zoning or land use changes.
Therefore, it would not facilitate increased development beyond what is allowed in the existing General Plan. The Housing Element would not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and it is not subject to C EQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2). Additionally, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Housing Element would have a significant effect on the environment and therefore is not subject to CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). As such, the proposed Housing Element meets the criteria for the commonsense exemption as identified above. Therefore, a Notice of Exemption will be prepared for the Final Housing Element.
3 PLANNING COMMISSION INPUT
On November 30, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final Housing Element. No substantive changes were requested but the Commission did inquire about how to ensure implementation of various policies in the Housing Element moving forward. City staff explained that Marina has committed to the State to implement various programs during the next eight-year cycle, including adoption of six policies and ordinance changes in 2024 to continue to maintain compliance with the state.
FISCAL IMPACT:
It should be noted that lack of Housing Element compliance with the State of California has fiscal implications for the City of Marina:
• Active Transportation Program (ATP) Funds - If the Housing Element is certified by State HCD in the next sixty days Marina is eligible for upwards of 10 million dollars in 2024 ATP funds that can be used to improve sidewalks, roadways and to provide more bicycle and pedestrian opportunities for local residents.
• State Law Compliance -As part of AB 72 (2017 -2018) the California Office of the Attorney General may be notified that the City’s Housing Element is out of compliance with Housing Element law, and the City may be subject to enforcement actions.
• Builder’ s Remedy-further delays in certifying the Housing Element exposes the City to a builder’s remedy which limits the City’s ability to deny housing development projects.
• Loss of Local Land Use Control -The courts may suspend the locality’s authority to issue building permits or grant zoning changes, variances, or subdivision map approvals.
• Fees-If a jurisdiction faces a court action stemming from its lack of compliance and either loses or settles the case, it often must pay substantial attorney fees to the plaintiff’s attorneys in addition to the fees paid to its own attorneys. These fees can easily exceed $100,000.
CONCLUSION
Based on the consultant’s team work on over 200 Housing Elements across various housing element cycles, the City has a reasonable guarantee of certification if no major programs, policies, and timeframes are modified by the Council. As such, city staff are recommending:
1. To adopt the Housing Element with no major substantive changes to the document.
2. To direct the City Manager to send the Housing Element to State HCD to begin a sixty (60) day review period
3. Find this project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines
4. Direct the City Manager to make any non-substantive edits that are received from HCD by reference into the document.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Guido F. Persicone,
Community Development Director, AICP
City of Marina
4 REVIEWED/CONCUR:
____________________________
Layne Long
City Manager
City of Marina
Exhibits to the Resolution:
A. Findings
B. October 26, 2023 HCD Comment Letter
C. Response to HCD Letter
D. Housing Element Cut Sheets
E. Final Housing Element:
https://cityofmarina.org/1186/6th-Cycle-Housing-Element-Update 5 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA APPROVING THE
FINAL SIXTH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT AND FORWARD IT TO STATE HCD TO BEGIN A SIXTY (60)-DAY REVIEW PERIOD AND FIND THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM CEQA PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061(B)(3) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
WHEREAS, the City of Marina (City) desires to complete the Sixth Cycle Housing Element, and;
WHEREAS, completion of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element will ensure the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations as identified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (State HCD) and the Association of Monterey B ay Area Governments (AMBAG) are met by December 2031, and
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2023, at a duly noticed public hearing Planning Commission recommended the City Council review the Final Housing Element document, and forward to State HCD; and
WHEREAS, the City of Marina currently has enough available sites and appropriate zoning to accommodate the RHNA without zoning or land use changes. Therefore, it would not facilitate increased development beyond what is allowed in the existing General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Final Housing Element would not facilitate specific development projects nor require zoning or land use changes as part of its adoption or implementation, which could result in physical changes to the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element would not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and it is not subject to CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2). Additionally, it can be seen with certainty tha t there is no possibility that the Housing Element would have a significant effect on the environment and therefore is not subject to CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). As such, the proposed Housing Element meets the criteria for the commonsense exemption; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Public Resources Code, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the regulations and policies of the City have been satisfied or complied with by the City in connection with the Project; and
WHEREAS, the findings and conclusions made by the City Council in this resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented as well as the entirety of the administrative record for the proposed Project, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon the City Council’s decision are located in the Office of City Clerk; and
6 Resolution No. 2023-
Page Two
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The foregoing recitals are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth fully herein.
2. Recommend staff incorporate by reference appropriate comments received from the Commission and City Council into the draft Housing Element; and
3. Recommend that the City Council review the draft Housing Element and direct staff to forward onto the California Department of Housing and Community Development to being a sixty (60) day review period.
4. Recommend that minor or non-substantive edits received from HCD after this sixty-day review period are incorporated by the City Manager or his designee by reference into the document.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Marina at a regular meeting duly held on the 5th of December 2023 by the following vote:
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT, COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN, COUNCILMEMBERS:
_______________________________
Bruce Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk
7 1
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS
Staff finds that this project is:
Consistent with the General Plan
1) General Plan Policy 2.2 8 states-Under California law, each community also has the responsibility to provide housing affordable to all income groups. The California Department of Housing and Community Development assigns a share of what it projects to be the statewide housing need to each region in the state. In the Monterey Bay area, AMBAG then allocates the region’s statewide share to local jurisdictions through its Regional Housing Needs Plan. These housing targets are subsequently incorporated into the jurisdictions’ general plans through updates of their housing elements. Through implementation of its Housing Element policies and programs, Marina will continue to enhance the local supply of affordable housing and meet the housing needs of special-needs populations.
Evidence: By providing for units at the very low, low, moderate and above moderate - income levels the City of Marina will be implementing the Regional Housing Needs Allocation RHNA plan as provided for by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG).
2) General Plan Policy 2.31 (1)(a)- In order to promote the social and fiscal well -being of the community, new housing shall be phased and shall provide for the needs of all economic groups, particularly with respect to matching the needs of the City’s current and future workforce.
Evidence: The draft Housing Element provides for an eight-year plan to ensure housing is provided for the current and future workforce.
3) General Plan Policy 2.31(2)-To ensure that housing continues to be available to households of lower income in Marina, affordable housing shall be provided pursuant to the inclusionary housing requirement of the Housing Element of this plan.
Evidence: The City is currently implementing the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to mandate housing for households of lower income.
8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Gov ernor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
Oc
tober 26, 2023
Gui
do Persicone, Director
Community Development Department
City of Marina
211 Hillcrest Avenue
Marina, CA 93933
Dear
Guido Persicone:
RE
: City of Marina’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Thank
you for submitting the City of Marina’s draft housing element received for review on July 31, 2023, along with revisions received on October 11, 2023. The review was facilitated by a conversation on September 14, 2023, with you, Veronica Tam, Ryan Russell, and Kimiko Lizardi. In addition, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) considered comments from David Kellogg, 350 Contra Costa, Greenbelt Alliance, CaRLA, Scott O’Neil, Watson Ladd, Marven Normal, Dara Dadachanji, George Grohwin, and LandWatch pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c). Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, HCD is reporting the results of its review.
The dr
aft element, with revisions, addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq), as follows:
1. Affi
rmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A))
Pr
omote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics ... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) Pat
terns and Trends: While the element provides current information regarding familial status, the element must also incorporate and analyze past data on familial status to fully describe the impacts of familial status on fair housing choice and opportunity.
EXHIBIT B
9 Guido Persicone, Director
Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: The element must be revised to add or modify goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, metrics, and milestones as appropriate and must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization, and displacement protection.
2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services...(Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
Progress in Meeting the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA): The element identifies the Marina Station Specific Plan as a significant strategy to meet the RHNA. Given the reliance on pending developments to accommodate the RHNA, future submittals of the housing element should include up-to-date information on the processing of building permits for Phases 1 and 2 of the Specific Plan. In addition, the element should include a program that commits to monitor the progress of projects toward completion in the planning period, including alternative actions such as rezoning or identification of additional sites if pending projects are not progressing toward completion in the planning period.
Infrastructure: While the element includes Program 8.1 (Collaboration with Water Resource Agencies) to maintain sufficient water resources, the Program should include discrete timelines for implementation throughout the planning period.
In addition, the element acknowledges, and HCD has received comments, regarding the transfer of water outside of the MCWD service district. The element should clarify any impact on identified sites and pipeline projects, and add a program, if necessary, that will commit to frequent monitoring (every other year) and completion of appropriate alternative actions by a specified date.
Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD.
EXHIBIT B
10 Guido Persicone, Director
Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/housing-element/index.shtml#element for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance.
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
• Emergency Shelters: While the element provides general information on emergency shelters, it must also describe how it complies with the requirements of Assembly Bill 2339 (2022). Among other changes, this amendment to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4) expands the definition of “emergency shelters”, specifies the type of zoning designations that must be identified to allow emergency shelters as a permitted use without a conditional use or discretionary permit, and demonstrate the appropriateness of sites to accommodate emergency shelters, including analyzing proximity to transportation and services. The element must add a program demonstrating compliance with these requirements.
• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): While the element provides information on the zones where ADUs are permitted, there appear to be zones where residential uses are permitted and ADUs are not permitted. Specifically, the C-R, C-1, and C-2 zones allow for residential uses, but do not allow for ADUs; Program 2.1 (Accessory Dwelling Units) does not appear to make any zoning changes. As a result, the element must add or modify programs to amend zoning and comply with State ADU Law.
Programs: Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites, zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types, or potential lack of adequate infrastructure.
3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels… …including… …local processing and permit procedures …(Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities…(Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
Processing and Permit Procedures: The element (p. 1-62) states that with the adoption of the Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan (DVSP), the conditional use
EXHIBIT B
11 Guido Persicone, Director
permit (CUP) process will no longer be needed in the DVSP. However, this conclusion does not fully analyze the CUP process as a potential constraint for development outside of the DVSP and for particular housing types, such as Single-Room Occupancy units (SRO). As a result, the element should still analyze the CUP process as a potential constraint, including listing and analyzing approval findings, approval authority, appeal processes and impacts on approval certainty, timing, cost, supply (number of units) and feasibility. Based on the outcomes of a complete analysis, the element should add or modify programs to address constraints, including removing, replacing, or modifying the CUP requirement.
The element will meet the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law once it has been revised and adopted to substantially comply with the above requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65585.
Public participation in the development, adoption, and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant, the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
EXHIBIT B
12 Guido Persicone, Director
For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.
HCD appreciates the diligent efforts and outstanding dedication your team provided in the preparation of the City’s housing element. We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Mao Lee, of our staff, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
EXHIBIT B
13 HCD Comment Response Page Number
Patterns and Trends: While the
element provides current
information regarding familial
status, the element must also
incorporate and analyze past data
on familial status to fully describe
the impacts of familial status on
fair housing choice and
opportunity.
The Housing Element was revised to provide a
comparison of past and present data on familial status
within the region and locally.
Pg. A-25
Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and
Milestones: The element must be
revised to add or modify goals and
actions based on the outcomes of
a complete analysis. Goals and
actions must specifically respond
to the analysis and to the
identified and prioritized
contributing factors to fair housing
issues and must be significant and
meaningful enough to overcome
identified patterns and trends.
Actions must have specific
commitment, metrics, and
milestones as appropriate and
must address housing mobility
enhancement, new housing
choices and affordability in high
opportunity areas, place-based
strategies for community
preservation and revitalization,
and displacement protection.
The additional analysis of trends of familial status did not result in any additional fair housing issues that
required updates to meaningful actions or programs
within the Housing Element
n/a
Progress in Meeting the Regional
Housing Need Allocation (RHNA):
The element identifies the Marina
Station Specific Plan as a
significant strategy to meet the
RHNA. Given the reliance on
pending developments to
accommodate the RHNA, future
submittals of the housing element
should include up-to-date
information on the processing of
building permits for Phases 1 and
2 of the Specific Plan. In addition,
the element should include a
program that commits to monitor
the progress of projects toward
completion in the planning period,
including alternative actions such
as rezoning or identification of
The Housing Element was revised to include up-to-
date information on the processing of building permits
for Phases 1 and 2 of the Specific Plan, which are now
expected by the Summer of 2024. An objective to
Program 1.1 was added to the Housing Action Plan to
monitor the progress of housing projects and ensure
there are adequate sites throughout the planning
period.
Pg. 3-3
EXHIBIT C
14 HCD Comment Response Page Number
additional sites if pending projects
are not progressing toward
completion in the planning period.
Infrastructure: While the element
includes Program 8.1
(Collaboration with Water
Resource Agencies) to maintain
sufficient water resources, the
Program should include discrete
timelines for implementation
throughout the planning period. In
addition, the element
acknowledges, and HCD has
received comments, regarding the
transfer of water outside of the
MCWD service district. The
element should clarify any impact
on identified sites and pipeline
projects, and add a program, if
necessary, that will commit to
frequent monitoring (every other
year) and completion of
appropriate alternative actions by
a specified date.
The Housing Element was revised to include
information on MCWD’s service capabilities related to
identified pipeline projects and identified sites. The
Element clarifies that MCWD has sufficient water
available for service and that no inventory sites or
pipeline projects were included which would result in
the need for water credit transfer.
Pg. 2-11
Zoning for a Variety of Housing
Types: Emergency Shelters: While
the element provides general
information on emergency
shelters, it must also describe how
it complies with the requirements
of Assembly Bill 2339 (2022).
Among other changes, this
amendment to Government Code
section 65583, subdivision (a)(4)
expands the definition of
“emergency shelters”, specifies
the type of zoning designations
that must be identified to allow
emergency shelters as a permitted
use without a conditional use or
discretionary permit, and
demonstrate the appropriateness
of sites to accommodate
emergency shelters, including
analyzing proximity to
transportation and services. The
element must add a program
demonstrating compliance with
these requirements.
Emergency Shelters – The Housing Element has been
revised to show that the Element’s approach for
emergency shelters complies with AB 2339 by
clarifying that by-right emergency shelters do not
require discretionary review. The Housing Element
now further describes that the locations appropriate
for emergency shelters are in locations where there is
access to public transportation, facilities, supportive services, and amenities. Program 7.1 was revised to
ensure AB 2339 compliance by specifying the zones in
which emergency shelters are permitted by-right and
without discretionary review, amends the Zoning
Ordinance to expand the definition of an emergency
shelter and ensures that emergency shelters be
permitted by-right without discretionary review.
Pg. 1-46
Pg. 3-12
EXHIBIT C
15 HCD Comment Response Page Number
Zoning for a Variety of Housing
Types: Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs): While the element
provides information on the zones
where ADUs are permitted, there
appear to be zones where
residential uses are permitted and
ADUs are not permitted.
Specifically, the C-R, C-1, and C-2
zones allow for residential uses,
but do not allow for ADUs;
Program 2.1 (Accessory Dwelling
Units) does not appear to make
any zoning changes. As a result,
the element must add or modify
programs to amend zoning and
comply with State ADU Law.
The Housing Element’s Program 3.1 was revised to
include that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to
ensure ADUs be permitted in all zones in which
residential uses are permitted, which includes the C-R, C-1 and C-2 zones.
Pg. 3-8
Programs: Based on the results of
a complete sites inventory and
analysis, the City may need to add
or revise programs to address a
shortfall of sites, zoning available
to encourage a variety of housing
types, or potential lack of
adequate infrastructure.
Program 1.1 was revised to include an objective for
the City to monitor pending projects and ensure they
have adequate sites throughout the planning period.
Pg. 3-3
Processing and Permit
Procedures: The element (p. 1-62)
states that with the adoption of
the Downtown Vitalization Specific
Plan (DVSP), the conditional use
permit (CUP) process will no
longer be needed in the DVSP.
However, this conclusion does not
fully analyze the CUP process as a
potential constraint for
development outside of the DVSP
and for particular housing types,
such as Single-Room Occupancy
units (SRO). As a result, the
element should still analyze the
CUP process as a potential
constraint, including listing and
analyzing approval findings,
approval authority, appeal
processes and impacts on approval
certainty, timing, cost, supply
(number of units) and feasibility.
Based on the outcomes of a
complete analysis, the element
should add or modify programs to
The Housing Element was revised to include analysis
on the CUP process in zoning districts outside of the
DVSP area. The analysis determined that Program 7.1
which removes CUP requirements for certain housing
types, does not address CUP requirements for Single-
Room Occupancy units (SRO). In order to ensure
certainty and objectivity, the Housing Element was
also revised to remove this CUP restraint for SROs.
Pg. 1-62
Pg. 3-13
EXHIBIT C
16 HCD Comment Response Page Number
address constraints, including
removing, replacing, or modifying
the CUP requirement.
EXHIBIT C
17 City of Marina
2023–2031
Housing Element
Update
November 2023
EXHIBIT D
18 Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element (2023-2031) 1-45
Manufactured Housing
State law requires local governments to permit manufactured or mobile homes meeting federal safety and construction standards on a permanent foundation in all single-family residential zoning districts (Section 65852.3 of the California Government Code). There are no constraints on the location of factory-built housing since they are permitted in any zone accommodating single-family homes. Mobile homes are located within mobile home parks and building permits are routinely issued for the installation of new mobile homes, generally replacing previous mobile homes. Mobile home parks are conditionally permitted in the R-4 zoning district.
Residential Care Facilities
The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Sections 5115 and 5116) of the California Welfare and Institutions Code declares that mentally and physically disabled persons are entitled to live in normal residential surroundings. The use of property for the care of six or fewer mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons is allowed by law. A State-authorized, certified or authorized family care home, foster home, or group home serving six or fewer persons with disabilities or dependent and neglected children on a 24-hour-a-day basis is considered a residential use to be permitted in all residential zones. No local agency can impose stricter zoning or building and safety standards on these homes (commonly referred to as “group” homes) of six or fewer persons with disabilities than are required of the other permitted residential uses in the zone. State- licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer residents, including foster care, must be permitted by right in all residential zones allowing single-family housing. Such facilities cannot be subject to more stringent development standards, fees or other standards than single-family homes in the same district. The City of Marina Zoning Ordinance contains provisions for residential care facilities for six or fewer persons. The City permits small residential care facilities (for six or fewer persons) by-right in all of the city’s residential zoning districts and in the C-R commercial zoning district, similar to any single-family use.
Large residential care facilities (for seven or more persons) are conditionally permitted in all of the city’s residential zoning districts and in the C-R zoning district. Only large residential care facilities for the elderly are conditionally permitted in the R-1 zone. Allowing only large residential care facilities for seniors but not all other household types in R-1 may be considered discriminatory and the Zoning Ordinance will be revised to ensure large residential care facilities, regardless of household type, be conditionally allowed in all zones where housing is allowed. The findings for approval are that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city; and in the Coastal Zone the use is consistent with all applicable local coastal land use plan recommendations and requirements. This required finding of compatibility with neighborhood character may be considered subjective and therefore constraining to the development of larger residential care facilities. This Housing Element includes a program action to establish objective findings for approval and to revise the Zoning Ordinance to conditionally allow large residential care facilities for all household types in all zones where residential uses are allowed.
In addition, the appropriate authority may designate such conditions in connection with the use perm
it as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, architectural and site approval, time limitations, street dedication, and street and
EXHIBIT D
19 City of Marina
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
1-46
drainage improvements. The appropriate authority may also require such bonds and guarantees as it deems appropriate to assure the compliance of the conditions.
Marina’s Zoning Ordinance does not refer to residential care facilities that do not require licensing and therefore does not regulate these uses which are not governed by State laws. The City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to specify that such housing is permitted by-right as a regular residential use (Program 7.1).
Emergency Shelters
An em
ergency shelter is a facility that provides temporary shelter and feeding of indigents or disaster victims, operated by a public or non-profit agency. State law requires jurisdictions to identify adequate sites for housing which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels, including emergency shelters and transitional housing (Section 65583(c)(1) of the Government Code). Adopted in 2007, SB 2 requires that local jurisdictions make provisions in the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters by right in at least one zoning district where adequate capacity is available to accommodate at least one year-round shelter. Local jurisdictions may, however, establish standards to regulate the development of emergency shelters.
Section 17.04.292 of the Zoning Ordinance defines “emergency shelters” as: “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person.” Emergency Shelters are a permitted use in the R-4 (Multiple-Family) and C-R Mixed Commercial-Residential Use zones. As part of the 5th Cycle Housing Element, the City removed the CUP requirement for Emergency Shelters. The Marina Municipal Code contains no specific development standards that apply only to emergency shelters and therefore, the Code does not constrain their development.
AB 2339, passed in 2022, expands the definition of emergency shelters to include interim housing options such as low barrier navigation centers and bridge housing, and respite and recuperative housing. AB 2339 also requires that the zone(s) permitting emergency shelters by right, without discretionary review, be zones that also are suitable for residential uses. Both R-4 and C-R zones permit residential and mixed use residential uses, respectively.
According to the 2022 Mo nterey County point-in-time homeless count, there were 356 homeless individuals in Marina, with 81 of these homeless persons being unsheltered. AB 2339 provides a general guidance or estimate of 200 square feet per person. For an unsheltered homeless population of 81 persons, a site area of approximately 16,200 square feet (0.37 acre) would be required. Overall, about 600 parcels in the City are zoned for R-4 and C-R uses. As later shown in the Housing Resources section of this Housing Element, vacant and underutilized R-4 and C-R sites in Downtown and Central Marina total more than 10 acres. These locations provide access to public transportation, amenities, public facilities, and supportive services. Specifically, 11 parcels totaling
3.5 acres (1 C-R and 10 R-4 parcels) are vacant, small parcels of less than one acre in size that would be appropriate for small to medium size shelter facilities and adequate to accommodate the City’s unsheltered homeless residents.
Furthermore, new shelters are often installed through adaptive reus e of existing buildings rather than through new construction due to costs and funding limitations. The C-R zone contains older commercial uses that may be renovated for other purposes such as emergency shelters. The R-4 and C-R properties are centrally located along major transportation routes, and therefore have access to public transportation and services in the community, including faith-based organizations that offer
EXHIBIT D
20 City of Marina
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
1-48
Single-Room Occupancy
Single room occupancy (SRO) facilities are small studio-ty pe units and are conditionally permitted in Marina’s R-4 and C-R districts. See discussions on CUP requirements later in this section.
Farmworker and Employee Housing
The C
alifornia Employee Housing Act requires that housing for six or fewer employees be treated as a regular residential use. The Employee Housing Act further defines housing for agricultural workers consisting of 36 beds or 12 units be treated as an agricultural use and permitted where agricultural uses are permitted.
Currently, the City’s Zoning Ordinance does not comply with the Employee Housing Act. In the city’s “K” agricultural-residential district, the Marina Zoning Ordinance permits by-right single-family dwellings, accessory buildings and accessory uses quarters for farm labor and/or servants employed on the premises. The Zoning Ordinance makes no provisions for farmworker housing in its “A” (Limited Agricultural Uses Combining District) agricultural zone, and employee housing for six or fewer is not addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance will be amended to address farmworker housing in K and A zones, as well as employee housing for six or fewer persons as a residential use.
Short-Term Rentals
Short-term rentals can present an issue to the local housing market by removing homes from the housing inventory for permanent residents, exacerbating the shortage of housing in the community.
In 2019, the City amended the Zoning Ordinance to include 17.42.170 entitled “Short-Term Rentals”, which establishes a permitting process and appropriate standards for the short-term rental of whole dwelling units or portions of the same for a period of 29 consecutive days or less.
Density Bonus Ordinance
California Government Code Section 65915-65918 requires local governments to grant a density bonus to projects providing a specified percentage of affordable units, senior housing, or childcare facilities.
Jurisdictions also may not enforce any development standard that would preclude the construction of a project with the density bonus and the incentives or concessions to which the developer is entitled. To ensure compliance with the State density bonus law, jurisdictions must reevaluate their development standards in relation to the maximum achievable densities for multiple-family housing.
In accordance with Chapter 4.3 Section 65915 et. seq. of the California Government Code, the City of Marina adopted a Density Bonus Ordinance (City of Marina Zoning Ordinance Section 17.48.040) and last updated it on December 2020 to comply with updates to State requirements. Since then, the State has passed additional Density Bonus laws:
AB 1763 (2019) – Density bonus and increased incentives for 100 percent affordable housing projects for lower income households.
AB 1227 (2022) – Density bonus for student housing development for students enrolled at a full- time college, and to establish prioritization for students experiencing homelessness. AB 2345 (2020): (Increase Maximum Allowable Density) – Revised the requirements for receiving concessions and incentives, and the maximum density bonus provided.
EXHIBIT D
21 City of Marina
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
1-60
Table 1-45 Marina Development Impact Fees
Impact Fees
Fee Amounts (per Dwelling Unit)
Single-Family Multi-family Senior Homes Assisted Living – Senior Public Buildings $4,622 $4, 281 $3,082 $1,713
Public Safety $996 $922 $622 $368
Roadways $8,717 $ 6,088 3,370 2,418
Intersections $2,111 1,477 817 587
Parks $ 10,011 $ 9,269 $ 6,675 $ 3,707
Water and Sewer2 $7,929 $7,929 $7,929 $7,929
School3 $4.79
per square foot
$4.79
per square foot
$4.79
per square foot
$0.78 per square foot
(Office/Industrial rate)
1 City of Marina Development Impact Fee Report, 2022.
2 Marina Coast Water District, FY 2021-2022, per EDU. https://www.mcwd.org/docs/financials/Marina%202021-2022%20Rates.pdf ; Fort Ord Water and Sewer: $11,699 per EDU (water) and $3,012 per EDU (sewer). The per unit charge for single-family residential connection is 1 EDU. The per unit charge for multiple dwelling, condominium, trailer space, or mobile home is 0.8 EDU School fees established by Monterey Peninsula Unified School District – October 2021. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XBXMRW4maaXmG5ucflC6x_IKfL-59S7I/v iew 3 May apply to affordable/below market-rate housing. Special formulas for fees for residential housing that includes below market-rate housing. Figures as of July 1, 2019.
https://www.mpusd.net/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=1014183&type=d&pREC_ID=1757719#:~:text=Current%20Residential%20Rat e%20is%20%244.79%20and%20Commercial%20is%20%240.78%20per%20square%20foot.
According to the records from recently approved projects, the total development impact fees and permit processing fees range from about $14,000 to $24,000 per multiple-family unit. Fees for a single-family unit total around $30,000 (Table 1-46). Marina’s fees for multi-f amily units ($14,000- $24,000) are similar to fees in Pacific Grove ($21,000), but higher than Seaside ($12,000).
In Marina and neighboring cities, fees for single-family units are higher than those for multi-family units. Marina’s total fee estimate per single-family unit ($30,000) are slightly higher than those reported in Seaside ($23,000), but lower than Pacific Grove ($69,000) as shown in Table 1-47.
Despite the seemingly high fees in Pacific Grove, the City of Pacific Grove reported that their fees for single-family units account for less than 10 percent of the total construction costs. Marina, Seaside, Pacific Grove, and Del Rey Oaks all reported that the total fees for single family units accounted for less than 10 percent of total construction costs.
Table 1-46 Examples of Permits and Fees – Marina
Address
Construction
Valuation Permit Fees Impact Fees
Permit and
Impact Fees
Sea Haven Homes- SFH
3005 Shasta Way $223,655.04 $3, 922.13 $26,457.00 $30,379.13 3001 Shasta Way $328,406.40 $5,270.63 $26,457.00 $31,727.63 3003 Arroyo Drive $287,642.88 $4,744.04 $26,457.00 $31,201.04 481 Marina Heights Drive $249,298.56 $4,255.77 $26,457.00 $30,712.77 479 Marina Heights Drive $318,003.84 $5,100.28 $26,457.00 $31,557.28 Dunes Homes- SFH
2711 4th Avenue $291,894.00 $4,795.27 $23,397.94 $28,193.21 248 Bungalow Court $275,517.00 $4,590.49 $23,397.94 $27,988.43 246 Bungalow Court $257,831.00 $4,359.20 $23,397.94 $27,757.14
EXHIBIT D
22 Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element (2023-2031) 1-61
Address
Construction
Valuation Permit Fees Impact Fees
Permit and
Impact Fees
242 Bungalow Court $291,894.00 $4, 795.27 $23,397.94 $28,193.21 250 Bungalow Court $291,894.00 $4,795.27 $23,397.94 $28,193.21 Veteran’s Transition Center- MF (71 units)
229 Hayes $31,000,000. 00 $2,834.68 $22,037.00 $24,871.68 Chispa AKA Junsay Oaks- Senior Apartments (47 units)
3098 DeForest $8,360,215. 00 $1,622.91 $12,059.00 $13,681.91 ADUs
154 Lakewood Drive $50,000.00 $1, 749.10 $0.00 $1,749.10 3007 King Circle $62,620.00 $1,990.10 $0.00 $1,990.10
3068 Redwood Drive $60,000.00 $1,958.98 $0.00 $1,958.98 Notes: Construction valuation represents entire SFH or entire project for MFH development (Veterans Transition Center and Junsay Oaks). Permit fees, impact fees, and combined permit and impact fees represent cost per unit. Veteran’s transition center and Junsay Oak Impact fees include additional Transportation Agency of Monterey County (TAMC) Fees ($2,834 and $1,622 per unit, respectively).
Table 1-47 Total Fee Comparisons with Neighboring Jurisdictions City Multi-Family Single-Family
Marina $14,000-$24,000 $30,000 (~10%†)
Seaside $11,791 $23,433 (<10%†)
Pacific Grove 21,235 (3%†) $68,928 (7%†)
Del Rey Oaks <10%† <10%†
Monterey City Did not provide total fee estimate Did not provide total fee estimate Sand City Did not provide total fee estimate Did not provide total fee estimate † % of total construction costs
Note: Amounts refer to per unit cost.
Source: Seaside 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element Technical Appendix (July 2023); Pacific Grove 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element Update (September 2023); Del Rey Oaks 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element (May 2023); City of Monterey 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element Appendix C (September 2023), Sand City 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element (May 2023) Local Processing and Permit Procedures
The development review process can affect housing costs. Because of interest rates and inflation in the price of materials, the longer it takes for a development proposal to be approved, the higher the development costs. Development application processing has basic time requirements as a result of the City's obligation to evaluate projects adequately, as well as the requirements of state law. These include consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Residential Permit Processing
In the city of Marina, ministerial projects include the construction of single-family residences and accessory dwellings on existing lots, and the construction of multi-family residential housing at densities not exceeding 25 units per acre, and condominium/planned development projects in the MHR zone. Also, Chapter 16.18 of the Zoning Ordinance describes the procedures for tentative parcel maps for minor subdivisions (four lots or fewer). They are reviewed and approved administratively by the Community Development Director and do not require a public hearing or
EXHIBIT D
23 City of Marina
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
1-62
approval by either the Planning Commission or City Council. The City has amended its Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters housing by right in the R-4 and C-R zones and transitional and supportive housing in all residential zones and C-R zone.
Discretionary projects requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and approval from the Planning Commi
ssion include major subdivisions of land (into typically 5 or more parcels), condominium/ planned development projects in the C-R zone, the development of multi-family residential housing at densities exceeding 25 units per acre in the C-R Zone, single-room occupancy and a change in the use of a property including the civilian reuse of former military lands. The findings are not specifically identified in the Zoning Ordinance. However, the Zoning Ordinance states that findings required for the approval of a CUP are that “the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city; and in the Coastal Zone the use is consistent with all applicable local coastal land use plan recommendations and requirements.” The Zoning Ordinance does not provide clarity in the findings required and criteria for evaluating compliance, especially relating to impacts on the neighborhood.
However, with the adoption of the Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan, approval of residential devel
opment in the downtown would no longer require a CUP. Furthermore, the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) provides by-right approval of projects if 15 percent of the units are set aside for lower income housing. Since much of the future residential development is expected to occur within the Downtown, the CUP process is not anticipated to serve as a constraint to residential development.
On November 2022, the City passed an ordinance removing CUP requirements for Supportive Housing in commercial and mixed use zones where multi-family and mixed-use development is permitted and in the Planned Commercial zoning district. In addition, Section 17.12.020 and
17.12.030 were amended to remove CUPs for multi-family housing development in the R-4 zoning district. However, this ordinance does not address the CUP requirements for SRO housing. This Housing Element includes a program action to either remove the CUP requirements for SRO housing or to review and revise the required findings to ensure that they are objective and provide certainty in outcomes.
The review and entitlement process is initiated by the submission of an application. If the envi
ronmental review of the project can be accomplished without the processing of an EIR, public hearing(s) are scheduled and held by the Planning Commission and, if an EIR is required, by the City Council. Additionally, City Council review and approval is necessary for: (a) proposed amendments to the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance which may be associated with a project proposal, (b) projects subject to an appeal to the City Council, and (c) major subdivisions. The entire process is about 90 days if turn-around time by the applicant is reasonable (2 to 3 weeks). The need for City Council action on a project or related to a project will add 1 to 2 months to the process. The need to contract with environmental consultants for necessary environmental studies will typically add 2 or 3 months to the process. The determination of the need for an EIR will add 6 months to a year of processing time. The City’s development review process is designed to accommodate housing development applications of various levels of complexity and requiring different entitlements.
Table 1-48 summarizes the reviewing authority and requirements for the City’s most common permit applications.
EXHIBIT D
24 City of Marina
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-2
Accessory Dwelling Units
ADUs and junior accessory dwelling units (JADU) anticipated to be built between 2023 and 2031 are also credited towards the City’s RHNA pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.1. The City of Marina Building Division permitted 16 ADUs in 2018, 11 ADUs in 2019, 6 ADUs in 2020, 11 ADUs in 2021, and 8 ADUs in 2022 for an average of 11 ADUs per year. Assuming that 11 building permits will be issued per year, the City has assumed a total of 88 ADUs will be permitted between June of 2023 and December of 2031.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) conducted an analysis of ADU affordability and co
ncluded approximately 30 percent of ADUs are affordable to very low-income households, 30 percent affordable to low-income households, 30 percent affordable to moderate-income households, and 10 percent affordable to above-moderate income households.1 Due to the proximity of Marina to the ABAG region, these affordability assumptions are suitable to use for Marina’s ADU projects in the Site Inventory. The Sites Inventory assumes Marina will produce 26 very low, 26 low, 26 moderate, and 10 above-moderate ADUs.
Units Planned or Approved
Residential developments approved and permitted but not yet built (“pipeline projects”) can be credited towards the City’s RHNA for the 6th Cycle Housing Element provided the City can demonstrate that the units can be built by the end of the 6th Cycle’s planning period. Similarly, units within completed projects that have received a certificate of occupancy as of June 30, 2023, can also be credited towards the RHNA. Affordability (the income category in which the units are counted) is based on the actual or projected sale prices, rent levels, or other mechanisms establishing affordability of the units within the project. Single-family homes are usually sold at market-rate prices, with no affordability covenants attached to the land. Multifamily or single-family developments that use density bonuses, public subsidies, or other mechanisms that restrict rents or sales prices would be restricted to specified below-market rate prices affordable to households in the various income categories described above. Local, state, or federal regulations would establish rules for which income categories must be served by each development.
The City currently has six active projects, many of which are associated with the buildout of previously approved specific plans. Four of the six projects in the development pipeline are on schedule to construct their associated units in the 6th Cycle planning period. All projects with affordability components have restricted rents or sales price resulting from the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO). The project at 3298 Del Monte also has been approved for a density bonus. Table 2-2 identifies the approved or pending projects that are credited towards meeting the City’s RHNA and includes a total of 2,263 housing units (113 very low-, 110 low-, 157 moderate-, and 1,883 above moderate-income housing units). Details on the projects and associated timelines are detailed below. The locations of these projects are symbolized with the corresponding Map ID numbers on Figure 2-1.
1 ABAG. Using ADUs to satisfy RHNA Technical Memo. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-03/ADUs-Projections- Memo-final.pdf
EXHIBIT D
25 City of Marina
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-4
Approximately 525 units of the 1,237 have been built and are not counted as housing credits as part of the Housing Element Site Inventory. Of the remaining 712 units, two sites, Below Market Rate (BMR) Site 1 and BMR Site 2, are currently under construction. Building permits for the sites were issued on June 3, 2022, and construction is anticipated to be completed in June 2024. BMR Site 1 consists of 92 low- and very low-income rental units, a manager’s unit, clubhouse, off-street parking, and open space and recreational amenities. BMR Site 2 consists of 48 low- and very low- income rental units, a manager’s unit, clubhouse, and open space and recreational amenities. In total, the two sites include 140 low- and very low-income rental units. The remaining 572 above- moderate units are under building permit review and construction is estimated to be complete within the 6th Cycle planning period.
Sea Haven Master Plan
The Sea Haven Master Plan, formerly referred to as the Marina Heights Master Plan, remo ved 828 existing, abandoned housing units and plans for the construction of 1,050 new townhouses, cottages, and single-family residential housing units with 35 acres of parks, greenbelts, and open spaces. Of the 1,050 housing units, 210 are affordable. The Master Plan was approved by the City Council on March 3, 2004. To date, 439 housing units have been built and 37 below market-rate units are currently under construction. A development agreement established in 2022 indicated buildout would occur over 5 phases. Current construction is in phase 3, with phase 5 anticipated to be completed by 2030. The development agreement also established a schedule to construct the below market rate units in a manner proportionate to the market rate units through each of the phases.
Marina Station Specific Plan
The
Marina Station Specific Plan plans for the development of 1,360 housing units, 60,000 square feet of office space, and 651,624 square feet of industrial uses constructed over eight phases on a 320-acre site. Of the 1,360 residential units, approximately 887 are single-family units and 473 are multifamily units. Residential density varies from low density on the fringes of the Master Plan area to higher density within the core areas. The project includes on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements to connect the Marina Station Specific Plan area to existing water, wastewater, and storm drain connections near the Master Plan area boundary. The Master Plan was originally approved by the City Council in 2005 and was most recently amended and approved in 2022.
Of the total 1,360 housing units, 20 percent (272 u nits) will be affordable (6 percent as very low- income, 7 percent as low-income, and 7 percent as moderate-income). The project will build out over a total of 8 phases. Building permits for Phase 1 and 2 of the project are in progress and are expected to be issued by the summer of 2024. Phase 1 and 2 include a total of 351 housing units, 15 very low-income, 17 low-income, and 17 moderate-income units. Phase 3 and 4 include a total of 70 units, 18 very low-income, 21 low-income, and 31 moderate-income units and are expected to have building permits issued by 2027. By 2030, a total of 1,166 building permits are expected to be issued, including 58 very low-income, 67 low-income, and 67 moderate-income units. Total build- out would occur by 2036.
Remaining RHNA
Accounting for the entitled, approved, and pending projects, as well as projected ADUs, the City will be able to meet its RHNA allocation and buffer with existing projects anticipated to be built over the planning period.
EXHIBIT D
26 Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element (2023-2031) 2-11
2040. The Water Master Plan established MCWD’s current total maximum firm supply of 16.28 mgd, an excess of 9.8 mgd compared to existing demand. With buildout, the maximum daily demand is estimated at 18.4 mgd, a 2.1 mgd deficiency. The Water Master Plan identifies improvements to meet future demand, including the construction of a new 1,500 gallons per minute groundwater well and replacement of pumps at three of the groundwater wells, new booster stations, and pipeline improvements. With the implementation of these improvements, the city would overcome its water deficiency.
The Water Master Plan accounts for increased water demand of planned growth, including growth as a result of future buildout under Phase 1-3 of the Dunes Specific Plan, Sea Haven, Master Plan, and Marina Station Specific Plan. The number of assumed new housing units of these developments in the Water Master Plan is greater than that assumed in the planned and approved projects as part of this Site Inventory. In addition, to further supplement the groundwater supply, MCWD is currently working with Monterey One Water (M1W) to develop a recycled water distribution network, expected to be operational in the coming years, that would provide up to 1.3 mgd of water from the M1W Advanced Water Treatment Facility. Therefore, the city’s potable water supply can accommodate the City’s RHNA.
MCWD has sufficient water to serve all identified pipeline projects and identified sites. There are some areas within the City that would require the transfer of water credits for development, but those were not included within this Site Inventory or as a part of the overall Housing Element strategy.
The Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) and MCWD have documented seawater in
trusion that has been moving farther inland and deeper into groundwater aquifers of the Basin.
Seawater intrusion may worsen with sea-level rise and continued groundwater overdraft. MCWRA has recommended actions to minimize further seawater intrusion. If the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (discussed above) is fully approved and becomes operational, MCWD and Marina experts believe that it could rapidly worsen the seawater intrusion situation and impair the city’s water supply.
Storm Water and Drainage
Housing projects on identified sites would be required to comply with Chapter 8.46, Urban Storm Water Quality Management and Discharge Control of Marina Municipal Code, which requires elimination of illegal discharges, protection of watercourses, and includes best management practice guidance for construction sites and development to reduce impacts to stormwater facilities.
Therefore, the City would be able to accommodate its RHNA with implementation of existing policies and measures.
Circulation System
The City’s General Plan, particularly the Community Infrastructure Element and Community Design and Development Element, outlines the long-term plan for roadways, including number of lanes, right-of-way, and general operating conditions. It also provides guidance relating to the transit system, goods movement system, and nonmotorized travel, including bicycle and pedestrian travel and serves as a comprehensive transportation management strategy to ensure adequate transportation infrastructure is in place to meet population growth.
The City of Marina adopted the Pedestrian and Cycle Master Plan in 2010, which details the City’s plan to establish a network of accessible, safe, and integrated bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The
EXHIBIT D
27 Housing Action Plan
Draft Housing Element (2023-2031) 3-3
Program 1.1: Provide Adequate Sites for RHNA and Monitoring of No Net Loss For the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period, the City of Marina has been assigned a RHNA of 685 units, with the following income distribution: 94 very low-income units, 62 low-income units, 173 moderate-income units, and 356 above moderate-income units. Based on projected ADUs as well as units that have been approved or planned as part of existing projects, the City has met its RHNA.
On February 7, 2023, the Marina City Council adopted the Downtown Marina AHO to provide opportunities for near-term residential development potential. The AHO offers incentives to projects that incorporate affordable units by increasing the base density to a minimum of 30 units per acre and a maximum density of 35 to 50 units per acre, depending on location. Vacant and underutilized sites in the AHO can accommodate 532 additional units, including 72 units in the moderate-income category using a conservative estimate. The City’s overall residential sites inventory offers capacity that exceeds its RHNA and is able to offer a buffer of at least 20 percent in all income categories.
To ensure that the City complies with SB 166 (No Net Loss), the City will monitor the consumption of residential and mixed-use acreage to ensure an adequate inventory is available to meet the City's RHNA obligations. To ensure sufficient residential capacity is maintained to accommodate the RHNA, the City will develop and implement a formal ongoing (project-by-project) evaluation procedure pursuant to Government Code Section 65863. Should an approval of development result in a reduction in capacity below the residential capacity needed to accommodate the remaining need for lower- and moderate-income households, the City will identify and if necessary, rezone sufficient sites to accommodate the shortfall and ensure no net loss in capacity to accommodate the RHNA.
Timeline and Objectives: Mai ntain a sites inventory that is adequate to accommodate the City’s entire RHNA of 685 units. The inventory includes capacity available in Marina Station, Sea Haven, and The Dunes, and the recently adopted Downtown Marina AHO. By January 2024, make the sites inventory available on the City website and update annually.
By December 2024, implement a formal evaluation procedure pursuant to Government Code Section 65863 to monitor the development of vacant and nonvacant sites in the sites inventory and ensure that adequate sites are available to meet the remaining RHNA by income category, and include this data in the annual Housing Element Progress Report.
Monitor the construction schedules for pending projects included in Chapter 2 every 6 months. If project schedules change and units will not be complete during the planning period, ensure there are still adequate sites from other pending projects and vacant and nonvacant sites.
Annually outreach to property owners and assist developers in identifying vacant and u
nderutilized properties in the city, particularly within the AHO for residential and mixed-use development.
Responsible Agencies: Community Development/Planning Services Division Funding Sources: Departmental Budget
EXHIBIT D
28 City of Marina
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-8
Program 2.5: Preferential Housing for Marina Workers and Residents Lower-income residents in Marina face disproportionate pressures from the housing market and are more likely to be displaced than those making moderate and above moderate incomes. As an anti- displacement strategy, the City will continue to administer the BMR program requiring 30 percent of units for sale or rent to be made available according to the priority preference categories established in the “BMR Administrative Policies and Procedures” adopted by the City Council on March 1, 2021, and as amended.
Timeline and Objectives: On going monitoring and annually report to the City Council regarding the status of BMR units.
Assist 60 lower-income households who are Marina residents and workers through the BMR inclusionary housing program.
Responsible Agencies: City Manager’s Office/Housing
Funding Sources: Departmental Budget
Policy 3: Ensure that City site improvement and development standards, development review procedures, and development fees do not form an unduly constraint to the development, conservation, and rehabilitation of housing.
Program 3.1: Zoning Ordinance Amendments
The Zoning Ordinance will be amended to address various new State laws:
Employee Housing: No areas in the city are designated or permit commercial farming activities.
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to comply with the State Employee Housing Act, which requires employee housing for six or fewer employees to be treated as a single-family structure to be permitted in the same manner as similar uses in the same zone. Accessory Dwelling Units: The City adopted its ADU ordinance in 2020, which was amended in 2021 to modify the maximum allowable height to 24 feet if the accessory unit is provided on a second story. However, recent bills (AB 2221 and SB 897) passed in October 2022 provide additional clarifications to the Government Code regarding ADU regulations. The Zoning Ordinance will be amended to comply with State law. Specifically, the City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to ensure ADUs are permitted in all zones where residential uses are permitted (including C-R, C-1, and C-2 zones).
SB 35 Processing Procedure: Th e City will establish a standard procedure for processing SB 35 eligible projects, pursuant to State law.
SB 9 Processing Procedure: The C ity will establish a standard procedure for processing SB 9 applications, pursuant to State law and provide technical assistance to SB 9 applicants. Covered Parking: The City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to remove covered parking requirements.
Timeline and Objectives: By the end of 2024, amend the Zoning Ordinance to address the topics and issues identified as part of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update. By the end of 2024, develop and include a Fair Housing Factsheet, especially on Source of Income protection (i.e., use of public subsidies such as HCVs for housing payments) in the SB 9 application packet to expand acceptance of HCVs throughout the city.
Responsible Agencies: Community Development/Planning Service Division Funding Sources: Departmental Budget
EXHIBIT D
29 City of Marina
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-12
Policy 6: Support and initiate, where feasible, public and private energy conservation programs that would reduce the energy needs and costs of housing in Marina.
Program 6.1: Energy Conservation
The City continues to work with AMBAG’s Sustainability Program by distributing information flyers at City offices and the Marina Public Library and informing people verbally of AMBAG’s programs
Timeline and Objectives: Co ntinue to provide informational flyers available at City offices, public buildings, and special events; making announcements at City Council meetings, links to the City’s website and facilitating articles in local newspapers to advertise funding sources for making changes that include energy conservation fixtures and devices. The City estimates providing information and referral to 20 households annually. Annually update information on available resources for energy conservation improvements.
Responsible Agencies: Community Development/Planning Services Division and Building Division Funding Sources: Departmental Budget
Policy 7: Provide opportunity for and encourage the development of adequate housing for the City’s special needs groups including the elderly, disabled (including those with developmental disabilities), large households, female-headed families, farmworkers, and those in need of emergency shelter.
Program 7.1: Special Needs Housing – Removal of Constraints The City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to remove potential constraints to housing for persons with special needs. These include:
Emergency Shelters: AB 2339 requires that the zone(s) permitting emergency shelters by right without discretionary review be zones that also are suitable for residential uses. Emergency Shelters are permitted by-right in the R-4 (Multiple-Family) and C-R Mixed Commercial- Residential Use zones. For an unsheltered homeless population of 81 persons, a site area approximately of 16,200 square feet (0.37 acre) would be required, based on AB 2339 general guidance of 200 square feet per person. Overall, about 600 parcels in the City are zoned for R-4 and C-R uses. Specifically, 11 parcels totaling 3.5 acres (1 C-R and 10 R-4 parcels) are vacant and small parcels of less than one acre in size that would be appropriate for small to medium size shelter facilities and would adequate to accommodate the City’s unsheltered homeless residents. These parcels are located in Downtown and Central Marina, providing access to public transportation, amenities, public facilities, and supportive services. Lastly, AB 2339 expands the definition of emergency shelters to include interim housing options such as low barrier navigation centers, bridge housing, and respite and recuperative care. The City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to expand the definition of emergency shelters to comply with state law and to ensure such uses are permitted by right without discretionary review in the R-4 and C-R zones.
Transitional Housing: A mend the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate the provision of transitional in commercial, mixed use, and mobile home park zones where housing is also permitted.
Provisions for transitional housing will be consistent with State law, to be permitted as a residential use in the same manner as similar uses in the same zone.
EXHIBIT D
30 Housing Action Plan
Draft Housing Element (2023-2031) 3-13
Supportive Housing: In 2022, the City amended the Zoning Ordinance to address AB 2162 to permit supportive housing in all residential, and commercial and mixed use zones where multifamily and mixed-use housing is permitted. However, the Zoning Ordinance will need to be amended to specify that no minimum parking requirements for units occupied by supportive housing residents if the development is located within 0.5 mile of a public transit stop. Residential Care Facilities (Seven or More Persons): T he City permits large residential care facilities in all residential zones and in the C-R zone subject to approval of a CUP. However, the required approval finding regarding compatibility with neighborhood character may be considered subjective with the potential to constrain the development of large residential care facilities. The City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to revise the findings for approval to ensure they are objective and provide for certainty in outcomes. The City also only permits large residential care facilities for seniors in R-1. The City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to ensure large residential care facilities, regardless of household type, be conditionally allowed in all zones where housing is allowed – provided that conditions are objective and provide for certainty in outcomes.
Unlicensed Residential Care Facilities: The City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to specify that residential care facilities that do not require licensing are permitted by-right as regular residential use.
Reasonable Accommodation: T he required findings for approval include evaluation of compatibility with neighborhood character and increased traffic. However, no objective standards have been established for the evaluation. The City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to revise the findings for approval to ensure they are objective and provide for certainty in outcomes.
Single-Room Occupancy Housing: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to either remove the CUP requirement for SRO housing or to review and revise the required findings for CUP approval to ensure the findings are objective and provide certainty in outcomes, specifically relating to impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.
Timeline and Objectives: Amend the Zoning Ordinance by the end of 2024 to address the topics and issues identified above in this Program 7.1 as part of the comprehensive Zoning Responsible Age ncies: Community Development/Planning Service Division Funding Sources: Departmental Budget
Program 7.2: Veteran’s Housing
This program is being added to the Housing Element to honor the rich history of military service from Marina residents. The program directs staff to meet annually with the Veteran’s community to reduce barriers to housing for this special needs housing group.
Timeline and Objectives: Beginning in 2025, annually the City of Marina will convene a meeting of veteran’s organizations to inform them of housing opportunities in the city of Marina and ways to reduce homelessness among Veterans in the greater Monterey region. Affirmative Marketing Education The City shall promote compliance with California Government Code 12955 (c) that says: “It shall be unlawful: … For any person to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a housing
EXHIBIT D
31 City of Marina
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-14
accommodation that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, or genetic information or an intention to make that preference, limitation, or discrimination.” The City shall ensure that developers of new housing are aware of this law and the importance of promoting neighborhood integration. By the end of 2024, the City shall create educational materials, post materials to the City website, and work with the County Housing Department to spread awareness of affirmative marketing methods, and consider adopting a resolution supporting affirming the rights of all special needs housing groups.
Responsible Agencies: Co
mmunity Development/Planning Service Division
Funding Sources: Departmental Budget
Policy 8: Seek to expand the availability of an adequate water supply to serve the long-term housing needs of the City.
Program 8.1: Collaboration with Water Resources Agencies The City will continue to work with the MCWD and other appropriate agencies to secure sufficient water resources to meet the expected needs of projected housing developments through 2031.
Timeline and Objectives: At least annually, meet with various water resources agencies to discuss water resources and strategies for meeting the projected housing needs in the region.
Responsible Agencies: Ci ty of Marina Administration; Community Development/Planning Services Division
Funding Sources: Departmental Budget
Policy 9: Implement meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing.
Program 9.1: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
The City is committed to AFFH in the community. Actions to foster equal housing opportunities are centered on several themes:
Collaborate with and support efforts of organizations dedicated to eliminating housing discrimination in Marina
Facilitate the development of a variety of housing types to foster housing mobility Pursue actions and policies that mitigate economic displacement of residents Distribute new affordable housing opportunities throughout the city to avoid overconcentration low-income housing in specific neighborhoods
Employ place-based strategies for neighborhood improvements The City’s actions to further fair housing are summarized in Table 3-2. The City will undertake diligent efforts to implement the actions outlined in Table 3-2.
EXHIBIT D
32 Housing Action Plan
Draft Housing Element (2023-2031) 3-15
Table 3-2 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Action Matrix Program Specific Commitment Timeline Geographic Targeting 8-Year Metrics1 AFFH: Monitoring Evaluate the effectiveness of meaningful actions outlined in this Action Matrix in achieving the eight-year metrics.
Evaluation in by the
end 2027 and develop
alternative actions by
July 2028
Citywide As outlined in individual
actions.
Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
AFFH: Outreach
Act
ions
Provide links to fair housing resources on City website and distribute informational materials on fair housing at public locations. Organizations linked on the City website may include, but are not limited to, HACM; HUD, FHEO, Monterey County Housing Resources Center and ECHO Housing.
By July 2024; and
update annually
thereafter
Citywide Contact ECHO in 2024 to
establish baseline service
records for Marina and seek to
increase outreach and service
to residents, landlords, and
housing professionals by 20
percent over 8 years Refer inquiries for services and complaints to the appropriate agencies, including HACM, HUD, FHEO, as well as other agencies, such as the Monterey County Housing Resources Center and ECHO Housing.
Annually Citywide
Expand efforts and promote language access by posting fair housing information on Facebook, Nextdoor, and/or other social media platforms at least once a year. Information will be provided in English, Spanish, and Korean as needed by the city’s population to provide information for those who may have a language barrier at home.
Annually Citywide
Conduct targeted fair housing outreach to residents in areas with minority and LMI concentration by contacting the Student Housing Office at CSUMB to provide fair housing information. (While the CSUMB is not located in 141.02, many students living off campus are likely located in this census tract.)
January 2024 Census Tract 141.02
Expand access to affordable housing and programs for persons with developmental disabilities by distributing information through the San Andreas Regional Center.
Annually, no later
than July 2024
Citywide
Program 7.2:
Veteran’s Housing
Beginning in 2025, annually the City of Marina will annually convene a meeting of veteran’s organizations to inform them of housing opportunities in the city of Marina and ways to reduce homelessness among veterans in the greater Monterey region.
Annually, beginning in
2025
Citywide
Affirmative Marketing: The City shall promote compliance with California Government Code 12955 (c) that say“: "It shall be unlawful: For any person to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or Develop outreach and
educational materials
by the end of 2024
Citywide
EXHIBIT D
33 City of Marina
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-16
Program Specific Commitment Timeline Geographic Targeting 8-Year Metrics1 advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a housing accommodation that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, or genetic information or an intention to make that preference, limitation, or discrimination.” The City shall ensure that developers of new housing are aware of this law and the importance of promoting neighborhood integration. By the end of 2024, the City shall create educational materials, post materials to the City website, and work with the County Housing Department to spread awareness of affirmative marketing methods and consider adopting a resolution
supporting affirming the rights of all special housing needs groups.
Housing Mobility
Program 2.1:
Acce
ssory Dwelling
Units (ADUs)
Develop and distribute ADU information, including resources available, on City website and at public counters.
By the end of 2024 Citywide, with
emp
hasis in higher
resource tracts and
single-family
neighborhoods
Facilitate construction of 88
ADUs; seek to achieve 50% of
the ADUs in higher resource
areas Develop incentives to encourage development of ADUs.
Incentives may include pre-approved plans and financial assistance (from state programs if available) to assist lower- income homeowners with construction, among others.
By the end of 2024
Develop and include a Fair Housing Factsheet, especially on Source of Income protection (i.e., use of public subsidies such as HCVs for housing payments) in the ADU application packet to expand acceptance of HCVs throughout the city.
By the end of 2024
Program 7.1:
Special Needs
Housing – Removal
of Constraints and
Program 3.2:
Zoning Ordinance
Amendments
The City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to remove potential constraints to housing for persons with special needs and employees.
By the end of 2024 Citywide
Support the implementation of the Affordable Housing Overlay to promote affordable housing options. Outreach to housing developers to discuss opportunity sites and incentives available.
Annually Census Tract 141.01
and 142.02
Achieve 200 lower income
affordable housing between
2023 and 2031; seek to
achieve 50% of affordable
units to benefit areas with
concentrated housing
problems.
EXHIBIT D
34 Housing Action Plan
Draft Housing Element (2023-2031) 3-17
Program Specific Commitment Timeline Geographic Targeting 8-Year Metrics1 New Opportunities in Higher Opportunity Areas
Program 2.3:
Affordable Housing
Development
Annually meet with housing developers to discuss opportunities for affordable housing development.
Annually Citywide with priority
in Census Tract 141.01
and 142.02.
Achieve 200 lower income
affordable housing between
2023 and 2031; seek to
achieve 50% of affordable
units to benefit areas with
concentrated housing
problems.
Evaluate the effectiveness of tools and incentives available to facilitate affordable housing. Tools and incentives may include:
Direct funding support and/or support in the application of State federal funding programs
Additional density bonus or flexibility in development standards for community benefits
Deferral of fees until building permit issuance or occupancy If tools and incentives are determined to be insufficient to foster affordable housing, develop/modify tools and incentives.
Evaluate incentives
and tools by 2027 and
develop additional
strategies by 2028 if
necessary and
appropriate
Citywide
Program 2.4:
Inclusionary
Housing
Requirements
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to change the total affordable requirement in existing housing in Marina’s former Fort Ord, occupied as of July 1, 2003, to 20 percent, consistent with the General Plan. Ensure the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is compliant with the State Density Bonus law.
By the end of 2024 Citywide
Program 3.1: Establish a standard procedure for processing SB 9 applications, pursuant to State law. Outreach to and provide technical assistance for SB 9 applicants.
Procedure by the end
of 2024 and outreach
annually
Single-family
neighborhoods
12 SB 9 applications over eight
years
Place-based Strategies for Neighborhood Revitalization
Program 4.1:
Aff
ordable Housing
Resources
Annually pursue funding opportunities available at local, state, and federal levels and pursue funding as appropriate, such as State CDBG and HOME funds. Specifically, pursue Permanent Local Housing Allocation for new construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition/rehabilitation activities, as well as provision of housing assistance, and preservation and improvement of mobile home parks.
If funding becomes available, prioritize funds for projects in the Downtown Area (Census Tracts 141.01 and 142.02) where there is a concentration of minorities, Low- and moderate-income persons, and persons with disabilities.
Annually Citywide with priority
in Census Tract 141.01
and 142.02.
Achieve 200 lower income
affordable housing between
2023 and 2031; seek to
achieve 50% of affordable
units to benefit areas with
concentrated housing
problems.
EXHIBIT D
35 City of Marina
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-20
Program Specific Commitment Timeline Geographic Targeting 8-Year Metrics1 Tenant Protection and Anti-displacement
1.1: Provide
Adequate Sites for
RHNA and
Monitoring of No
Net Loss
Annually outreach to property owners and assist developers in identifying vacant and underutilized properties in the City, particularly within the AHO for residential and mixed-use development to expand affordable housing options for existing lower income residents, helping to alleviate displacement potential in the area.
Annually Citywide Facilitate development of 200
new units over 8 years
Program 1.2:
Replacement
Housing
Requirements
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include the replacement housing requirements on non-vacant sites used to fulfill the City’s lower income RHNA.
Monitor development on non-vacant sites identified in Appendix C and ensure that any development, as a condition of project approval, replace the existing units occupied by or deed restricted for occupancy by lower income households are replaced.
By the end of 2024 Citywide Faci litate the development of 685 units over 8 years
Program 2.5:
Preferential
Housing for Marina
Workers and
Residents
Continue to administer the BMR program that requires 30% of units for sale or rent to be made available according to the priority preference categories established in the “BMR
Administrative Policies and Procedures” adopted by the City Council on January 8, 2008, and as amended.
Annually Citywide Assist 60 lower income
households who are Marina
residents and workers through
the BMR inclusionary housing
program.
Program 4.2:
Rental Assistance
Continue to support the HACM’s pursue of additional funding from HUD for project-based and tenant-based rental assistance, Annually Citywide Increasing HCV use in Marina
by 10% over 8 years.
Program 5.2:
Conservation of
Existing Affordable
Housing
Annually monitor the affordable units by maintaining contact with property owners regarding their intent to maintain the units as affordable housing, with the goal of preserving 616 affordable units in the inventory.
When a Notice of Intent to convert from low-income housing to market-rate housing is received (three years in advance pursuant to State law), work with property owners to ensure that the tenants are properly noticed and provided information on potential resources for assistance, and any applicable
displacement and relocation requirements are complied with.
On an ongoing basis, work with nonprofit housing providers to pursue funding to preserve and improve existing affordable housing.
Annually Citywide No net loss of existing
Affordable Housing Units
1 The City is working on the Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan and timelines for the implementation programs have not been finalized. The City has established general timeframes for these activities defined as: Short-term programs are anticipated to be implemented within the first 3 years of Plan adoption, mid-term programs to occur within 4 to 10 years. Mid-term activities are expected to be completed between 2028 and 2034.
EXHIBIT D
36 Appendix A
Assessment of
Fair Housing
EXHIBIT D
37 Table of Contents
Draft Housing Element (2023-2031) i
Table of Contents
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ............................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction and Overview .................................................................................................1
1.2 Approach to Analysis ..........................................................................................................1 Fair Housing Methodology .............................................................................................................4 Fair Housing Resources ...................................................................................................................8
3.1 Ability
to Address Complaints .............................................................................................8
3.2 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity ..................................................................................9 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends ...................................................................... 12
4.1 Race a
nd Ethnicity ............................................................................................................ 12
4.2 Linguistic Isolation ............................................................................................................ 18
4.3 Persons with Disabilities .................................................................................................. 18
4.4 Familial Status .................................................................................................................. 23
4.5 Household Income ........................................................................................................... 29 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty ............................................................... 34
5.1 Pov
erty and Segregation .................................................................................................. 34
5.2 Concentrated Areas of Affluence ..................................................................................... 37 Disparities in Access to Opportunities ......................................................................................... 39
6.1 Tra
nsit Access and Walkability ......................................................................................... 39
6.2 Access to Education ......................................................................................................... 43
6.3 Economic Outcomes ........................................................................................................ 46
6.4 Healthy Environment ....................................................................................................... 49 Disproportionate Housing Needs ................................................................................................ 56
7.1 Hou
sing Problems ............................................................................................................ 56
7.2 Housing Cost Burden ........................................................................................................ 58
7.3 Overcrowding ................................................................................................................... 65
7.4 Homelessness ................................................................................................................... 69
7.5 Displacement ................................................................................................................... 70 Contributing Factors .................................................................................................................... 74
8.1 Prioritization of Contributing Factors .............................................................................. 75 Local Data and Knowledge ........................................................................................................... 76
9.1 Sta
keholder and Community Input .................................................................................. 76 Sites Inventory ............................................................................................................................. 78
10.1 Opp
ortunity Areas............................................................................................................ 78
10.2 Improved Conditions ........................................................................................................ 81
10.3 Exacerbated Conditions ................................................................................................... 81
10.4 Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence .................................. 81
10.5 Access to Opportunity ...................................................................................................... 82
EXHIBIT D
38 City of Marina
Appendix A – Assessment of Fair Housing
ii
10.6 Disproportionate Housing Needs ..................................................................................... 82
10.7 Subsidized Housing .......................................................................................................... 82 Fair Housing Goals and Priorities ................................................................................................. 83 Tables
Table F-1 Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps ....................................................5 Table F-2 Housing Discrimination Inquiries per 1,000 Residents 2013-2021 ..................................8 Table F-3 Fair Housing Organizations Active in Monterey County ..................................................9 Table F-4 Fair Housing Organizations Active in Marina ................................................................ 10 Table F-5 Population by Racial Group (City of Marina and Monterey County) ............................ 13 Table F-6 Employment Status by Disability Status (Monterey County) ....................................... 19 Table F-7 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (Monterey County) .................. 23 Table F-8 Employment by Industry (Marina) ................................................................................ 48 Table F-9 Assistance Needs of Lower-Income Households (2015-2019) ..................................... 61 Table F-10 Household Overcrowding ............................................................................................. 67 Table F-11 Homelessness in Marina and Surrounding Cities (2022) .............................................. 69 Table F-12 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Key Programs/Meaningful Actions .... 84 Figures
Figure F-1 Marina Census Tracts .......................................................................................................3 Figure F-2 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Monterey County) ....................................... 15 Figure F-3 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Marina) ........................................................ 16 Figure F-4 Predominant Populations (Marina) .............................................................................. 17 Figure F-5 Percentage of Population with One or More Disabilities (Monterey County) ............. 20 Figure F-6 Disability Type (Marina 2010-2014) ............................................................................. 21 Figure F-7 Percentage of Population with One or More Disabilities (Marina) .............................. 22 Figure F-8 Female Headed Households With Children, No Spouse/Partner (Monterey County) . 25 Figure F-9 Adults in Households Living Alone (Monterey County) ................................................ 26 Figure F-10 Female Headed Households With Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (Marina) ..... 27 Figure F-11 Adults in Households Living Alone (Marina) ................................................................. 28 Figure F-12 Median Household Income (Monterey County) ........................................................... 30 Figure F-13 Low and Moderate Income Population (Monterey County) ........................................ 31 Figure F-14 Median Household Income (Marina) ............................................................................ 32 Figure F-15 Low to Moderate Income Population (Marina) ............................................................ 33 Figure F-16 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (Monterey County) ................... 35 Figure F-17 Poverty Status (Marina) ................................................................................................ 36 Figure F-18 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Monterey County) .................................... 38 Figure F-19 Transit (Marina) ............................................................................................................. 41 Figure F-20 Walkability Index (Marina) ............................................................................................ 42 Figure F-21 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education (Monterey) ........................................................ 44
EXHIBIT D
39 City of Marina
Appendix A – Assessment of Fair Housing
10 Local Resources
In an effort to reduce housing discrimination, Marina contracts with the non-profit organization ECHO Housing to assist residents with fair housing counseling services, connections to rental assistance and homelessness prevention programs, and to conduct fair housing testing, as shown in Table F-4. The City allocates Community Development Block Grant general administration funds to ECHO Housing's fair housing services. Through ECHO Housing, the City assists residents and landlords by providing mediation, investigation, and referral services.
In addition to the fair housing services provided by active organizations in Marina, Monterey County administers the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program for Marina and other jurisdictions in the county. Funded by HUD, the HCV program provides rental assistance aimed at helping low-income families, persons with disabilities, and the elderly secure afford housing.
Table F-4 Fair Housing Organizations Active in Marina
Organization URL Phone Number
Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity https://www.echofairhousing.org/ (831) 566-0824 Housing Authority of the County of Monterey https://hamonterey.org/ (831) 775-5000 Source: Tenants Together, https://www.tenantstogether.org/, accessed January 2023 As mentioned previously, Marina experienced the second most FHEO inquiries per 1,000 residents in the county from 2013-2021. Community members in workshops and stakeholders expressed a need for more enforcement and landlord training to prevent housing discrimination based on disability or other protected class in the city.
Compliance with Existing Fair Housing Laws
The City of Marina complies with existing fair housing laws and regulations by ensuring all residents have equal access to housing programs, services, and resources and supporting any resident in filing complaints on housing discrimination. The City also ensures that the City’s zoning regulations do not result in segregation or discriminatory practices and complies with the following fair housing laws:
Fair Housing Act of 1968 – The City has adopted housing policies that prohibit housing discrimination based on protected characteristics and ensuring equal access to housing programs and services.
American Disabilities Act – The City’s Municipal Code establishes procedures for persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing including reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities. The City ensures housing developers comply with the American Disabilities Act through the permit review process.
Fair Housing & Employment Act – The City upholds policies that prohibit housing discrimination based on protected characteristics and enforces these policies by supporting residents seeking to file a complaint to the FHEO or who wish to pursue legal action. AB 686 – The City has included this assessment of fair housing and identifies strategies to increase housing opportunities for all residents, with specific actions to reduce housing disparities for disadvantaged communities.
Density Bonus Law –The City complies with State Density Bonus Law, having most recently updated their Zoning Ordinance in June of 2023, by providing density bonuses and other
EXHIBIT D
40 Fair Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element (2023-2031) 11
development incentives to housing developers proposing projects with a minimum amount of affordable housing units.
Housing Accountability Act –The City complies with the Housing Accountability Act by approving eligible housing development projects, including those with at least 20 percent affordable units to lower-income households, that comply with the City’s adopted objective development standards unless the City makes a written finding that the project will have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid that impact.
No-Net-Loss – The City complies with the No Net Loss Law by identifying sites that can accommodate the City’s RHNA. The City also maintains minimum density requirements for housing development in Medium and High Density Residential zones.
EXHIBIT D
41 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
Draft Housing Element (2023-2031) 13
Regional Trends
Regionally, the eastern and northern urbanized area of Monterey County contained populations with at least 80 percent non-white residents, as shown on Figure F-2. Communities adjacent to U.S. 101 had populations with at least 80 percent non-white residents, especially east of the highway.
Comparatively, the relatively less urbanized and less densely populated western portion of Monterey County contained populations with higher percentages of white residents.
Geographically, areas with less than 20 percent non-white residents were in close proximity to regional and state wilderness parks and recreation areas. The peninsula of Monterey County also contained a higher percentage of white residents, where in some areas, non-white residents represented less than 15 percent of the population.
Racial/ethnic diversity has increased between 2010 and 2020 in Monterey County (Table F-5). The percentage of non-Hispanic white residents in the city has decreased by six percent and the percentage of Hispanic/Latino residents increased by five percent. The percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander, Black/African American, Native American/Native Alaskan, and other/multiple race residents changed by less than one percent.
Table F-5 Population by Racial Group (City of Marina and Monterey County ) Ethnic Group
2010 2020
City of Marina Monterey County City of Marina Monterey County Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent Non-Hispanic White 7,112 36.1% 136,435 32.9% 7,336 32.8% 120,077 27.4% Black/African American 1,413 7.2% 11,300 2.7% 1,273 5.7% 9,051 2.1% Hispanic or Latino 5,372 27.2% 230,003 55.4% 7,204 32.2% 265,321 60.4% Am. Ind./Alaska Native 60 0.3% 1,361 0.3% 66 0.3% 1,314 0.3% Asian 3,826 19.4% 3,826 6.2% 4,092 18.3% 25,123 5.7% Native Hawaiian and PI 507 2.6% 507 0.0% 458 2.0% 1,859 0.4% Other 46 0.2% 741 0.2% 142 0.6% 2,170 0.5%
Two or more races 1,382 7.0% 9,572 2.3% 1,788 8.0% 14,120 3.2% Total Population 19,718 100.0% 415,057 100% 22,359 100.0% 439,035 100.0% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2010 and 2020.
Note: The Hispanic/Latino population may overlap with other racial/ethnic groups Local Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, the central area of the city contained the highest percentage of non-white residents, as shown in Figure F-3. The census tract 141.01, south of Carmel Avenue and north of Patton Parkway, had a predominant Hispanic/Latino majority, as displayed in Figure F-4.
The western portion of this tract had the highest percentage of total non-white populations (81 percent) in the city by census block group. The western census block group within this tract had 49 percent Hispanic/Latino population, 19 percent white, 17 percent Asian American, 7 percent other and multiple races, 5 percent Black, and less than one percent American Indian, comprising a diversity index of 92.5. This diversity index represents the likelihood that two persons chosen at random are of a different race or ethnic group, meaning the likeliness that two people in this block group are of different race or ethnic groups is very high. Similarly, the census block group in the
EXHIBIT D
42 City of Marina
Appendix A – Assessment of Fair Housing
14 northern neighboring census tract (142.02) contained 80 percent non-white residents with a diversity index of 92.
Comparatively, the northwestern outer region of the city contained a white predominant population with diversity index scores of less than 80, which included areas north of Reservation Road and west of Del Monte Boulevard, and a small southern portion of the city east of 2nd Avenue and south of 8th Street. A northern coastal census block group that overlapped with a predominantly white tract (143.01), located west of Del Monte Road contained 41 percent white population, 25 percent Asian American, 20 percent Hispanic/Latino, 7 percent other and multiple races, 4 percent Black, less than 1 percent American Indian.
Racial/ethnic diversity has remained relatively the same over the past 10 years with an increase in Hispanic/Latino residents (Table F-5). The percentage of white residents in the city has decreased by three percent, the percentage of Hispanic/Latino residents increased by five percent, and the percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander residents decreased by two percent. The percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander, Black/African American, Native American/Native Alaskan, and other/multiple race residents changed by less than one percent.
EXHIBIT D
43 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
Draft Housing Element (2023-2031) 19
disabilities, reflecting no change from 2012, while the percent of total unemployed increased from 6 percent to 9 percent during this time. Additional discussion regarding persons with disabilities in Monterey County is included in Chapter 1 of the Housing Element, Needs Assessment.
Table F-6 Employment Status by Disability Status (Monterey County) Disability Status
Employed
2012-2017
(Percent of Total
Employed)
Unemployed
2010 -2017
(Percent of Total
Unemployed)
Employed
2016-2021
(Percent of Total
Employed)
Unemployed
2016-2021
(Percent of Total
Unemployed)
No Disability 161,320
(
97%)
19,764
(94%)
169,894
(96%)
9,330
(91%)
With a Disability 5,846
(3%)
1,224
(6%)
6,002
(3%)
875
(9%)
Total 167,166
(100%)
20,988
(100%)
175,896
(100%)
10,205
(100%)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2010-2014, 2015-2019 Estimates.
Figure F-5 shows the spatial distribution of residents living with one or more disabilities across the county. Communities located throughout the northwestern region of the county were estimated to have a larger share of residents with disabilities compared to communities located in the south and eastern regions of the county. The largest portion of residents living with one or more disabilities is contained in an area just south of the Monterey Peninsula.
Local Trends
According to 2016-2020 5-year ACS estimates, 2,703 residents (approximately 12 percent) of Marina’s population live with one or more disabilities. This is a one percent increase from 2012, when 11 percent of the population had a disability. As displayed in Figure F-6, ambulatory difficulty (d
efined as having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs) was the most common disability reported by Marina residents aged 65 and older. Cognitive difficulty was the largest disability reported for those aged 5 to 17 years of age.
Figure F-7 shows the percentage of the population living with one or more disabilities in the city by census tract, using 2015-2019 ACS data. Generally, most of the city had between 10 to 20 percent of residents reported living with one or more disabilities. Census tract 142.01 is predominately Hispanic/Latino and had 13 percent of residents living with one or more disabilities. The adjacent census tract 141.02 had the largest percentage of residents with one or more disabilities (approximately 19 percent) and contained 61 to 80 percent residents that were non-white.
Bordering the tract with predominate Hispanic/Latino residents, Census Tract 142.02 had 14 percent of residents living with a disability, where 20 percent of the population in this tract had an income that was below the poverty level, according to the ACS 2015-2019 estimates.
Community feedback from stakeholders indicated a desire for integrated housing for those with disabilities and near services such as transit and commercial areas for easy access.
EXHIBIT D
44 City of Marina
Appendix A – Assessment of Fair Housing
24 Similar to current trends, the percentage of single-parent, female-headed households in Monterey County was about double the amount of single-parent, male-headed households. According to 2010 ACS estimates, 7 percent of all households in 2010 were single-parent, female-headed households.
This indicates a slight reduction in single-parents, female-headed households from 2010 to 2020.
Similar to 2020, most of the female-headed households with children occupied rental housing within the County.
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, jurisdictions located in the norther n and eastern regions of the county, such as the areas near Castroville and the cities of Salinas, Seaside, Marina, Soledad, and Greenfield had relatively higher proportions of children who reside in female-headed, single-parent households. In contrast, the northwestern region of the county, including the cities of Carmel-by- the-Sea, Pacific Grove, Pleasanton, and Monterey, had less single parent households.
As shown in Figure F-8, the percentage of single female headed households with children is generally consistent throughout the urban areas of Monterey County (20 to 40 percent) with larger proportions occurring in the central areas adjacent to U.S. 101 (Soledad and Greenfield) and the northern areas (Marina).
Figure F-9 shows the percentage of adults living alone in the county. In Monterey County, there is a concentration of adults living alone in the northwestern region, specifically in coastal communities such as Pacific Grove, Monterey, and Carmel-by-the-Sea. These urban areas have large portions of adults who live alone (20 to 40 percent) compared to the rest of the county (less than 20 percent) including the cities of Salinas, Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield and King City. Areas with a larger percentage of non-white population generally overlap with areas exhibiting lower rates of adults living in households alone.
Local Trends
According to ACS estimates, about 24 percent of all households have children in Marina, which is a slight reduction from 2010 which had approximately 27 percent of all households having children.
Similar to the County, Marina saw a slight decrease in the number of single-parent, female-headed households from 2010 to 2020, which was 8 percent and 6 percent, respectively. In the city, there was about 80 percent less single-parent, male-headed households than female-headed.
As shown in Figure F-10, census tracts located in the eastern and southern areas of Marina contain a larger percentage of children residing in single-parent, female-headed households. Comparatively, most areas located in the western areas of Marina exhibit less than 20 percent of children residing in single-parent, female-headed households. The highest share of children in single-parent, female- headed households is located in the southern and eastern regions of the city (census tract 141.02).
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, 37 percent of children in this area were living in single- parent, female-headed households. As referenced in Section 4.1, Race and Ethnicity, this census tract had the second largest percentage of non-white residents.
Figure F-11 highlights the percent of adults living alone in Marina. The census tract with the highest percentage of adults living alone (21 percent) is 143.01, located in the coastal community at the very western edge of the city. This tract also had a predominant white population.
EXHIBIT D
45 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
Draft Housing Element (2023-2031) 29
4.5 Household Income
Identifying low- or moderate-income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines an LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the area median income or AMI). Household income is directly connected to the ability to afford housing.
Higher-income households are more likely to own rather than rent housing. As household income decreases, households tend to pay a disproportionate amount of their income for housing, and they are more likely to occupy structurally unsound and overcrowded housing.
Regional Trends
Household median income is lower in communities located in the southeast region of Monterey County. According to 2020 Census estimates, Monterey County had a median household income of $82,013. Figure F-12 provides median household income data by block group for Monterey County.
Areas highlighted in blue reflect regions of Monterey County where the median income is below the state median income of $87,100.
Block groups exhibiting the lowest median incomes are highly concentrated within the southern cities of King City, Greenfield, and Soledad, and scattered throughout segments of Salinas, Marina, and Seaside. Figure F-13 highlights census tracts along U.S. 101 within the cities of King City, Greenfield, and Soledad, Gonzales, and Salinas that contain the highest low to moderate (LMI) populations in Monterey County. Tracts within neighboring cities of Seaside and Monterey also contain concentrations of LMI populations. Spatially, LMI populations overlap with tracts that are predominantly Hispanic/Latino.
Local Trends
Marina has an estimated median household income of $73,115 in 2020 according to ACS estimates.
This is a 42 percent increase in median household income from 2010 ($51,547). As shown on Figure F-14, median household income varies across Marina. Geogr aphically, census block groups with the lowest median income levels were concentrated in the city center, compared to block groups in the northwestern and southeastern areas of the city that had the highest median income levels in Marina. Neighborhoods with the lowest median income located throughout the city center had a sizeable Hispanic/Latino population. In comparison, areas with higher median income levels had predominantly white populations.
LMI populations are generally evenly distributed throughout Marina, as displayed in Figure F-15, whe
re most of the city contains LMI populations between 25 to 50 percent. However, the area near California State University, Monterey Bay contains the smallest proportion of LMI populations in Marina. In Marina, the northwestern portion contains the second smallest proportion of LMI populations (26 percent), which had a predominantly white population. Furthermore, the eastern part of the city has the highest percentage of LMI population (48 percent). As discussed, this area also contains high percentages of non-white residents and has the highest percentage of children living in single-parent, female-headed households. This tract also neighbors the only predominantly Hispanic/Latino tract in Marina.
EXHIBIT D
46 City of Marina
Appendix A – Assessment of Fair Housing
34 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated
Areas of Poverty
To assist communities in identifying racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAP), HUD developed a definition that relies on a racial and ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. For an area to be identified as having a racial and ethnic concentration, it must have a non- white population of 50 percent or more, within metropolitan or micropolitan areas. In locations outside these areas, where the non-white populations are likely to be much smaller than 50 percent, the threshold is set at 20 percent. The poverty test defines areas of “extreme poverty” as those where 40 percent or more of the population lives at or below the federal poverty line, or areas where the poverty rate is three times the average poverty rate in the metropolitan area, whichever is less. An area that meets either the racial or ethnic concentration and also meets the poverty test would be considered a R/ECAP.
5.1 Poverty and Segregation
Regional Trends
R/ECAP areas in Monterey County solely occur in Salinas. In total, there are five R/ECAP tracts identified in Salinas. According to 2019 UDP estimates, populated R/ECAP areas in Salinas all had a Hispanic/Latino concentration. The central R/ECAP is adjacent to other tracts that are mostly Hispanic/Latino. Comparatively, other R/ECAP areas adjoin tracts that have a concentration of both Hispanic/Latino and white populations. The western area of Salinas had a R/ECAP area that adjoins a tract that contains Asian American-Hispanic/Latino-white concentration. No other R/ECAP areas are identified throughout Monterey County.
Local Trends
While there are no R/ECAPs as defined by HUD in Marina, there are segments of the central city with higher levels of poverty. According to 2016-2020 ACS estimates, approximately eight percent of Marina’s population is living below the poverty line, a decrease of nine percent from the 2012 poverty rate (17 percent). Figure F-17 sh ows the percentage of the population with an earned income below the poverty level. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, several neighborhoods located in the central area of Marina had a greater share of residents earning an income below the poverty level compared to the rest of the city. Approximately 20 percent of the population residing within a portion of census tract 142.02 just south of Reservation Road, earned an income that was below the poverty level. The second highest percentage (16 percent) of residents earning an income below the poverty level was located just south of this census tract (141.02). Since 2014, poverty rates have decreased within this specific area of the central city. According to 2010-2014 ACS estimates, in 2014, this tract had the highest proportion of residents earning an income below the poverty level (36 percent). Today, 2015-2019 estimates show that poverty levels in this census tract have decreased by over half. This tract had a high diversity index of 82, and in 2019 had a population of 31 percent white, 33 percent Hispanic/Latino, 15 percent Asian, 12 percent Black, and 10 percent who identified as other. In addition, this tract showed an increase of median household income from $54,107 in 2014, to $72,821 in 2019. Nearly 89 percent of residents are renters, and according to the UDP, this tract indicates a hot buyers’ market. The increase in income levels and reduction in poverty could be due to existing residents being displaced by high-income residents.
Displacement risk in Marina is further discussed in, as referenced in Section 7.5, Displacement.
EXHIBIT D
47 City of Marina
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
40 Monterey County received an average AllTransit performance score of 4.2 which equates to a low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible by transit.11 Nearly 73 percent of workers in the county live within 0.5 mile of transit. Almost all major employment centers in Monterey County are served by some form of public transit. However, having regional access to jobs by means of public transit does not necessarily translate into stable employment. Some residents with unique needs, such as households with children, have unique travel patterns that may prevent them from working far from home due to childcare needs, access to schools, and other considerations.
Local Trends
Marina is served by MST which offers two fixed route bus lines in Marina (Routes 20 and 61) and one route that stops at California State University Monterey Bay (Route 25). Route 20 connects Marina to the cities of Salinas and Monterey, operating from 5:45 am to 10:07 pm on weekdays and from 7:15 to 9:07 pm on weekends. Route 61 connects Salinas to Marina and the Major General William H. Gourley VA-DoD Outpatient Clinic in Marina, operating from 6:45 am to 6:35 pm every day. Route 25 stops in Salinas and California State University Monterey Bay, operating from 7:15 am to 7:10 pm on weekdays only when class is in session. The City of Marina is partnering with other community partners for the proposed SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit project which will increase connections with a 6-mile busway parallel to Highway 1 from Marina to Sand City and Seaside. MST plans to run zero-emission buses and would curb pollution and commute times by easing traffic congestion.
Marina is generally accessible b y local transit. The city has an AllTransit Performance Score of 5.3, which is slightly higher than overall Monterey County. According to AllTransit, 92.7 percent of workers in Marina live within one-half mile of transit.12 Central and southern parts of the city are within 0.25 mile of transit stops in Marina (Figure F-19).
However, areas in the northern and eastern part of the city and some areas in the center of the city, such as near Marina High School, are not in proximity to a transit stop.
Walk Score is a tool that produces a walkability index by assigning a numerical walkability score to ci
ties and neighborhoods. Walkability is measured by analyzing population density, distance to amenities, and road metrics such as block length and intersection density. Overall, Marina has a walk score of 46, which is an average walk score and indicates most errands require a vehicle or bike.
13 Figure F-20 illustrates Marina’s walkability index from the EPA, which ranks block groups according to their relative walkability. As shown, the central area of the city, east of Del Monte and around Reservation Road have the greatest walkability. These areas are located near major commercial corridors and overlap with more diverse and lower income residents.
11 AllTransit.org. 2022. County: Monterey, AllTransit Metrics. https://alltransit.cnt.org/metrics/?addr=monterey+county 12 All Transit.org. 2022. City: Marina AllTransit Metrics. https://alltransit.cnt.org/metrics/?addr=Marina 13 https://www.walkscore.com/
EXHIBIT D
48 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Draft Housing Element (2023-2031) 41
Figure F-19 Transit (Marina)
Source: Monterey County 2022
EXHIBIT D
49 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Draft Housing Element (2023-2031) 43
6.2 Access to Education
Educational attainment is directly linked to housing opportunities. TCAC education domain scores measure educational outcomes using math and reading proficiency (the percentage of 4th graders who met or exceed math proficiency standards), high school graduation rates (the percentage of high school cohorts that graduate on time) and student poverty indicators (the percent of students not receiving free or reduced-priced lunch). The TCAC education domain scores are derived from 2018-2019 Department of Education data. This analysis incorporates demographic and socio- economic measures to spatially evaluate access to educational opportunities at the census tract level.
Regional Trends
An overview of education outcomes across Monterey County is illustrated in Figure F-21.
Educational outcomes vary across the county, as jurisdictions in the western portion, including Pacific Grove, Monterey, and Carmel-by-the-Sea, generally had more positive education outcomes compared with the cities in the eastern portion such as Greenfield, Soledad, and parts of eastern Soledad. According to kidsdata.org, a data compilation program of the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children’s Health, Monterey County had a total public-school enrollment estimate of 1,691 students in 2021.14 Hispanic/Latino (55 percent) and white (31 percent) comprised the two largest racial/ethnic groups of the total public school enrollment in Monterey County in 2021, whereas multiracial students (8 percent), Asian American (3 percent), and African American (2 percent) comprised a significantly smaller share. Furthermore, high school graduation rates are highest among Asian American (91 percent) and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander students (95 percent), while African American (86 percent), non-Hispanic white students (85 percent), and Hispanic/Latino (84 percent) had slightly lower graduation rates.
Local Trends
Marina is served by the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD). MPUSD operates three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school within Marina. In addition, MPUSD has partnered with a local internet company for home access in Marina. According to Kidsdata.org, a data compilation program of the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health, 25 percent of students between grades 3 and 11 in Marina meet or exceed grade-level standards in mathematics and 36 percent meet or exceed grade-level standards in English Language Arts.
Approximately 92 percent of Marina High School students graduated in 2021. Figure F-22 p rovides Marina’s TCAC scores for education outcomes at the census tract level. Marina generally scored low in education access. Communities in the northwestern area of Marina scored slightly higher than all other areas in Marina. All other areas had an education score of 0.29 compared to the 0.33 score in the northwestern area.
14 https://www.kidsdata.org/region/931/monterey-county-office-of-education/results#ind=&say=&cat=37,18
EXHIBIT D
50 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
Draft Housing Element (2023-2031) 53
Local Trends
Figure F-27 shows a variety of pollution levels across the city; the lower the score (green) the more positive conditions. Neighborhoods in the western and central areas of the city had more positive environmental outcomes (lower CalEnviroScreen scores) compared to neighborhoods in the eastern area of Marina. The northern most census tract in the eastern area had the lowest environmental outcomes (high CalEnviroScreen scores). Pollution burden in Marina is highest due to pesticide use, proximity to cleanup sites, groundwater threats, proximity to hazardous waste sites, and impaired water bodies.
TCAC environmental outcome scores also vary acro ss Marina. As shown in Figure F-28, areas that had more positive environmental outcomes (low TCAC scores) were concentrated in the western and central areas of the city. Conversely, census tracts concentrated in the eastern portions of the southern and northern areas had less positive environmental outcome scores, which is consistent with the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 findings. According to TCAC opportunity map, the most positive environmental outcome score was given to census tract 142.02, which has a higher percentage of non-white residents. The more urbanized areas in the central area of the city south of Reservation Road and east of Del Monte Blvd appear to have higher environmental scores which could be due to further distance from dust and air quality issues generated by agricultural uses and sand dunes, as well as the Marina Municipal Airport.
The City’s General Plan includes policies regulating the location of sites that would include storage or use of hazardous materials and policies designed to protect local water quality. The City’s General Plan also regulates open space areas in the city and sets standards for the number of parks needed to serve residents of the city. The City has an overall standard of 3 acres of open space per 1,000 residents, with additional standards for several types of parks such as neighborhood parks, community parks, and recreation trails. According to the General Plan, the city has ample open space to serve its residents with approximately 97 acres of land designated for parks and recreation throughout the city, equal to approximately 4.3 acres per 1,000 residents. Most of the land designated for parks and recreation and open space are located around the edge of the city, with few parks within the center of the city.
EXHIBIT D
51 City of Marina
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
58 Local Trends
According to CHAS 2014-2018 estimates, approximately 26 percent of total households in Marina experienced at least one housing problem (units having incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen), and households with a cost burden greater than 30 percent), which is lower when compared to the rate of housing problems throughout Monterey County. Based on the AFFH viewer, there is no difference or spatial pattern in the areas that have one of four severe housing problems, as the entire city contains populations between 20 and 40 percent that experience housing problems.
Based on ACS 2016-2020 estimates, 14 owner-occupied units in Marina lacked complete kitchen facilities and no housing units lacked complete plumbing facilities. However, the Census typically undercounts substandard housing conditions as it is not able to report on other more subtle housing problems, such as inadequate wiring, leaks, or inadequate or lack of heating. ACS data provided only captures households with incomplete kitchen or plumbing facilities and does not include overcrowding and cost burden such as the CHAS 2014-2018 estimates. However, these topics will be discussed in the following sections.
Fifty-five percent of all housing units in Ma
rina were constructed prior to 1980, with the highest
share of homes being built between 1960 and 1990. About 5 percent of the city’s current housing stock was constructed after 2010, which suggests that most housing may require repairs and modernization improvements due to the age. Central and northern areas of Marina had the oldest housing structures in the city. The median year housing units were built in these areas ranged from 1971 to 1975, whereas other census tracts had a median year-built ranging from 1984 to 1986.
During community workshops the issue of substandard rental housing was brought up, indicated a need for landlords to maintain their housing units in compliance with local code.
7.2 Housing Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is defined as the proportion of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs. Households that spend at least 30 percent of their total gross income on housing costs (rent, mortgage, utilities, and other housing-related costs) are considered cost burdened, and households spending over 50 percent on housing costs are considered severely cost burdened. The higher the housing cost burden, the more likely residents are to live in overcrowded and substandard conditions and are less likely to afford to relocate.
Regional Trends
Figure F-30 shows areas of Monterey County where renter households are cost burdened. As shown, overpayment by renters is a widespread problem across most of Monterey County, especially in the northwestern portion of the county. According to 2015-2019 CHAS estimates, Monterey County had a total of 127,155 households in Monterey County. Of this total, approximately 74 percent of renter-occupied households (46,060 cost burden households) experienced housing cost burden (cost burden and severe cost burden) compared to 43 percent of owner-occupied households (27,940 cost burden households). Jurisdictions located in the northwestern region of Monterey County, including parts of Salinas, Seaside, and eastern areas of Monterey had higher concentration of renters burdened by housing costs, compared to less populated areas in the eastern region of Monterey County. Greenfield had the highest portion of
EXHIBIT D
52 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Draft Housing Element (2023-2031) 71
stable/advanced exclusive category refers to neighborhoods that have exhibited characteristics of exclusion for long periods of time.
Regional Trends
As shown in Figure F-35 below, throughout the county, residents reside in what are called “sensitive communities,” which means they are vulnerable to displacement. 22 Every city in the region had sensitive communities, with the exception of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Unincorporated areas of the county with sensitive communities were concentrated in the eastern portion of the county along U.S. 101. Communities are designated sensitive if the share of very low-income residents is greater than 20 percent and have any of the following characteristics: the share of renters is above 40 percent, the share of people of color is above 50 percent, the share of very low-income households that are severely rent burdened is above the county median, the percent change in rent is above the county median for rent increases.
Local Trends
As shown on Figure F-36, most neighborhoods throughout Mar ina are considered vulnerable to displacement. One census tract (143.01) in the northwestern area was not considered to be vulnerable to displacement. Sensitive communities in the central area south of Reservation Road received the highest tier of vulnerability in Marina and were considered a “heightened sensitivity”.
In addition, as discussed in Section 5.1, Poverty and Segregation, the census tract just south (142.02) has had the greatest reduction in poverty rates, indicating a risk of displacement for low-income residents. These two tracts in the central area of the city contained a mix of single-family and multifamily residential and commercial uses compared to sensitive communities in the northern and eastern area of Marina, which had predominantly single-family uses. Additionally, areas vulnerable to displacement had higher poverty rates, overcrowded households, and were more likely to have a predominant Hispanic/Latino or Asian American population. Community members expressed concerns for eviction of renters without cause, which could occur more if rents are able to be increased and there is a lack of enforcement and education. Displacement risk in Marina is likely caused by economic factors, such as rising housing costs. As discussed in Chapter 1, Needs and Constraints, between 2015 and 2022, median home prices increased 96 percent from $489,000 to $960,000. Median rent has also increased significantly in recent years. According to Zumper, median rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Marina increased almost 15 percent between 2021 and 2022, from $2,150 to $2,464.
While the City of Marina does plan for infrastructure improvements to support future development within the city, these improvements would not result in the loss of any housing units or displace any existing residents. There are no proposed improvements which would require the displacement of existing housing units or residents. In addition, due to the annexation of land from the former Fort Ord, there is vacant land and new housing units to accommodate any potential displaced residents. 22 Urban Displacement Project, 2021. https://www.sensitivecommunities.org/
EXHIBIT D
53 Contributing Factors
Draft Housing Element (2023-2031) 75
Need for permanent housing for the high concentration of homeless persons in the city Disparities in Access to Opportunities
The following contributing factors to disparities in access to opportunities were identified:
Lack of commercial revitalization and access to jobs along commercial corridors Need for improved educational outcomes throughout the city
8.1 Prioritization of Contributing Factors
The City is required to prioritize contributing factors to focus the city’s resources and maximize impact within the planning period. While there are a range of factors that contribute to fair housing issues in Marina, several factors contribute more significantly to the fair housing patterns observed within the city. These contributing factors were considered in crafting the goals and implementation actions within Chapter 3, Housing Action Plan.
The following contributing factors are considered most significant to fair housing issues in Marina:
Housing discrimination based on disability status and income and lack of education on housing rights and resources
Limited supply of affordable housing throughout the city Lack of commercial revitalization and access to jobs along commercial corridors
EXHIBIT D
54 City of Marina
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
76 Local Dat a and Knowledge
The AFFH analysis identified that the central areas of Marina generally experience more fair housing issues than other areas of the city. Fair housing issues in this area include lower median household income, higher levels of minority populations, low- and moderate-income populations, poverty rates, and overcrowding. Displacement risk for low-income renter households is evident in this area, as the UDP identifies this area to include sensitive communities vulnerable to displacement. The predominant population in this area of the city is Hispanic/Latino, with the highest non-white population of all other areas in the city.
9.1 Stakeholder and Community Input
The City held two housing workshops to receive feedback from the community on fair housing issues and the Housing Element Update on November 9, 2022, and March 15, 2023. During these workshops, participants raised concerns regarding discriminatory housing practices and the need for more enforcement and education for tenants and landlords to understand and comply with fair housing laws. Housing issues raised by participants included the lack of affordable housing for lower-income households and the need for “missing middle” housing types near jobs and other services. Challenges to affordable housing production include high costs of construction and the need for infrastructure. Participants encouraged ministerial review and financial incentives for affordable housing developers. AFFH-related concerns raised by participants included the high cost of housing, transportation accessibility, and tenant rights (specifically that tenants will not bring up issues due to fear of rent increases).
Throughout community outreach efforts, including community workshops and a community housing survey, community members identified fair housing issues and concerns experienced within the city.
Community members identified economic challenges, including the lack of access to jobs, as well as housing discrimination and a lack of housing that is accessible to persons with disabilities. In addition, renters and undocumented residents will not raise housing concerns due to fear of rent increase or retaliation. Furthermore, much of the city’s housing stock is more than 30 years old and community members stated there are housing units in need of maintenance and repair.
Access to Jobs and Affordable Housing
Marina’s job proximity throughout the city is low, even with its proximity to California State University, Monterey Bay. Much of the central area is identified as the furthest proximity. Limited redevelopment and revitalization of the main commercial corridors in the city has prevented further economic development and jobs. In addition, major regional job centers such as the Monterey Bay Aquarium and California State University, Monterey Bay have a difficult time bringing in new staff due to the cost of housing in the city and region.
Access to Home Ownership
Increasing housing costs has produced a barrier to home ownership for Marina residents who expressed interest in assistance for first-time homebuyers. As of August 2022, median sales price for homes in Marina was $960,000, nearly double the median sales prices in July 2015.23 Home values 23 Corelogic.com, 2022, California Home Sale Activity by City 2015 and 2022
EXHIBIT D
55 Local Data and Knowledge
Draft Housing Element (2023-2031) 77
have been consistently on the rise since 2000 (with the exception of the recession). This increase makes it more difficult for residents, especially lower income residents, to afford to purchase their own homes. The AI analyzed home lending data from 2007 to 2017 and found potential inequities in mortgage lending based on race. In 2017, a majority of loan approvals were located in upper income census tracts which, in Marina, have a higher proportion of white populations.
Zoning Policies
The City has previously maintained zoning policies that do not encourage multifamily development, particularly within the downtown area. The City’s zoning ordinance allows single-family residences in the R-3 (Limited Multiple-Family Residential District) and R-4 districts (Multiple-Family Residential District). Allowing low-density residential uses such as single-family residences in medium and high density residential zones limits the amount of land available for higher density residential development. In addition, condominium projects are subject to a use permit in the R-3 and R-4 districts and single-room occupancy housing is not an allowed use in the R-3 district and requires a use permit in the R-4 district. These policies place restrictions on single-room occupancy and condominium housing developments that make it more difficult and more costly to develop, thereby discouraging them from being built. The City is working to overcome limiting zoning policies with the recently adopted Affordable Housing Overlay and Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan (draft plan in progress), which work to overcome limiting zoning policies by encouraging multifamily housing and mixed-use development within the downtown area.
Subsidized Housing
The highest percentage of renter-occupied units using HCVs were located east of Del Monte Blvd, where approximately 5 to 15 percent of households are using HCVs, as shown in Figure F-37. In parts of the city in the west, about 0 to 5 percent of renters are using HCVs. A number of residents expressed issues with discriminatory practices for renters with vouchers trying to find rental housing in Marina.
EXHIBIT D
56 Exhibit D: Final Housing Element:
https://cityofmarina.org/1186/6th-
Cycle-Housing-Element-Update
EXHIBIT E
57 November 15, 2023 Item No. 11b
Mayor and Members of the City Council Meeting
City Council of December 5, 2023
OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING, TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, AND
INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 2023 -, AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE
MARINA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULA TE MOBILE FOOD VENDING
AND SIDEWALK VENDING. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE
EXEMPT FROM CEQA PER SECTION 15060(C)(2) and 15061(B)(3).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Open a public hearing and consider introducing Ordinance No. 2023 - (EXHIBIT A ), amending Title 10 of th e Marina Munici pal Code based on Findings (EXHIBIT B) and Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15060(c)(2) CEQA exemptions.”
GENERAL SITE INFORMATION:
Table 1 Project Information
Location Citywide (Outside the Coastal zone)
General Plan Designation n/a
Zoning Districts n/a
Year Built n/a
Owner n/a
Applicant n/a
Architect n/a
BACKGROUND
Mobile food vending involves the sale of foods from a truck, trailer, or other moveable wheeled equipment during specified hours of operati on. Over the past 15 years, mobile food vending has proliferated in communities t hroughout the United States. Mobile food vending is popular with customers who appreciate quick access to a variety of specialty foods , particularly in areas that are distant from brick -and-mortar restaurants and convenience stores. Mobile food vending is also popular with prospective food s ervice entrepreneurs , who value t he lower start -up costs relative to a traditional storef ront. Finally, existing restauranteurs have shown an intere st in mobile food vending as a way to expand their customer base and offer their product in new areas.
Mobile food vending is regulated at the state level by the California Retail Food Code (CRFC), which establishes requirements for food safety . It is regulated at the county level by the County of Monterey Department of Health, which issues p ermits to mobile f ood vendors that comply with the CRFC and County health requirements. Finally, mobile food vendors may be regula ted by munici palities. Municipal gov ernments establish appropriate l ocations for mobile food vendors, hours of oper ation, and standards pertaining to the health and safety of a community, including noise and disposal of waste.
1 Mobile food vending is currently not permitted within the City of Marina. Es tablishing regulations in Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Marina Municipal Code (MMC) would allow mobile food vendors to operate safely within certain right s-of-way and on private property in commercial, industrial, and mixed land use de signations, with certain restrictions. Police, Fire, and Public Works staff reviewed t he draft or dinance and did not raise concerns about s afety, accessibility, or administration.
On September 28, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2023-18 (EXHIBIT C) recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance to co dify regulations for mobile food vending and sidewalk vending. The Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt the ordinance with the following minor changes to the original draft:
• In addition to streets identified in the original draft ordinance, allow mobile food vending on public streets adjacent to industrial , c ommercial, or mixed -use zoning district s, provided that the streets are n ot ad jacent to R -1 Sing le-Family Residential zoning districts.
• Clarify that mobile food vendors operating on private property can operate on parcels designated for industrial uses.
Questionnaires
Food Service Providers
Planning staff emailed a ques tionnaire to food service providers in Marina , bas ed on a list of current business license holders, to assess interest in mobile food vending. Of 21 respondents, a quarter indicated they would be interested in adding mobile vending to their existing restaurant service. Additionally, 14% expressed concern that the competition of food trucks may negatively impact their existing businesses.
Residents
At the September 28 meeting, t he Planning Commission requested staff assess broader attitudes toward mobile food vending. Staff posted a questionnaire to the C ity’s website and social media channels, and the Monterey County Weekly published a brief about the questionnaire. Over the course of a month, 20 2 responses were received. Overwhelmingly , residents (94%) felt that mobile food vending should be allowed.
Results from both questionnaires are summarized on the City website at this link.
PROJECT ANALYSIS
Draft Ordinance
The draft ordinance establishes operating conditions for mobil e food ve ndors operating on private property and in the public right-of-way. Required permits and licenses include:
1. Health permit issued by the County of Monterey Department of Health. A separate permit is required for each vehicle, even if under the same ownership.
2. Valid business license issued by the City (MMC Title 5).
3. Mobile food vending license issued by the City Manager or their designee.
Mobile Food Vending License
A mobile food vending license is time-limited and expires on June 30 th of each year, regardless of the date i t is issued. This date coincides with the vendor’s requisite annual business license renewal. Licenses are not automatically ren ewed; it is the responsibility of the vendor to app ly for renewal of a license. The City is not obli gated to renew a li cense, and issuance of a license does not establish a vested right to operate . Circumstance s for nonrenewal of a licen se could 2 include, but a re not limited to, o utstanding fees, code violations, validated com plaints, or other similar infractions. A mobile food vending license cannot be transferred or sold to another vendor.
Whenever vending occurs , a mobil e food vendor must prominently dis play the mobile food vending lic ense from the mobile food vending vehicle. All o ther applicable City and County health codes, including smoking and refuse disposal, will be enforced as a matter of operation.
Exemptions
Certain events are exempt from the requirement to obtain a mobile food vending license. These include:
1. An event authorized by a special event permit, or temporary use permit, such as an authorized street fair.
2. An event at a school, assembly use facility, or recreational facility provided that the vendor is in partnership with the organization conducting the event and is located on the site of the event.
3. An event at a public park with prior City approval for a special event.
Vendors operating under one or more of these exemptions are still required to obtain a valid health permit, City business license, and may be required to pay associated event fees.
Operating Standards—General
All vendors are required to comply with basic standards of conduct, including the following:
• Sell only food and nonalcoholic beverages
• Comply with California food labeling requirements
• Operate in compliance with all traffic laws and City regulations regarding parking, standing, and stopping
• Provide garbage, recycling, and food waste containers for immediate use by customers • Maintain the area within a 25-foot radius of the mobile food vending vehicle in a clean and debris-free condition
• Comply with MMC Chapters 8.50 (prohibition on polystyrene foam containers) and 8.60 (regulations governing use of single-use carryout bags) • Store all vehicles and foodstuffs at an approved commissary or other commercial location. No mobile food vending vehicle may be stored on a public street or at any residential property
Operating Standards—Public Streets
In addition to the regulations listed above, mobile food vendors operating within the public right- of-way are subject to additional restrictions, listed below:
• Operate only from streets with adequate curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements • Operate for no more than three hours within a single block • Do not operate within one block of a public or private school during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on days that the school is open
• Operate only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. • Only conduct business from a licensed vehicle parked in a legal parking space 3 • Only conduct business from Neeson Road; Paul Davis Drive; Healy Avenue (between Marina Drive and Paul Davis Drive); all side streets within one block of Del Monte Boulevard, Imjin Parkway, and Reservation Road, and other public streets adjacent to industrial, commercial, or mixed-use zoning districts, provided that the streets are not adjacent to R-1 Single-Family Residential zoning districts • Do not operate in yellow commercial loading/unloading zones, white passenger zones, or red “no parking” zones
• Do not encroach into any bicycle lane or onto any public sidewalk without preserving a minimum six-foot clearance
Operating Standards—Private Property
Mobile food vendors operating on private property are also subject to additional restrictions, listed below:
• Confine the entire operation, including queueing of patrons, to private property • Do not encroach onto any sidewalk or other onsite route of access without preserving a minimum six-foot clearance
• Provide the City with documentation from the property owner indicating permission to operate on the premises has been granted
• Only operate on parcels that allow industrial, commercial, or mixed uses • Operate in compliance with City parking requirements (MMC 17.44). Use of parking areas for a mobile food vending vehicle cannot reduce the number of parking spaces required for the established use
License Denial, Suspension, and Revocation
A mobile food vending license may be suspended or revoked for any reason, including violation of any operating standard, permit, or license. The ordinance references existing statutes pertaining to appeals (MMC 17.70) and enforcement (MMC 1.08, 1.10, and 1.12).
Sidewalk Vendors
On September 17, 2018, Senate Bill 946 was signed into law. The bill , also known as the Saf e Sidewalk V ending Act, prohibit s local authorities fr om regulating most activities o f sidewalk vendors, beyond some narrow restrictions re lated to objective health, safety, and welfare standards. For example, the City can limit the hours in whic h a sidewalk vendor is allowed to operate in residential zones.
On September 23, 2022, Senate Bill 972 was signed into law and modif ied the CRFC to remove criminal penalties for sidewalk vending . SB 972 eliminates some permit requirements for vendors selling pre-packaged foods and beverages and whole fruits and vegetables.
An amendm ent to t he MMC is needed to bring the Code into compliance with these recent updates to State law. Standards pertaining to sidewalk vendors are found in Sectio n 10.46.070 of the draft ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this ordinance is not subject to environmental review pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code o f Regulations, Title 14, Article 5, S ections 15060(c)(2) and 15061(b)(3) because the activity would not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment 4 and the proposed ordinance is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only t o projects which ha ve the pot ential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from CEQA , and no further e nvironmental review is necessary.
FISCAL IMPACT
Nominal revenue would be generated through the business license tax and sales tax.
CONCLUSION
The proposed amendment would help achieve the goa ls of increasing access to good s provided by mobile food vendors, creat ing an environment where storefronts and vendors can thrive and contribute to the local economy, limit ing pedestrian conf licts and protect ing access t o public thoroughfares, and limiting vending only to areas of the City where adequate infrastructure is in place to acco mmodate vendors and protect public health and safety . Furthermore, the proposed amendment would bring the Cit y’s municipal code into compliance with state laws re garding sidewalk vending. This request is submitted for City Council consideration and action.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Alec Barton, AICP
Contract Planner, Community Development Department
City of Marina
REVIEWED/CONCUR:
________________________
Guido Persicone, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Marina
________________________
Layne Long
City Manager
City of Marina
5 EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-__
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER, CHAPTER 10.46 –
MOBILE FOOD VENDING AND SIDEWALK VENDING, TO THE MARINA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE MOBILE FOOD VENDING AND SIDEWALK VENDING.
-oOo-
1. Mobile food vending is currently not permitted within the City of Marina.
Establishing regulations in Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Marina Municipal Code (MMC) would allow mobile food vendors to opera te safely within cer tain rights-of-way and on private property in commercial, industrial, and mixed land use designations, with certain restrictions.
2. Adopting an ordinance would increase a ccess to good s provided by mobile food vendors, create an environment where storefronts and vendors can thrive and contribute to the local economy, limit pedestrian conf licts and protect access to public thoroughfares, and limit vending only to areas of the City where adeq uate infrastructure is in p lace to accommodate vendors and protect public health and safety.
3. The proposed z oning code amendment, if implemented, would establish th e requirement for a mobile foo d vending license . Opera tors would pay a fee established b y resolution of the City Council. The fee would generate revenue to offset the costs of staff time in reviewing applications and issuing l icenses. Implementation of the ordinance could result in increased tax revenue for the City . The City’s fee schedule does not currently include a fee that could be used. An appropriate fee would be determined by the City Council and added to the fee schedule by resolution.
4. The City Council of the City of Marina reviewed the proposed amendments and considered the recommendations of th e Planning Commission and held a duly noticed public hearing on December 5, 2023.
5. The City of Marina Planning Commis sion, at a duly noticed public hearing on September 28, 2023, adopted Resolution 2023-18 recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment.
6. Environmental. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this ordinance i s not subject to CEQA pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15061(b)(3), because the proposed ordinance is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, t he adoption of this 6 ordinance is exempt from CEQA and no further environmental review is necessary.
NOW, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals and associated findings are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth fully herein.
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Marina determines the proposed ordinance amendment is not a project pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3).
SECTION 3. Severability. If any portion of this Ordinance is found to be unconstitutional or invalid the City Council hereby declares that it would have enacted the remainder of this Ordinance regardless of the absence of any such invalid part.
SECTION 4. The City Manager is directed to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary acts to implement this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance s hall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption.
The foregoing Ordinance was introduced on December 5, 2023, and passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Marina at a regular meeting duly held on __________, 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
7 Chapter 10.46
Mobile Food Vending and Sidewalk Vending
10.46.010 Purpose
10.46.020 Definitions
10.46.030 Required permits and licenses
10.46.040 Exemptions
10.46.050 Operating standards
10.46.060 License denial, suspension and revocation
10.46.070 Sidewalk vending
10.46.080 Enforcement
10.46.010 Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to establish clear operating requirements for mobile food vendors and sidewalk vendors, including regulations for enforcement. Regulations are intended to:
A. Increase access to goods provided by mobile food vendors and sidewalk vendors.
B. Create an environment where storefronts and vendors can each thrive and contribute to the local economy.
C. Limit pedestrian conflicts and protect access to public thoroughfares.
D. Restrict mobile food vending in areas of the City where high traffic volumes, narrow rights-of-way, or inadequate infrastructure present public health and safety hazards.
E. This ordinance shall not be effective in the Coastal Zone unless and until the City’s Local Coastal Plan is amended to include it.
10.46.020 Definitions
For purposes of this chapter:
“Mobile food vending vehicle” means any self-propelled, motorized device by which any person or property may be propelled or moved upon a public street or private property, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power, or which may be drawn or towed by a self- propelled, motorized vehicle, from which foodstuffs are sold, displayed, solicited, or offered for sale, bartered, exchanged, given, or otherwise conveyed.
“Mobile food vendor” means a person who sells, displays, solicits, or offers for sale, exchange, gift, or otherwise conveys food or beverages from any vending vehicle on a public street or private property.
“Roaming sidewalk vendor” means a sidewalk vendor who moves from place to place and stops only to complete a transaction, as defined in California Government Code Section 51036.
“Sidewalk vendor” means a person who sells food or merchandise from a pushcart, stand, display, pedal-driven cart, wagon, showcase, rack, or other nonmotorized conveyance, or from one’s person, upon a public sidewalk or other pedestrian path, as defined in California Government Code Section 51036.
“Stationary sidewalk vendor” means a sidewalk vendor who vends from a fixed location, as defined in California Government Code Section 51036.
8 10.46.030 Required permits and licenses
It shall be unlawful for any person to maintain, manage or operate any mobile food vending vehicle within the City without a license and unless such activity is performed in strict compliance with the chapter, and all applicable laws, rules, and regulations.
A. An application for a mobile food vendor shall include the following:
1. Health permit issued by the County of Monterey Health Department. A separate health permit shall be obtained for each vehicle, even when conducted under the same ownership.
2. Valid business license issued pursuant to MMC Title 5.
3. Completed mobile vending license application form and fee.
B. Issuance
1. Separate mobile food vending licenses are required for mobile food vendors operating on in the public right-of-way or on private property.
Upon submission of a complete application, a mobile food vending license may be approved or denied by the City Manager or their respective designee
C. Expiration and Renewal
1. Each license is time limited and there is no guarantee of renewal.
2. A mobile food vending license shall expire on June 30th of each calendar year, regardless of the date issued.
3. No mobile food vending license shall be automatically renewed. It shall be the responsibility of the mobile food vendor to apply for renewal of a mobile food vending license on or before June 30th of each year.
4. A mobile food vending license issued pursuant to this chapter shall not be assigned, transferred, sold, or otherwise conveyed to any other person by the person to whom such license has been issued.
5. Circumstances for nonrenewal may include, but are not limited to, outstanding fees, code violations, validated complaints, or other similar infractions.
10.46.040 Exemptions
The following are exempt from the requirement to obtain a mobile food vending license, but operators must comply with applicable subsections of MMC 10.xx.050, obtain a valid health permit from the County of Monterey Health Department, and may be required to pay associated event fees.
A. An event authorized by a special event permit, temporary use permit, or other permit or entitlement issued by the City, such as for an authorized street fair.
B. An event at a school, assembly use facility, or recreational facility provided that the vendor is in partnership with the organization conducting the event and is located on the site of the event.
C. An event at a public park with prior City approval for a special event.
10.46.050 Operating standards
A. A mobile food vendor shall:
9 1. Operate in compliance with all applicable standards of the County of Monterey Health Department and the California Health and Safety Code.
2. A mobile food vending license issued pursuant to this chapter must be prominently displayed on the mobile food vending vehicle at any time vending occurs.
3. Not display, sell, or exchange any item other than food and/or beverages within City limits.
4. Not display, sell, or exchange any beverage containing alcohol.
5. Comply with all applicable food labeling requirements established by the State of California.
6. At all times operate in compliance with the California Vehicle Code, the MMC, and all posted parking, stopping, and standing restrictions.
7. Provide garbage, recycling, and food waste receptacles for immediate use by customers.
8. Pick up, remove, and dispose of all garbage and/or materials and food waste dispensed from the vending vehicle and any residue deposited on the street from the operation thereof, and otherwise maintain in a clean and debris-free condition the entire area within a 25-foot radius of the location where mobile food vending is occurring.
9. Operate in compliance with MMC Chapter 8.50, prohibiting polystyrene foam containers, and MMC Chapter 8.60, governing the use of single-use carryout bags.
10. Store all vehicles and foodstuffs at an approved commissary or commercial location approved by the County of Monterey Health Department. No mobile food vending vehicle shall be stored at any residential property within the City.
B. Operation on Public Streets. In addition to the requirements in subsection (A) of this section, a mobile food vending vehicle on a public street or highway shall:
1. Comply with all operating conditions imposed in the mobile food vendor license.
2. Operate only from public streets with adequate curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements.
3. Not conduct business or operate on the same block for any longer than allowed by parking restrictions on the block, but in no event for longer than three hours, and shall not within a period of two hours again operate such vehicle within the limits of such block.
4. Not conduct business or operate within one block of any public or private school grounds on days that school is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
5. Only conduct business from a licensed vehicle, wagon, trailer, or truck on a public street while parked in a legal parking space.
6. Only conduct business from the following rights-of-way:
a. All side streets within one block of Del Monte Boulevard, Imjin Parkway, and Reservation Road, provided that the streets are not adjacent to R-1 Single-Family Residential zoning districts;
b. Healy Avenue between Marina Drive and Paul Davis Drive; c. Neeson Road;
d. Paul Davis Drive;
10 e. Other public streets adjacent to industrial, commercial, or mixed-use zoning districts, provided that the streets are not adjacent to R-1 Single- Family Residential zoning districts.
7. Only conduct business in rights-of-way adjacent to commercial, industrial, airport, multifamily residential, or open space zones between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
8. Not operate in yellow commercial loading/unloading zones, white passenger zones, or red “no parking” zones.
9. Not encroach into a bicycle lane with any portion of a mobile food vending vehicle.
10. Not dispense food or beverages to persons in other vehicles or from other than the curbside of the vending vehicle when the vehicle is parked in the right-of- way.
11. Not encroach onto a public sidewalk with any part of a vehicle, wagon, trailer, or truck, or any other equipment or furniture related to the operation of the business without a minimum six-foot clearance.
C. Operation on Private Property. In addition to the requirements in section (A) of this section, a mobile food vending vehicle operating on private property shall:
1. Confine the entire operation to private property, including queueing of patrons.
2. Not encroach onto a sidewalk or other onsite route of access to the private property with any part of a vehicle, wagon, trailer, or truck, or any other equipment or furniture related to the operation of the business without a minimum six-foot clearance.
3. Provide the City with documentation from the property owner indicating permission to operate on the premises has been granted.
4. Only operate on parcels that allow industrial, commercial, or mixed uses.
5. Operate in compliance with the parking requirements in MMC Chapter 17.44.
Use of parking areas for the mobile vending vehicle shall not reduce the number of parking spaces for the established use below the standard required in the MMC.
10.46.060 License denial, suspension and revocation
A. The City Manager or designee shall have the authority to suspend or revoke the mobile food vending license for any reason, including but not limited to violation of any provision of the license, this Chapter, the MMC, the County of Monterey Health Department, or state law.
B. Any person whose application has been denied, or whose mobile food vending license has been suspended or revoked may appeal the decision pursuant to MMC Chapter 17.70.
10.46.070 Sidewalk vending
A. A sidewalk vendor shall not operate without a valid sidewalk vending license and business license issued by the City.
B. A sidewalk vendor shall comply with all applicable food labeling requirements established by the State of California in Government Code Chapter 6.2 Sections 51036 through 51039, as may be amended.
11 C. A sidewalk vendor shall comply with MMC Chapter 8.50, prohibiting the use of polystyrene foam containers, and Chapter 8.60 governing use of single-use carryout bags.
D. Operation in Residential Zones. In addition to the requirements in subsection (A) through (C) of this section, the following restriction applies to sidewalk vendors operating in residential zones:
1. Roaming and stationary sidewalk vendors shall operate between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
10.46.080 Enforcement
Mobile food vendors or sidewalk vendors that are not operating in compliance with the Chapter are considered to be in violation of the MMC, and subject to enforcement under Chapters 1.08,
1.10 and 1.12.
12 EXHIBIT B
FINDINGS
General Plan Compliance
Vending of any kind, including mobile food vending, is not referenced in the 2000 General Plan.
Zoning Compliance
1) Mobile food vending is similar to permitted uses established in Marina Municipal Code Chapters 17.16 (C-R or Commercial Multiple-Family Residential District),
17.18 (C-1 or Retail Business District), 17.20 (C-2 or General Commercial District),
17.22 (PC or Planned Commercial District), and 17.24 (BP or Business Park District).
13 EXHIBIT C
14 EXHIBIT C
15 EXHIBIT C
16 EXHIBIT C
17 EXHIBIT C
18 EXHIBIT C
19 EXHIBIT C
20 EXHIBIT C
21 EXHIBIT C
22 November 7, 2023 Agenda Item: 13a
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Marina City Council of December 5, 2023
CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION N O. 20 23-,
APPROVING MAYOR’S 20 24 RECOMMENDATION FOR MAYOR PRO
TEM AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ASSINGMENTS TO VARIOUS
COMMITTEES /COMMISSIONS /BOARDS
REQUEST:
It is requested that the City Council:
1. Consider adopting Resolution No. 20 23-, approving Mayor’s 20 24 recommendation for Mayor Pro Tem and City Council memb er assignments to various Committees/Commissions/Boards.
BACKGROUND:
Annually, the Mayor considers appointing a Mayor Pro Tem and makes recommend ations for City Council Member assignments to various commissions, boards and committees in special districts and organizations, joint powers authorities and other agencies.
ANALYSIS:
Mayor Delgado has considered these appointments and is making recommend ations for City Council member assignments to the vario us commissions, boards and committees in special districts and organizations, joint powers authorities and other agencies (“EXHIBIT A”).
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
CONCLUSION:
This request is submitted for City Council consideration and possible action.
Respectfully submitted,
Anita Sharp
Deputy City Clerk
City of Marina
REVIEWED AND CONCUR
____________________________
Layne P. Long
City Manager
City of Marina
1 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA
APPROVING MAYOR’S 2024 RECOMMENDATION FOR MAYOR PRO
TEMPORE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER 2024 ASSIGNMENTS TO
COMMITTEE/COMMISSION/BOARD ASSIGNMENTS
WHEREAS, annually, the Mayor c onsiders City Council Member assignments to various commissions, boards and committees in special districts and organizations, joint powers authorities and other agencies; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Delgado has considered these appointments and is making recommendations for City Council member assignments to the various commissions, boards and committees in special districts and organizations, joint powers authorities and other agencies (“EXHIBIT A”).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the C ity of Marina hereby approve the Mayor’s recommendations for Mayor Pro Tempore and City Council Member assignments to various commissions, committees and boards.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Marina at a regular meeting duly held on the 5th day of December 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________
Bruce C. Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk
2 2
CITY COUNCIL COMMISSION, COMMITTEE AND BOARD ASSIGNMENTS For Period of January 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024
AGENCY STIPEND MEMBERS
1) City of Marina Mayor Pro Tem Liesbeth Visscher
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
1) Monterey Regional Waste Management District $100/Mtg Member: Bruce C. Delgado (MRWMD) 4-year term through 2026
3rd Friday, 9:00 a.m., 14201 Del Monte Blvd, Marina
Tim Flanagan, General Manager
PO Box 609
Marina, CA 93933
Ph: 384-5313; Fax: 384-3567
Web Site: www.mrwmd.org
2) Northern Salinas Valley Mosquito Abatement District $100/Mtg Member: Nancy Amadeo (NSVMAD) 4-year term through 2026
2nd Tuesday, 12 noon,
Board of Trustees
342 Airport Blvd
Salinas, CA 93905
Ph: 422-6438 (Salinas Office) 373-2483 (Marina Residents); Fax: 422-3337 3) Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) $100/Mtg Member: Liesbeth Visscher 2nd Monday, 10 a.m., Alternate: Bruce C. Delgado
One Ryan Ranch Rd, Monterey
Carl Sedoryk, General Manager
Monterey CA 93940
Ph: 393-8192; Fax: 899-3954
Web Site: www.mst.org
EXHIBIT A
3 CITY COUNCIL COMMISSION, COMMITTEE AND BOARD ASSIGNMENTS For Period of January 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES
1) Community Human Services Project (CHS) No compensation Member: Brian McCarthy 3rd Thursday, 11 a.m. Alternate: Kathy Biala
Sand City, City Hall, One Sylvan Park
Robin McCrae, Executive Director
PO Box 3076
Monterey, CA 93942-3076
Ph: 658-3811; Fax: 658-3815
Web Site: www.chservices.org
2) Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments $50Mtg Member: Brian McCarthy (AMBAG) Alternate: Kathy Biala
2nd Wednesday, 7 p.m., Various Locations Alternate: Bruce Delgado Maura Twomey, Executive Director
PO Box 838
Marina, CA 93933
Ph: 883-3750; Fax: 883-9155
E-Mail: [email protected]
3) Monterey County Regional Taxi Authority $50Mtg Member: Liesbeth Visscher July 2021
One Lower Ragsdale Court
Monterey, CA 93940
Ph: 831-899-2558
Website: www.mryrta.org
SPECIALLY CONSTRUCTED ORGANIZATIONS
1) Monterey County Mayors Select Committee No Compensation Member: Bruce C. Delgado And Mayors’ Association
1st Friday, 12 noon, Various Locations
Office of the Mayor
Monterey City Hall
Monterey, CA 93940
Ph: 646-3760; Fax: 646-3702
EXHIBIT A
4 CITY COUNCIL COMMISSION, COMMITTEE AND BOARD ASSIGNMENTS For Period of January 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024
2) Transportation Agency of Monterey County (TAMC) No Compensation Member: Cristina Medina Dirksen 4th Wednesday, 9 a.m. (December: 1st Wednesday) Alternate: Bruce C. Delgado Salinas Community Center, 940 N Main St
Todd Muck, Executive Director
55-B Plaza Cr
Salinas, CA 93901-2902
Ph: 775-0903; Fax: 775-0897
3) Transportation Agency of Monterey County (TAMC) Willian Greenbaum Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee 2-year term 55-B Plaza Cir, Salinas, CA 93901-2902
Ph: 647-7777
1st Wednesday 6:00 – 8:00 PM
4) Monterey County Convention & Visitors Bureau No Compensation Member: Liesbeth Visscher 3rd Wednesday, 4:00 p.m., various locations Alternate: Matt Mogensen Wave Street 2-year term
Monterey, CA 93940
Ph: 657-6400
Fax: 648-5373
PARTICIPATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
1) Joint City/Marina Coast Water District No Compensation Member: Kathy Biala Coordination Committee Member: Liesbeth Visscher
1st Wednesday, 5 p.m., Marina City Hall Conference Room Alternate: Bruce Delgado Remleh Scherzinger, General Manager
11 Reservation Road
Marina, CA 93933
Ph: 384-6131; Fax: 384-2479
E-Mail: [email protected]
2) Access Monterey Peninsula (AMP) No Compensation Member: Brian McCarthy 3rd Monday, 12:00 p.m.
Sarah Pierce, Executive Director
465 Tyler Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Ph: 333-1267; Fax: 333-0386
E-Mail: [email protected]
EXHIBIT A
5 CITY COUNCIL COMMISSION, COMMITTEE AND BOARD ASSIGNMENTS For Period of January 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024
LIAISON TO CITY COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES No Compensation 1) Economic Development Commission (EDC) Council Member: Brian McCarthy 3rd Thursday, 4:00 p.m., Council Chambers
2) Planning Commission (PC) Council Member: Kathy Biala 2nd & 4th Thursday, 6:30 p.m., Council Chambers
4) Public Works Commission Council Member: Liesbeth Visscher 3rd Thursday, 6:30 p.m., Council Chambers
5) Recreation & Community Services Commission Council Member: Cristina Medina Dirksen 1st Wednesday, 6:15 p.m., Council Chambers
AMENDMENT APPROVED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council duly held on December 5, 2023
Bruce C. Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
6 December 1, 2023, Item No. 13b
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Marina City Council of December 5, 2023
CITY COUNCIL TO RECEIVE A PRESENTAITON ON THE RESULTS OF THE
ODOR ATTRIBUTION STUDY AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON FURTHER ACTION.
REQUEST:
It is requested that the City Council receive a presentation on the results of the odor attribution study and provide directions on any further action.
BACKGROUND:
A number of odor complaints have been reported to the City and the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) by citizens of the City of Marina in recent years. The complaints are often reported after hours and often appear to be transitory in nature. Sev eral surrounding public agencies have also been engaged with the City and MBARD during this time and have been working cooperatively to identify weather-related information such as wind speed, direction, and temperature during each reported event, in addit ion to investigating current operating conditions at their facilities and, when timely, visiting the area of the reported odor.
ReGen Monterey (ReGen) was established in 1951 and has been operating a Class III Non -hazardous municipal solid waste landfill since 1965; food/vegetation composting operations since 1988; and a Pilot Study Smart-Ferm Anaerobic Digester operation between 2013 and 2019. Monterey One Water (M1W) began operating a Regional wastewater treatment plant in 1990. RAMCO farming develop ed >1000 acres of land for strawberry production between 2014 and 2017 and rotated crop operations thereafter.
ReGen and M1W are regulated, permitted, and monitored by various local, state, and federal agencies including, but not limited to, the County of Monterey Health Department (Local Enforcement Agency), Monterey Bay Air Resources District, California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), California Environmental Protection Agency , Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board , State Water Resources Control Board, California Air Resources Board, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
A public meeting was held on January 27, 2021, where representatives of ReGen, Monterey One Water (M1W), Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD), Monterey County Health Department, as well as experts in agriculture and composting participated on an information panel and answered questions for the public. One of the outcomes of the meeting was a commitment to conduct an odor attribution study to positively identify odor sources and develop possible mitigation measures for consideration.
From the initial meetings, ReGen and M1W each committed to paying up to $50,000 for a total of $100,000 to fund the odor study.
On April 19, 2022, the City Council a dopted resolution no. 2022-49 directing Staff to issue a Request for Qualifications for hiring a contractor to conduct an odor attribution study.
Staff issued an RFP on May 17 and received proposals from SCS Engineers and Montrose Environmental. On July 8, interview meetings were held to evaluate the consultants' qualifications by the interview panel, including two staff members, one representative from Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD), one representative from County of Monterey Health Department, and one representative from the residents of Marina. Based on the evaluation process SCS Engineers was selected as the most qualified firm for conducting the odor attribution study.
1 After selecting the most qualified consultant and receiving the fee proposal and scope of work, the staff coordinated another meeting on August 29 with representatives from ReGen and M1W to negotiate an increase in the contributions of each agency to cover the expenses proposed by the selected consultant for the odor attribution study. ReGen and M1W respectively increased their commitment to paying up to $75,000 each and paying $150,000 in total.
On September 20, 2022, the City Council adopted resolution no. 2022-115 authorizing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Marina, ReGen Monterey (ReGen), and Monterey One Water (M1W) for the funding and reimbursement of the project cost and outline the scope of work and duties of each agency during the project. ReGen and M1W agreed to pay up to $75,000 per agency and $150,000 in total to cover the project expenses, excluding the City staff time.
On September 20, 2022, the City Council adopted resolution no. 2022-116 approving a professional services agreement between the City of Marina and SCS Engineers for environmental services to conduct the odor attribution study.
ANALYSIS:
The odor attribution study is now complete and ready for public review (EXHIBIT A). SCS will present the study methodology and result s ( EXHIBIT B ). The odo r attribution study is limi ted in scope to analyzing air samples at times when weather patterns were similar to those at the time of the majority of past odor reports. An exhaustive review of the operations of ReGen, M1W, and surrounding agriculture was not conducted. The report makes recommendations based upon effective odor management measures for operations observed to be present at each of the facilities. Follow up studies will likely be needed to determine appropriate effective measures that can be implemented specific to each location. Implementation of any changes to facility infrastructure to address potential odors will have to be carried out by ReGen, M1W, and RAMCO subject to direction by their respective governing boards or corporate structure.
For next steps staff will be worki ng direct ly with ReGen , M1W a nd RAMCO to discuss recommendations of the study and mitigation options moving forward.
FISCAL IMPACT:
ReGen and M1W have been reimbursing the project costs and will complete payment of their respective portions once the final odor study invoicing is received.
CONCLUSION:
This request is submitted for City Council consideration and action.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Brian McMinn, P.E., P.L.S.
Public Works Director & City Engineer
City of Marina
REVIEWED/CONCUR:
____________________________
Layne Long
City Manager
City of Marina
2 City of Marina Odor Attribution Study
Prepared for:
City of Marina
Public Works
Department 211
Hillcrest Avenue
Marina, CA 93933
(831) 884-1212
2370 Skyway Dr
Santa Maria, CA 93455
805-346-6591
01222259.00 | October 27th, 2023
EXHIBIT A
3 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com i
Table of Contents
Section Page
Project Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 3 Project Limitations: ................................................................................................................... 4 Summary of Task 1 Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 5 Task 1 Details ........................................................................................................................... 5 Task 1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 6 Odor Assessment – Field Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 7 Project Description ................................................................................................................... 7 Project Location ........................................................................................................................ 7 Project Set Up ........................................................................................................................... 8 Odor Sampling .......................................................................................................... 10 Wind Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 12 Odor Analysis ............................................................................................................ 12
3.3. 4 Panelist Screening ................................................................................... 13 Challenges Encountered ....................................................................................................... 15 Weather ..................................................................................................................... 15 Upwind Operations ................................................................................................... 15 Odor Panel and Analysis .......................................................................................... 15 Olfactometer ............................................................................................................. 15 Data Tables and Results ....................................................................................................... 16 March 30th Sampling Event ..................................................................................... 17 March 31st Sampling Event ..................................................................................... 17 April 20th Sampling Event......................................................................................... 18 April 26th Sampling Event......................................................................................... 18 Sampling Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 18 Odor Abatement Recommendations................................ ................................ ........................... 19 Recommended Complaint Management System ................................ ................................ .......21
EXHIBIT A
4 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com ii
Figures
Figure 1. Map of Sampling Locations .................................................................................................. 8 Figure 2. Set Up: Pre-labeled Bags into Labeled Drums Prior to Deployment ............................... 10 Figure 3. Schematic of Lung Sampler Air Displacement System ................................................... 11 Figure 4. Sampling Set Up: Lung Sampler at Site 10 ...................................................................... 11 Figure 5. Odor Panel Analyzing a Sample ........................................................................................ 14 Figure 6. Odor Concentration (OU/m3) By Site and Sampling Event .............................................. 17
Tables
Table 1. Fixed and Semi-Fixed Sampling Location Coordinates ....................................................... 9 Table 2. Wind Monitoring Equipment .............................................................................................. 12 Table 3. Screened Odor Panelists and their Affiliations ................................................................ 13 Table 4. Sampling Conditions .......................................................................................................... 16 Table 5. Sampling Results ............................................................................................................... 16
Appendices
Appendix A Wind Rose Plots from Task 1
Appendix B Sampling Location Maps
Appendix C Example Complaint Management Form
EXHIBIT A
5 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com 3 PROJECT SUMMARY
The purpose of this sampling campaign was to identify the relative hierarchy of potential sources and quantify intermittent odor impacts reported in the City of Marina (City). SCS Engineers (SCS) was contracted by the City with funding and assistance from ReGen Monterey (ReGen) and Monterey One Water (M1W) to conduct this study. Known potential sources included, but are not limited to, the publicly-operated regional landfill and wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), composting, and/or agriculture.
The regional landfill and WWTP facilities receive and process municipal solid and liquid wastes, respectively. The composting facility is operated within the boundary of the regional landfill. A ~1,000-acre privately operated agriculture field abuts Marina’s northern boundary. By assessing the relative contribution of the most probable sources identified, SCS has been able to propose targeted mitigation measures relative to the source type assessed with the goal of optimizing reduction in downwind perception of odors by spending money where it is assessed to be needed most. This includes the relative contribution of sub-sources within the boundaries of the probable sources. The results of the Odor Attribution Study contribute to the advancement of understanding by the City and the Stakeholder groups and inform subsequent studies for any source(s) identified by implementing this Plan.
SCS developed an odor investigation plan (Plan) following a review and analysis of existing and current complaints (Task 1) in addition to site visits to these well-known sources and the surrounding areas. The Plan provided a detailed description of the means, methods, and/or equipment to be used, continuous versus discrete investigation methods, frequency, and length of investigation event(s) proposed. All measurements were conducted with regard to established American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) methods and generally accepted practices utilized in the air pollution monitoring industry. All personnel conducting the sampling are trained and qualified to perform those tasks.
This report will also detail recommended next steps, and suggestions for odor control relative to specific sources that are identified by the study. Report elements will include:
• Detailed odor source measurements of the selected source operations and the methods utilized for the measurements.
• Investigation of odor complaint data and cross-comparison to concurrent measurements and wind data.
• Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures utilized to ensure the defensibility of the data collected.
• Recommendations of Best Management Practices for the selected sources identified to be contributing to odor impacts downwind from the subject facilities in this study.
• SCS will incorporate comments/suggestions that are agreed upon by all interested parties, including SCS. We will discuss and receive feedback on this draft report at the public outreach meeting.
EXHIBIT A
6 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com 4 PROJECT LIMITATIONS:
There are several limitations associated with this sampling project. The major limitations are as follows:
• The results correspond to one particular period of time. These results may not necessarily be reproducible at another given period of time.
• Data obtained during this sampling project are averaged concentrations over varying periods. Different averaging periods may lead to different results.
• Odor concentrations are highly dependent on dispersion parameters (i.e. winds, relative humidity, proximity to source).
• SCS personnel did not accompany operators fitted with personal monitors throughout the course of each sampling event. It is unknown what the operators may have been exposed to, outside of normal operations, during the course of the sampling event(s).
• The tasks and locations monitored and the time operations occurred in the vicinity of various sampling locations were not controlled. These factors/variables may influence monitoring results.
• Additional odor sources can and do exist in the region that were not assessed as part of this project.
EXHIBIT A
7 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com 5 SUMMARY OF TASK 1 FINDINGS
SCS conducted an initial review of relevant information provided by the City with the goal of defining the parameters for a field investigation. This includes a review of odor complaints from the last six years, compilation and analysis of relevant meteorological (MET) data from the same period (where available), initial identification of potential sources of odor, field inspection of candidate sources, and an evaluation of topographic conditions.
SCS evaluated historical wind data from 16 MET stations in the region to identify which data set would best support analysis of odor complaints from the two worst-case years. This evaluation was based upon criteria such as (but not limited to):
• Distance from the City area where most of the odor complaints were registered. • Historical length of wind data records.
• Wind sensor thresholds.
• Time frequency of wind data in terms of observations and averages. • Siting parameters in terms of exposure to true winds (orographic and anthropogenic influences).
• Reasonableness and consistency with other nearby measurements. • Spot check recorded wind episodes with NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) weather records for the same periods.
• Elevation (above mean sea level) and height (above ground level mounting).
TASK 1 DETAILS
The MET study determined that:
• There are 16 MET stations in the region. Of the 16 MET stations, only three (3) were viable options due to data quality, lack of historical data, temporal resolution, and proximity to the City.
• The data from onsite MET stations at ReGen and M1W are similar but offset due to what we suspect as one aligned to magnetic North and the other to true North. Most are aligned to true North. We find the ReGen station to be the most appropriate for use in our study. • The Sand City station, although further from the City than the other two, is situated near the coast, similar to the City. Data from this site can serve to evaluate whether a different wind regime occurred in the City during a specific episode.
• Sand City and ReGen data are similar, but there is a noticeable difference in the percentages of time certain winds occur.
• Easterly winds are prominent during the morning, but taper off in the afternoon, and these winds can move odors toward the City (e.g., from East to West).
A site visit to the ReGen and M1W facilities was conducted by Paul Schafer and Eva Luu of SCS on 22-December 2022. SCS also drove along the perimeter of the RamCo Agriculture fields (Ag Fields) but did not access the property. The visit noted that:
RamCo Ag Fields:
• RamCo Ag fields are located between the ReGen/M1W facilities and the City. Significant portions of the Ag fields began development in the 2015-2016 time frame by converting
EXHIBIT A
8 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com 6 the dune terrace former ranch land to strawberry fields. This conversion included the addition of irrigation, nutrients and compost to the soil in order to farm the land.
ReGen Facility:
• The nonhazardous municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill has been operational since November 1965 and the composting facility since the 1980s. • The landfill consisted of typical open-face landfill odors, which did not seem significant downwind.
• The Material Recovery Facility (MRF) separates recyclables, green waste, construction and demolition (C&D), etc. There was no significant downwind odor. The facility was outfitted with misters for particulate control which did not appear to be in operation at the time. • The Landfill Gas To Energy (LFGTE) Power Plant was operational with no significant odor downwind.
• The former Pilot Study Anaerobic Digester (AD) System was known as a source of odor but as of August 2019 is no longer operational. The Pilot Study was operated from 2013 to 2019; was known to be a source of “onsite odors”; and digestate organic material from the anaerobic digester was fully removed from the composting site by the Fall of 2020. The Pilot Study equipment has not yet been removed from the site by its owner, Zero Waste Energy. • The adjacent large composting area had two notably different odor characteristics, as one composting area consisted of piles of food waste, another area of simply green waste, and another of comingled food and green waste. During the visit, piles were being turned and steam from the internal materials was visible. Odor in this immediate area was significant.
The composting area is located on the West side of the property closer in proximity to receptors and the M1W Facility.
• There is a regulatory-required contact water pond on the southwestern side of the compost facility. The access road to M1W was downwind of the pond at the time of our visit and there was a pungent odor observed. The source could have been from the compost area.
M1W Facility:
• M1W historically collected hydrogen sulfide (H2S) concentration data in ambient air at the fence line with a handheld Jerome meter but, with non-detect (ND) readings all the time, they were allowed to stop this monitoring activity.
• Storm water is collected onsite.
• The Headworks Facility in the southeastern portion of the facility is monitored daily for H 2S
with a gas meter. There was a strong odor near this equipment but not significant downwind. • The rest of the M1W facility all had odors related to wastewater, ranging from ammonia to H2S to sewage, but the intensity was significantly less than that of the Headworks Facility.
TASK 1 CONCLUSIONS
Based on this analysis, the most likely time for downwind impacts of air emissions from the ReGen and M1W sources are in winter (December through March) during the 5 am through 5 pm hours.
Please see the graphs in Appendix A (Exhibits 1 and 2) to illustrate this information. The most likely downwind direction for odor impacts during this time period is to the West-northwest of the landfill/WWTP properties. For reference, the City is located from the South to the Southwest. Exhibits 3 and 4 (See Appendix B) show wind roses for MET conditions during the morning and afternoon hours respectively, during the months of December through March. As you can see, Easterly winds
EXHIBIT A
9 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com 7 are prominent during the morning, but taper off in the afternoon, and these winds can move odors from East to West. The majority of complaints occur during the winter months and during the morning and afternoon hours, with morning being the most prominent.
With these observations and MET analyses, 16 fixed sampling locations were proposed for this Plan, which have been utilized to collect roughly 100, two-hour (2-hr) time-averaged samples over five total sampling events.
ODOR ASSESSMENT – FIELD STUDY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Prior to deployment into the field, SCS conducted a thorough analysis of current and existing complaints and evaluated two (2) years of historical MET data to best inform the sampling locations of the following odor study and evaluation. The results of this study concluded the predominant winds in the winter months that result in complaints in the City come from the east to northeast, which positions the City directly downwind of the potential sources. In order to collect samples that replicate the conditions that could generate odors in the City, a daily forecast was conducted to inform when to collect field samples. Optimal conditions were based on forecasted light winds (less than 5 mph) from the North to Northeast.
Due to the atypical weather experienced during the first three (3) months of 2023, ideal sampling conditions occurred intermittently. SCS was on location in Marina for five (5) different instances to, first, collect odor samples, and secondly, analyze them using an olfactometer and a local panel of analysts. Sixteen (16) fixed and semi-fixed sampling locations were identified to isolate areas and sub-areas of potential sources of odor. These odor samples were brought to an offsite location to be analyzed for odor concentration. Finally, the measured odor concentrations were compared and assessed relative to the wind conditions at the time of sampling with the goal of determining which sources had the greatest contribution to downwind odor concentrations.
PROJECT LOCATION
Fifteen (15) of the 16 fixed and semi-fixed sampling locations were situated on ReGen and M1W property, located at 14201 Del Monte Blvd, Monterey County, CA 93908 and 14811 Del Monte Boulevard, Monterey County, CA 93908, respectively. With permission from Pastor Lee, the remaining fixed sampling location was located on the property of Canaan Korean United Methodist Church, at 281 Beach Rd, Marina, CA 93933. Each round of sampling also included up to four (4) roving locations: odor samples collected around the city if/when odors were detected.
Figure 1 and Appendix B are visual representations of sampling locations. Sampling location coordinates are provided in Table 1, Section 3.3.
EXHIBIT A
10 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com 8 Figure 1. Map of Sampling Locations
PROJECT SET UP
Forecasted wind conditions were used to determine appropriate windows for sampling. Appropriate windows consisted of winds coming from the North to Northeast at low wind speeds for at least 2 hours. Low to light wind speeds (≈ .5 – 5mph) promote ideal conditions for odor transport because there is less dilution, dispersion, and advection of air masses. Once these forecasted conditions were expected to be persistent during a study window, SCS deployed into the field to set up, collect samples, and coordinate with the local odor panel to analyze the samples.
Every 2-hour sampling window consisted of 16 fixed samples and up to four (4) roving samples. The 16 fixed and semi-fixed sampling locations are detailed in the table below. Semi-fixed locations are those that change with operation, such as the open face of the landfill. Sites #5, 6, and 9 were intended to collect samples at the boundary of the open face, which changed over the course of the months the sampling took place. GPS locations listed in Table 1, below, are averaged locations across the five (5) sampling rounds; exact coordinates by day are provided in Appendix B.
EXHIBIT A
11 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com 9 Table 1. Fixed and Semi-Fixed Sampling Location Coordinates Site # Status Property Latitude Longitude
1 Fixed ReGen 36°42'38" N 121°46'33" W
2 Fixed ReGen 36°42'44" N 121°46'21" W
3 Fixed ReGen 36°42'38" N 121°46'14" W
4 Fixed ReGen 36°42'46" N 121°45'58" W
5 Semi ReGen 36°42'36" N 121°45'23" W
6 Semi ReGen 36°42'32" N 121°45'26" W
7 Fixed ReGen 36°42'28" N 121°45'50" W
8 Fixed ReGen 36°42'33" N 121°46'6" W
9 Semi ReGen 36°42'40" N 121°45'51" W
10 Fixed Church 36°41'34" N 121°47'28" W
11 Fixed M1W 36°42'29" N 121°46'26" W
12 Fixed M1W 36°42'28" N 121°46'20" W
13 Fixed M1W 36°42'27" N 121°46'5" W
14 Fixed M1W 36°42'27" N 121°46'2" W
15 Fixed M1W 36°42'12" N 121°46'4" W
16 Fixed M1W 36°42'14" N 121°46'16" W
Every sample location had the same length of tubing from the sample point to the sample collection point. Every sample bag was pre-labeled and placed at their respective sampling points prior to the study. Trained personnel conducted the sampling by operating sampling pumps, periodically checking for potential malfunctions, and troubleshooting.
Once each 2-hour sampling period was complete, samples were immediately collected, placed into opaque bags to prevent exposure to sunlight, and transported to an offsite location, away from the area of potential odor, to be analyzed.
EXHIBIT A
12 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com 10 Figure 2. Set Up: Pre-labeled Bags into Labeled Drums Prior to Deployment
Odor Sampling
Odor samples were collected with the objective of defining the odor concentration in terms of odor units. Odor samples were collected into 100L PTFE bags using an air displacement sampling system, sometimes known as a “lung sampler”. See Figure 2. PTFE, or Polytetrafluoroethylene, is a versatile, hydrophobic, high density material resistant to high temperatures, chosen for these properties. This method of collecting the air sample was used to eliminate any influence that an air pump would have on the sample collected. See Figure 3 for a schematic diagram. The sample bag is placed into the sealed lung sampler and connected through a feed-through fitting to the sampling inlet. A second fitting is located in the wall of the lung sampler and is connected to a vacuum pump. The container is then closed and sealed. As the pump withdraws air from the sealed container, an equal volume of sample air is drawn into the sample bag without ever making contact with the pump. See Figure 4.
EXHIBIT A
13 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com 11 Figure 3. Schematic of Lung Sampler Air Displacement System
Figure 4. Sampling Set Up: Lung Sampler at Site 10
SAMPLING LINE
VACUUM LINE
PUMP
TEDLAR BAG
RIGID, LEAK PROOF CONTAINER
EXHIBIT A
14 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com 12 Wind Monitoring
SCS installed a wind monitoring system according to the specifications in the Sampling and Analysis Plan prior to the start of the sampling program. See Figure 1 for the location of the wind system. The system was used for the purpose of documenting wind conditions during the study periods as well as for comparing actual site data to forecasted wind conditions at the site. This enabled SCS’s meteorologist to more accurately predict site wind conditions and call for testing events. Table 2 provides the equipment SCS installed as well as their relative purpose.
Table 2. Wind Monitoring Equipment
Parameter/Purpose Make and Model Note:
Wind Sensor: Wind Speed RM Young Model 05305 0-100 mph (0-50m/s) Wind Sensor: Wind Direction RM Young Model 05305 0-360° Data Logger CR-300 7.2 Days (1-min data)
Cellular Modem Verizon –4g LTE Remote Polling
Tripod 970895 3-meter Tri-pod system
Power: Battery and Solar TBD Sized Appropriate for Study
Odor Analysis
An olfactometer is an instrument typically used to detect and measure odor concentration and assess the character of an air sample. Olfactometers are used in conjunction with human subjects, to gauge the odor detection threshold of a sample. Odor measurement is aimed at characterizing environmental odors, as relevant to humans. No methods currently exist that appropriately simulate and predict the responses of our sense of smell. The human nose is, to this day, the most suitable ‘sensor’. Objective methods have been developed to establish odor concentration, using human assessors.
A Scentroid SS400 Six Station Portable Olfactometer (SS400) was utilized in this study. The lowest level at which a percentage of panelists can detect an odor determines the odor detection threshold of a sample. The SS400 is compliant with the European Standard EN 13725/2003 as well as ASTM E679-04.The odor concentration is measured by determining the dilution factor required to reach the detection threshold, at which point, by definition, is 1 ou/m
3. The odor concentration is then
expressed in terms of multiples of the detection threshold. Measurements typically range from 101 ou/m3 to 107 ou/m3.
Odor units are a way to standardize and quantify the perceived strength of an odor. The concentration of odorous compounds in the air is often measured in terms of its perceived intensity by human noses. One Odor Unit (OU) is the concentration of an odorant that is equivalent in intensity to a particular reference odor. The "m3" stands for cubic meters, which is a unit of volume. It refers to the volume of air in which the odor concentration is measured.
Therefore, "OU/m3" indicates the number of odor units per cubic meter of air, providing a measure of the concentration of odorous substances present in a specific volume of air and giving an idea of the intensity or strength of the odor perceived within that volume.
EXHIBIT A
15 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com 13 The odor concentration of an examined sample is determined by presenting a panel of four (4) to six (6) selected and screened human subjects with varying dilutions of sampled gas, using two sniff ports. One port delivers odor-free air while the other provides a known dilution of the sample. The olfactometer software randomly selects the port delivering the diluted sample air. The panel goes through rounds of ascending odor concentrations until the detection level is determined. The resulting dilution factor at the 50% detection threshold (D50) is used to express the odor concentration of the sample as multiples of one European Odor Unit per cubic meter [ou/m3] at Standard conditions.
The samples were tested under Binary Mode, which provides panelists with 6 options. Panelist must indicate whether the odor was emitted from Port A or Port B and with what certainty level (guess, inkling, or confident) they detected an odor. Panelists must discern and indicate the correct port as well as indicate a confident certainty in two consecutive runs to complete the test.
The SS400 was calibrated and set up by SCS personnel, and SCS personnel personally developed the odor panel used in the study. Each odor panel operated in roughly 2 to 3-hour shifts during the course of the study, analyzing all collected samples no more than 36 hours after the sample was collected, which is the ASTM-required holding time for odor samples.
3.3.4 Panelist Screening
Thirty-four (34) people were screened for the odor panel. These volunteers were sought from members of the community, employees of the City of Marina, ReGen, M1W, and SCS personnel. The screening determines whether panelists can detect n-butanol in a predetermined range of concentrations. This filters out people whom we have dubbed “super-sniffers”— those who can detect a very low range of odors— and people who have low sensitivity to odors— those who cannot detect odors consistently in this range. The screening prevents any significant bias in the analysis of odor samples. The Scentroid SK5 Sensitivity Kit is designed to provide accurate n-butanol mixtures of 5 to 50 ppm from a liquid n-butanol source. The n-butanol mixture can then be used to screen panelists using the Scentroid SS400 in accordance with the EN13725 standard. The mixture is accurate and repeatable thanks to the fixed volume evaporation chamber, micro-liter syringe, and pre-purged Tedlar bag.
For this study, four (4) to six (6) odor panelists were utilized to analyze each sample. The following is a list of the screened odor panelists and their affiliations:
Table 3. Screened Odor Panelists and their Affiliations Panelist Name Organization
1 Wendy B. Citizen of Marina
2 Kate G. Citizen of Marina
3 Nathan M. Citizen of Marina
4 Jeffrey P. Citizen of Marina
5 Peter L. Citizen of Marina
6 Grace S. Citizen of Marina
7 Karen A. Citizen of Marina
8 Jenny W. Citizen of Marina
9 Susan W. Citizen of Marina
EXHIBIT A
16 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com 14 Figure 5. Odor Panel Analyzing a Sample
10 Elowyne S. Citizen of Marina
11 Teresa L. Citizen of Marina
12 Maribel F. Citizen of Marina
13 Susan S. Citizen of Marina
14 Katherine B. Citizen of Marina
15 Greg S. Citizen of Marina
16 Joshelyn M. Citizen of Marina
17 Alyson H. City of Marina Personnel
18 Brian M. City of Marina Personnel
19 Brian M. City of Marina Personnel
20 Selai L. City of Marina Personnel
21 Michael C. City of Marina Personnel
22 Walter G. City of Marina Personnel
23 Tyler L. City of Marina Personnel
24 Angel G. City of Marina Personnel
25 Sam C. City of Marina Personnel
26 Michaelle M. City of Marina Personnel
27 Erik N. City of Marina Personnel
28 Mario M. City of Marina Personnel
29 Selai L. City of Marina Personnel
30 Christopher P. SCS Personnel
31 Eva L. SCS Personnel
32 Armando H. SCS Personnel
33 Joshua S. SCS Personnel
34 Nicole V. SCS Personnel
EXHIBIT A
17 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com 15 CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED
There were a number of challenges encountered during the sampling period. These included weather, landfill operations near our “upwind” sampling location, and utilizing volunteers for the odor panel and analysis.
Weather
California was experiencing an unprecedented winter of record storms and an extended rainy season. This affected weather patterns typically seen during the winter months when odor complaints occurred; thus, waiting for and planning field deployment during a proper window of opportunity when wind patterns lined up was logistically difficult and required multiple one- or two- day trips to collect a proper amount of data to analyze. This was a deviation from the Plan as all sampling was specified to take place over the same deployment.
Upwind Operations
The 16 sites were set up to capture upwind and downwind samples bracketing each property and source areas within each property. The upwind sample, north of ReGen, was located next to surface grading work for a few of the five days sampling occurred. This appeared to skew the upwind background odor concentration upwards. Work on the northern slope was completed on 18-April 2023.
Odor Panel and Analysis
In the past, SCS sent odor samples to an odor lab in Connecticut, which could only handle 10-12 bags a day. Due to the lab’s sample restriction and the ASTM required 36-hour holding time of the samples, the maximum number of samples previously collected per day (24-hour window) was twelve (12). For this sampling campaign, the Project Team obtained an olfactometer and screened a number of members of the community to build a local odor panel. Of the 34 people screened, 28 fell within the acceptable odor sensitivity range to become an odor panelist, as noted in Table 3. The odor panel operated continuously for eight (8) to twelve hours a day, in 2 to 3-hour shifts. This allowed for more than three (3) times the usual number of samples to be collected and analyzed within a 24-hr period.
As mentioned in Section 3.3.3, Panelist Screening, SCS sought odor panel volunteers from multiple sources including ReGen and M1W. After two hours of panelist sniffing, odor panelists would often begin to experience olfactory fatigue, characterized by increased difficulty in confidently detecting odors. Three-hour sniffing panels were scaled back to a maximum of two hours in order to accommodate panelists’ olfactory fatigue.
Olfactometer
The Scentroid SS400 Olfactometer was shipped with a number of challenges of its own. Firstly, it requires at a minimum an 80 PSI pure-air compressor that operates on a 220 VAC outlet. This was a logistical constraint as these are not common household outlets. Ultimately, this required the olfactometer to be located in the City of Marina Corporation Yard in order to have sufficient operational power. Secondly, although multiple tests were conducted prior to deployment, the SS400 had flow issues that required troubleshooting with Scentroid to diagnose and equalize following deployment in the City of Marina.
EXHIBIT A
18 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com 16 DATA TABLES AND RESULTS
The following Tables 4 and 5 provide the dates, times, conditions, and results of each of the six sampling events that took place. The March 7th sampling event resulted in inconclusive data results due to flow issues that occurred during shipping/transport to the project site. Figure 6 plots the odor concentrations by location and sampling event. The relative sampling location maps in Appendix B are useful when assessing relative difference on each sampling day.
Table 4. Sampling Conditions
Table 5. Sampling Results (See Appendix B for Sample Locations) Start Date and Time 3/30/23 7:30-9:30 3/31/23 9:30-11:30 4/20/23 7:00-9:00 4/26/23 7:30-9:30 Sample Site Z Result
OU/m3
Z Result
OU/m3
Z Result
OU/m3
Z Result
OU/m3
1A_3007 40000 3536 2806 40000
2A_3007 445 4455 442 3536
3A_3007 INV 2227 1768 5000
4A_3007 INV 1403 7071 5946
5A_3007 500 INV 313 5000
6A_3007 INV 7072 <150 INV
7A_3007 1000 14142 40000 7072
8A_3007 397 1768 7072 INV
9A_3007 3536 442 5000 INV
10A_3007 720 884 2227 INV
11A_3007 176 INV 30000 8909
12A_3007 INV 2500 3536 3536
13A_3007 176 10001 INV 14142
14A_3007 250 7071 17819 INV
15A_3007 20000 7071 14143 7072
16A_3007 3250 INV 3536 3536
R1A_3007 150 2806 7072 10000
R2A_3007 1250 14142 10001 23784
R3A_3007 2102 1403 3536 INV
R4A_3007 100 2500 1768 14142
Date Sampling Period Wind Conditions Comment:
March 7th, 2023 7:00-9:00 am East-Northeast, 1-5 mph Data analysis is inconclusive. Fault with olfactometer skewed results.
March 7th, 2023 9:45-11:45 am Variable, 0-3 mph Data analysis is inconclusive. Fault with olfactometer skewed results.
March 30th, 2023 7:30-9:30 am Northeast, 0-3 mph 4 Invalid Samples March 31st, 2023 9:30-11:30 am Northeast, 0-3 mph 3 Invalid Sample April 20th, 2023 7:00-9:00 am Northeast, 0-3 mph 1 Invalid Samples April 26th, 2023 7:30-9:30 am North-Northeast, 0-2 mph 6 Invalid Samples
EXHIBIT A
19 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com 17 Figure 6. Odor Concentration (OU/m3) By Site and Sampling Event
March 30th Sampling Event
Samples were collected on March 30th from 7:30 to 9:30 am (2-hours). Winds were from the North- East quadrant throughout the duration of the sampling event and were very light (< 2 m/s). There was a more Easterly component to the winds for a portion of the sampling event. A wind rose is provided within the sampling map in Appendix B.
The most significant impacts relative to upwind concentrations were at Site #1 (downwind from the composting area at ReGEN) and Site #15 (downwind from M1W sludge drying beds). Roving samples R2A and R3A showed elevated concentrations from background and were downwind from multiple sources at the time of collection.
March 31st Sampling Event
Samples were collected on March 31st from 9:30 to 11:30 am (2-hours). Winds were from the North- East quadrant throughout the duration of the sampling event with low standard deviation. Wind speed was a little higher on average than on the 30th. A wind rose is provided within the sampling map in Appendix B.
0 5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
0 1 2 3 4 5
1A
2A
3A
4A
5A
6A
7A
8A
9A
10A
11A
12A
13A
14A
15A
16A
Detection Threshold (OU/m3)
Sampling Day
EXHIBIT A
20 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com 18 The most significant onsite impacts during this sampling event occurred downwind of the open face at ReGen (Sample locations #6, #7, #13, #14, #15). Site #15 was also downwind of the sludge drying beds which potentially influenced the odor concentration as well. Site #1 was not predominately downwind of the composting area during this sampling event and Site #11 was invalid. Roving sample R2 showed significantly elevated concentration relative to upwind and was downwind from multiple sources at the time of collection (compost area, open face, RAMCO operated agricultural fields).
April 20th Sampling Event
Samples were collected on April 20th from 7:00 to 9:00 am (2 hours). Winds were from the North- West quadrant throughout the duration of the sampling event with low standard deviation. Wind speed and direction were very similar to conditions on March 31st. A wind rose is provided within the sampling map in Appendix B.
The most significant impacts relative to upwind concentrations were at Site #7 and Site #14 (downwind from the open face at ReGEN) and Site #11 (downwind from the composting area at ReGEN). Roving samples R2A and R3A showed elevated concentrations from the background and were downwind from multiple sources at the time of collection. Site #15 was also elevated again but upwind concentrations were also elevated at Sites #14 and Site #7.
April 26th Sampling Event
Samples were collected on April 26th from 7:30 to 9:30 am (2 hours). Winds were predominately from the North during the sampling event with significant variability. Wind speeds were light (< 2 m/s). A wind rose is provided within the sampling map in Appendix B.
Winds were light and more variable throughout the sampling event. This resulted in generally higher averaged odor concentrations throughout the onsite monitoring during this sampling event. The most significant impacts relative to upwind concentrations were at Site #1 (downwind from the composting area at ReGEN) and Site #13 (downwind from the open face at ReGEN). All three valid Roving samples (R1, R2, and R4) showed elevated concentrations relative to the background and were downwind from multiple sources at the time of collection. These concentrations were significantly elevated and measured at the outer edge of the City of Marina indicating nuisance impacts. Site #15 was also elevated again but upwind concentrations were also elevated at Site #7 and #13.
SAMPLING CONCLUSIONS
The following are some conclusions based on the sampling results (from Section 3.5) presented:
• Significant Odor impacts were measured relative to upwind concentrations downwind of composting operations for three of the four sampling events. For the sampling event that did not show elevated impacts downwind from the composting facility, the main downwind sample was invalid. This aligns with observations from site visits as well as field observations.
• Every sampling event showed elevated impacts downwind of the M1W sludge drying ponds.
It’s unclear exactly how much these elevated samples were impacted by upwind sources and being downwind from landfill operations. However, the persistence of this measurement over
EXHIBIT A
21 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com 19 multiple days and variable wind directions indicate the sludge drying beds are a likley source of odors downwind of the facility.
• Significant Odor impacts were measured downwind of the ReGen Landfill open face for three of the four sampling events. These measurements were made on-site and would benefit from additional dispersion prior leaving the facility boundary.
ODOR ABATEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Industry-wide, there are a number of best management practices that can be implemented for odor abatement at the discretion of each agency and upon appropriate follow-up studies. Listed below are those relevant to the facilities in the County of Monterey that were a part of this study.
Operationally:
• Periodically clean out ponds and sumps that can accumulate organic sludges and debris. At the ReGen facility, the pond associated with the compost operation was a clear source of odors and should be the subject of mitigation.
o If cleaning is not sufficient to reduce odors, use aeration systems for ponds and sumps that may accumulate organic liquids.
• Understand how wind/MET conditions affect odor and identify the best and worst times to accept odorous loads or conduct activities that can cause odor and adjust the timing of waste acceptance and disposal accordingly.
o Specifically, light winds (≈ .5 – 5mph) from the North to Northeast promote ideal conditions for odor transport offsite
• Limit the time periods for stockpiling and processing of odorous materials such as organics, and especially for food waste.
• Conduct compost pile turning during times of day and/or under weather conditions that will result in the least off-site odor impact.
• Use enhanced procedures for handling of odorous loads at the active face, including limiting acceptance during certain wind conditions, immediate burying or covering, and use of wind breaks or barriers.
Physically:
• Consider barriers or windbreaks for certain on-site operations that produce odor. Vegetative screening could be added to the perimeter of both ReGen and M1W facilities. This would be especially useful on the Southern boundaries, such as south of the sludge drying beds. • If possible, conduct very odorous activities, such as handling and processing of food waste, in controlled enclosures. If enclosures are not possible, then consider windbreaks or other barriers to mitigate odors leaving the site.
Treatment and Control Systems:
• Apply deodorants, reactants, neutralizers, or encapsulants, etc. to intersect odorous emissions at the source area before they leave the site perimeter. These can be applied via spraying, misting, atomizing, etc.
EXHIBIT A
22 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com 20 • Consider controls for on-site composting operations, including aerated static piles, bio- covers, biofilters, Gore-type covers, and increasing aeration, especially as related to food waste.
Institutionally:
• Develop and implement odor management and control plans that are specific to the on-site operations, conditions, and meteorology. The Odor Impact Minimization Plan (OIMP) required for the compost operation should be revisited in light of the findings of this study. • Develop and implement an odor complaint response protocol. o See recommended Complaint Response System template in Section 5. • Conduct odor patrols and consider the use of air monitoring sensors/analyzers (e.g. Jerome meter for hydrogen sulfide monitoring, or Nasal Ranger). o Offsite patrols at or near lift stations within the City could also identify localized sources of odors.
• Hire a consultant to conduct a comprehensive operational review of the compost operation to reduce odor generation.
• Complete a third-party evaluation and study of how odors from sludge drying beds can be reduced and implement any reasonable recommendations from that evaluation.
EXHIBIT A
23 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com 21 RECOMMENDED COMPLAINT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
SCS recommends that the City of Marina implement a Complaint Management System (CMS). This will allow for better collection of complaint information and increase the utility of complaints.
However, because the District remains the clearing house for odor complaints the system should be configured to have an option for initial intake and then forward complaints to MBARD for follow-up.
The CMS should have the following components;
• Document the date and time of the complaint,
• Document the location of the complaint,
• Provide a centralized location to view and manage complaints, • Allow for the description of the odor character and intensity as perceived by the complainant. • Provide options for the complainant to file the complaint via an online form or app, phone calls, text messages, and email.
• Allow for mapping of archived complaints to identify hot spots. • Link the complaint collection to a database for storage, retrieval analysis, and reporting.
An example odor complaint form is provided in Appendix C.
EXHIBIT A
24 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com A
Appendix A
Task 1 Wind Roses
EXHIBIT A
25 WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software
WIND ROSE PLOT:
ReGen Monterey Landfill
Wind Rose (December 1 to March 31, 5 AM to 12 PM)
COMMENTS:
30 Minute Data from December
1, 2018 to March 31, 2022.
COMPANY NAME:
SCS Engineers
MODELER:
DATE:
1/13/2023
PROJECT NO.:
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST EAST
7.19%
14.4%
21.6%
28.8%
36%
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
>= 5.00
4.00 - 5.00
3.00 - 4.00
2.00 - 3.00
1.00 - 2.00
0.40 - 1.00
Calms: 2.91%
TOTAL COUNT:
6761
CALM WINDS:
2.91%
DATA PERIOD:
AVG. WIND SPEED:
2.47 m/s
DISPLAY:
Wind Speed
Direction (blowing from)
EXHIBIT A
26 WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software
WIND ROSE PLOT:
ReGen Monterey Landfill
Wind Rose (December 1 to March 31, 12 PM to 5 PM)
COMMENTS:
30 Minute Data from December
1, 2018 to March 31, 2022.
COMPANY NAME:
SCS Engineers
MODELER:
DATE:
1/13/2023
PROJECT NO.:
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST EAST
5.51%
11%
16.5%
22%
27.6%
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
>= 5.00
4.00 - 5.00
3.00 - 4.00
2.00 - 3.00
1.00 - 2.00
0.40 - 1.00
Calms: 0.23%
TOTAL COUNT:
4835
CALM WINDS:
0.23%
AVG. WIND SPEED:
3.15 m/s
DISPLAY:
Wind Speed
Direction (blowing from)
EXHIBIT A
27 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com B
Appendix B
Sampling Location Maps
EXHIBIT A
28 GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF GF GFGF
GFGF
!(
!(
!(
!(
R4A_0708
R3A_0708
R2A_0707
R1A_0707
8 7
4 3
2 1
16 15
14131211
10 µ
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125
Miles
Legend
!( Rover Locations March 7, 2023 (7am-9am)
GF Fixed Location March 7, 2023 (7am-9am)
Wind Speed (m/s) (6am-9am)
0.5 - 2.1
2.1 - 3.6
3.6 - 5.7
5.7 - 8.8
8.8 - 11.1
>11.1
City of Marina
Sampling Locations
March 7, 2023 (6am-9am)
Scale
EXHIBIT A
29 GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF GF GF GF
GF
GF
R2P_0711
R1P_0711
8 7
4 3
2 1
16 15
14131211
10 µ
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125
Miles
Legend
Rover Locations March 7, 2023 (9:45-11:45am)
GF Fixed Location March 7, 2023 (9:45-11:45am)
Wind Speed (m/s) (8:45-11:45am)
0.5 - 2.1
2.1 - 3.6
3.6 - 5.7
5.7 - 8.8
8.8 - 11.1
>11.1
City of Marina
Sampling Locations
March 7, 2023 (8:45-11:45am)
Scale
EXHIBIT A
30 GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF GF GFGF
GFGF!(
!(
!(
!(
R4A_3008
R3A_3008
R2A_3008
R1A_3008
8 7
4 3
2 1
16 15
141312
11 10
µ
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125
Miles
Legend
!( Rover Locations March 30, 2023 (7:30-9:30am)
GF Fixed Location March 30, 2023 (7:30-9:30am)
Wind Speed (m/s) (6:30-9:30am)
0.5 - 2.1
2.1 - 3.6
3.6 - 5.7
5.7 - 8.8
8.8 - 11.1
>11.1
City of Marina
Sampling Locations
March 30, 2023 (6:30-9:30am)
Scale
EXHIBIT A
31 GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF GF GF
GF
GF
!(
!(
!(
R4A_3110
R2A_3110
R1A_3109
8 7
4 3
2 1
16 15
141312
11 10
µ
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125
Miles
Legend
!( Rover Location March 31, 2023 (9:30-11:30am)
GF Fixed Location March 31, 2023 (9:30-11:30am)
Wind Speed (m/s) (8:30-11:30am)
0.5 - 2.1
2.1 - 3.6
3.6 - 5.7
5.7 - 8.8
8.8 - 11.1
>11.1
City of Marina
Sampling Locations
March 31, 2023 (8:30-11:30am)
Scale
EXHIBIT A
32 GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF GF GFGF
GFGF
!(
!(
!(
!(
R4A_2007
R3A_2007
R2A_2007
R1A_2007
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 16
15 1413
1211
10 µ
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125
Miles
Legend
!( Rover Locations April 20, 2023 (6am-9am)
GF Fixed Location April 20, 2023 (6am-9am)
Wind Speed (m/s) (6am-9am)
0.5 - 2.1
2.1 - 3.6
3.6 - 5.7
5.7 - 8.8
8.8 - 11.1
>11.1
City of Marina
Sampling Locations
April 20, 2023 (6am-9am)
Scale
EXHIBIT A
33 GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF GF GFGF
GFGF
!(
!(
!(
R4A_2609
R2A_2608
R1A_2608
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 16
15 1413
1211
10 µ
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125
Miles
Legend
!( Rover Locations April 26, 2023 (6am-9am)
GF Fixed Location April 26, 2023 (6am-9am)
Wind Speed (m/s) (6:20am-9:20am)
0.5 - 2.1
2.1 - 3.6
3.6 - 5.7
5.7 - 8.8
8.8 - 11.1
>11.1
City of Marina
Sampling Locations
April 26, 2023 (6am-9am)
Scale
EXHIBIT A
34 Odor Evaluation:
City of Marina Odor Attribution Study www.scsengineers.com C
Appendix C
Example Odor Complaint Form
EXHIBIT A
35 Odor Complaint Form
Submitting Your Complaint
COMPANY provides several ways of submitting an odor complaint in the community. Feel free to use any of the listed complaint system methods to provide us your submission.
Thank you and we look forward to hearing from you.
Web Form: complete and submit the interactive form on this page Call:
Text:
Email:
Disclaimer: Information given through our complaint management system will be used solely by COMPANY. Your name and address is secured and no information will be given or sold to any third party.
Title
User Information
First Name
Last Name
Contact
Home Phone
Address
Cell Phone
Apt/Suite #
City
State
Zipcode
Remember my details on this computer for next time
(Not recommended if on a public or shared device)
Contact Preferences
I would like to speak with someone as soon as possible
I am happy to discuss this complaint should there be questions I would like a copy of this complaint sent to my email
Please do not contact me regarding this complaint
Save and Enter Odor Details
EXHIBIT A
36 Odor Details
We kindly ask that you provide as much information as possible. Details will help us review and process your submission.
Date
Time
Odor Detection Location
Where did you notice the odor?
Please identity the approximate location where you noticed the odor. (NOT where you think it is coming from)
Click on the map to drop a pin.
This will populate the LAT and LON automatically.
Odor Complaint Form
Use my address from the previous user information section Save and Enter Odor Details
EXHIBIT A
37 Odor Intensity
Very Faint
Faint
Distinct
Strong
Very Strong
Addition Comment
Please add any additional comments pertaining to your concerns. (Ex. Smells like a sunk or sewage. Smell lasted for several hours.) Odor Description
Ammonia
Burn/Smoke
Sewer/Sewage-like
Chemical/Solvent
Earthy/Moldy/Musty
Fishy
Manure
Decaying Grass
Rotten Egg
Turpentine
Woody
Other – See Notes
(enter notes)
(enter notes)
Save and Submit Odor Complaint
Odor Complaint Form
EXHIBIT A
38 Odor
Attribution
Study
December 5, 2023
1 City of Marina
EXHIBIT B
39 Agenda
• Key Goals
• Pr
oject Team
• C
ity Partnership
• Odor Attribution Study A pproach
• Complaint and MET Data Review
• Odor Assessment Field Study
• Results of Odor Sampling
• Recommendations for Mitigation
2 Strategy
Teamwork
Planning
EXHIBIT B
40 3
• Identify Potential Odor Sources
• Unique Meteorological Conditions
• Complaint Analysis
• Develop Ideal Sampling Program
• Stakeholder and Public Input
• Mitigation Strategies
Key Goals
EXHIBIT B
41 SCS Project Team – Key Staff
4 • Pat Sullivan, Reviewing Principal
• Paul Schafer, Project Manager
• Greg Hauser, Air Modeling Expert
• Tom Rappolt, Meteorologist
• Eva Luu, Field Monitoring Expert
• Chris Petro, Odor Laboratory Expert
EXHIBIT B
42 City / SCS/ Stakeholder/ Community
Partnership
5 EXHIBIT B
43 Project Plan
Task #1 : Initial Review of Information
Review Complaint Data
Meteorological Analysis
Report of Findings
Updated Overall Project Plan
Task #2: Field Sampling and Analysis
Program
Odor Investigation Plan
Field Investigation Program
Reporting
Task #3: Project Coordination,
Meetings, and Outreach
6 EXHIBIT B
44 MET/Complaint Data Review
• 16 MET stations in the region: Only three (3 ) were
viable due to:
• Data quality
• Lack of historical da ta
• Temporal resolution
• Proximity to th e City
• ReGen and Sand City stations utilized for study
• Easterly winds are prominent during the morning, but taper off in the afternoon
• Move odors toward the City (e.g., from East to West)
• The majority of complaints occur during the winter
months and during the morning and afternoon hours,
with morning being the most prominent
7 EXHIBIT B
45 ReGen Windroses
8 EXHIBIT B
46 Facility Inspections
• ReGen
• Landfill exhibited typical open-f ace landfill odors, which did not seem significant downwind
• There was no significant downwind odor for the
recycling facility
• LFG to energy plant was oper ational with no
significant odor downwind
• Former pilot study Anaerobic Digestion (AD) system
w
as known as a source of odor but is no longer
operational
9 EXHIBIT B
47 Facility Inspections (cont.)
• ReGen (cont.)
• Composting area exhibited two different odor
cha
racteristics from food and green waste
• During the visit, piles were being turned and steam from the in
ternal materials was visible.
• Odor in this immediate area was significant
• Composting area is located on the NW side of the property cl
oser in proximity to receptors and the M1W Facility
• Contact water pond on the SW side of the compost
fa
cility exhibited a pungent odor. The source could
have been from the compost area.
10 EXHIBIT B
48 Facility Inspections (cont.)
• M1W
• Wastewater treatment plant
• M1W historically collected H 2S concentration data in ambient air at the fence line but discontinued the
measurements as they were not detecting the
compound.
• The Headworks Facility in the S E portion of the facility is monitored daily for H2S with a gas meter.
• There was a stro ng odor near this equipment but not
significant downwind.
• The rest of the M1W facility ha d typical odors related to wastewater but the intensity was significantly less than that of the Headworks Facility.
11 EXHIBIT B
49 Facility Inspections (cont.)
• Ramco Agricultural Fields
• Located bet ween the ReGen/M1W facilities and the City • Significant portions of t he Ag fields began development in 2015-2016 by converting the dune terrace former
ranch land to strawberry fields
• This conversion included the addition of irrigation,
nu
trients and compost to the soil in order to farm the land • No odors were detected during the site inspection
• Note that Ag operations are not consistent throughout the y
ear, so odors can be variable
12 EXHIBIT B
50 • Project Setup
• Odor Sampling
• Sampling Locations
• Wind Monitoring
• Odor Analysis
• Panelist Screening
• Challenges
Field Study
13 EXHIBIT B
51 • Sampling Locations
• 15 of the 16 fixed and semi-f ixed sampling locations were situated on:
• ReGen: 14201 Del M onte Blvd, Salinas, CA 93908
• M1W: 14811 Del M onte Boulevard, Marina, CA 93933
• The remaining fixed sampling location:
• Canaan Korean United Methodist Church, at 281 Beac h
Rd, Marina, CA 93933.
• Each round of sampling also included up to four (4)
r
oving locations
• Odor samples co llected around the city if/when odors were detected.
Field Study
14 EXHIBIT B
52 Sampling Map
15 EXHIBIT B
53 Sampling Map
16 EXHIBIT B
54 Sampling Map
17 EXHIBIT B
55 Sampling Map
18 EXHIBIT B
56 Sampling Map
19 EXHIBIT B
57 Sampling Map
20 EXHIBIT B
58 • Sampling Conditions
Results
21 EXHIBIT B
59 Results (cont.)
22 EXHIBIT B
60 Results (cont.)
23 Odor
Concentration by
Site and Sampling
Event (OU/m3)
EXHIBIT B
61 Conclusions
• Significant odor i mpacts were measured
downwind of composting operations for 3 of the 4
sampling events
• Every sampling event showed elevated impacts
down
wind of the M1W sludge drying ponds
• Significant odor impacts were measured
downwi
nd of the ReGen landfill open face for 3 of
the 4 sampling events
24 EXHIBIT B
62 Recommendations
• Operational
• Clean out ponds and sumps, specifically the pond
as
sociated with the compost operation
• Aeration as subsequent measure
• Understand how w ind/MET conditions affect odor
• Identify the best and worst times t o accept odorous loads or conduct activities that can cause odor
• Adjust the timing o f waste acceptance and disposal
accordingly
• Specifically, light winds (≈ 0.5 – 5 mph) from the North to Northeast promote ideal conditions for odor transport offsite 25 EXHIBIT B
63 Recommendations (cont.)
• Operational (cont.)
• Limit the time periods for stockpiling and processing of odor
ous materials, and especially for food waste.
• Conduct com post pile turning during times of day and/or under weather conditions that will result in the least off- site odor impact
• Use enhanced procedures for handling of odorous loads a
t the active face
26 EXHIBIT B
64 Recommendations (cont.)
• Physical
• Barriers or w indbreaks
• Vegetative screening co uld be added to the perimeter of both ReGen and M1W facilities.
• This would b e especially useful on the Southern boundaries, such as south of the sludge drying beds.
• If possible, conduct very odorous activities, such as ha
ndling and processing of food waste, in controlled
enclosures.
• If enclosures are not possible, then consider wind breaks o
r other barriers to prevent odors from leaving the site. 27 EXHIBIT B
65 Recommendations (cont.)
• Treatment and Control Systems
• Apply deodorants, reactants, neutralizers, or
enca
psulants, etc.
• These can be applied v ia spraying, misting, atomizing, etc. at site perimeter
• Consider cont rols for on-site composting operations:
• Aerated stat ic piles with biocovers or biofilters
• Gore-type cover system
• I
ncreasing aeration, esp ecially as related to food waste. 28 EXHIBIT B
66 Recommendations (cont.)
• Institutional
• Develop and implement odor management and
cont
rol plans
• Odor Impact Minimization Plan (OIMP) r equired for the compost operation should be revisited in light of the
findings of this study
• Develop and implement an odor complaint response
pr
otocol
• Conduct odor patrols and consider the use of air
monitoring sensors/analyzers
29 EXHIBIT B
67 Recommendations (cont.)
• Institutional (cont.)
• Offsite patrols at or near lift stations within the City c
ould also identify localized sources of odors
• Hire a consultant to c onduct a comprehensive
operational review of the compost operation
• Complete an ev aluation of how odors from sludge
drying beds can be reduced
30 EXHIBIT B
68 Complaint Management System
• Document the date , time, and
location of the complaint,
• Provide a centralized location to view
a
nd manage complaints,
• Allow for the description of the odor
cha
racter and intensity as perceived
by the complainant.
• Provide options for the complainant
t
o file the complaint via an online
form or app, phone calls, text
messages, and email.
• Allow for mapping of archived
co
mplaints to identify hot spots.
• Link the complaint collection to a
d
atabase for storage, retrieval
analysis, and reporting.
31 EXHIBIT B
69 Questions?
32 EXHIBIT B
70 Thank You!
33 EXHIBIT B
71 November 27, 2023 Item No. 13c
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Marina City Council of December 5, 2023
CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 202 3-,
RECEIVING A PRESENTATION AND, PROVIDING INPUT ON THE DEL
MONTE BOULEVARD LANDSCAPING, MULTI-MODAL
IMPROVEMENTS, AND DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
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 Del Monte Boulevard Landscaping, Multi- Modal Improvements, and Downtown Marina Streetscape, and;
2. Providing input on the design for the proposed projects.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Marina is in the process of developing a Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan. One aspect of this plan is changing the right-of-way to better serve the City’s needs and transition away from what originally functioned as a state highway. To that end, the City Council inclu ded $3M funding within the current Capital Improvement Program for landscape and right -of-way improvements to serve as a change catalyst to initiate beneficial changes in the downtown.
The City also applied for and was successful in being selected for a Regional Surface Transportation Improvement Program funding in the amount of $ 1,717,500 to implement pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements at the intersection of Del Monte Boulevard and Reservation Road.
Staff have engaged the services of the Wallace Group and BEK Collective to develop median landscape plans and streetscape features for consideration. The traffic engineering firm, Kimley- Horn has modeled traffic in response to a road diet (reduction from four automobile lanes to two automobile lanes with additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities), as well as possible intersection roundabouts on Del Monte Boulevard between Highway 1 and Reservation Road. The road diet addresses traffic calming and multi -modal improvements for more balanced and safer vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian use.
An online survey and several well attended community outreaches were completed to collect input and feedback. The concept plans for the Del Monte Boulevard Median landscaping, downtown streetscape, and lane reallocation and intersection roundabouts were presented to the Public Works Commission on November 16, 2023.
Input from community outreaches and the Public Works Commission were addressed and are included in the presentation.
ANALYSIS:
The presentation for the proposed Del Monte Boulevard Median landscaping and Downtown Marina Streetscape will include the following:
• Del Monte median beautification: Concept plans and types of landscape materials and color palette.
• Gateway entry improvement locations: City of Marina downtown and other city entrances 1 • Downtown streetscape features: consistency and cohesive design features for future improvements.
• Traffic calming and multi-modal improvements: for a more balance vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian use. Road diet and intersection roundabouts options with simulation of traffic response to changes:
• Del Monte Boulevard and Reservation Road intersection safety improvements • Preliminary phasing of work and concept design.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal implications at this time.
The Del Monte Boulevard Median Landscape Demonstration project (QLR 1901) and Downtown Vitalization Implementation project (EDC2126) are included in the Capital Improvement Program with a budget of $25,000 and $3,000,000, respectively.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The presentation a nd providing design input for Del Monte Boulevard landscaping and multi modal improvements and downtown Marina streetscape is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061.
CONCLUSION:
This request is submitted to the City Council for consideration and input.
Respectfully submitted,
Elvira Morla-Camacho, P.E., QSD
Project Management Services
Wallace Group
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-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA
RECEIVING A PRESENTATION AND, PROVIDING INPUT ON THE DEL
MONTE BOULEVARD LANDSCAPING AND MULTI -MODAL
IMPROVEMENTS AND DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
WHEREAS, the City of Marina is in the process of developing a Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan. One aspect of this plan is changing the right -of-way to better serve the City’s needs and transition away from what originally functioned as a state highway; and
WHEREAS, the Del Monte Boulevard Median Landscape Demonstration project (QLR 1901) and Downtown Vitalization Implementation Project (EDC2126) are included in the Capital Improvement Program with a budget of $25,000 and $3,000,000, respectively; and
WHEREAS, staff have engaged the services of the Wallace Group and BEK Collective to develop median landscape plans and streetscape features for consideration. The traffic engineering firm, Kimley-Horn has modeled traffic in response to a road diet (reduction from four automobile lanes to two automobile lanes with additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities), as well as possible intersection roundabouts on Del Monte Boulevard between Highway 1 and Reservation Road. The road diet addresses traffic calming a nd multi-modal improvements for a more balance and safer vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian use; and
WHEREAS, an online survey and several well attended community outreaches were completed to collect input and feedback. The concept plans for the Del Monte Boulevard Median landscaping, downtown streetscape, and lane reallocation and intersection roundabouts were presented to the Public Works Commission on November 16, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the presentation for the proposed Del Monte Boulevard median landscaping and Downtown Marina Streetscape will include the following: Del Monte Median beautification, Gateway entry improvement locations, Downtown streetscape features, Traffic calming and multi- modal improvements, Del Monte Boulevard and Reservation Road intersection safety improvements and preliminary phasing of work and concept design; and
WHEREAS, The Del Monte Boulevard Median Landscape Demonstration project (QLR 1901) and Downtown Vitalization Implementation project (EDC2126) are included in the Capital Improvement Program with a budget of $25.000 and $3,000,000, respectively; and
WHEREAS, the presentation and providing design input for Del Monte Boulevard Landscaping and Multi Modal Improvements and Downtown Marina Streetscape Projects is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Marina that does hereby:
1. Receive a presentation for the Del Monte Boulevard Landscaping and Multi -Modal Improvements and Downtown Marina Streetscape; and
2. Provide input on the design for the proposed for the proposed projects.
3 Resolution No. 2023-
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Marina at a regular meeting duly held on the 5th day of December 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
4 EXHIBIT A
5 EXHIBIT A
6 EXHIBIT A
7 EXHIBIT A
8 EXHIBIT A
9 EXHIBIT A
10 EXHIBIT A
11 EXHIBIT A
12 EXHIBIT A
13 EXHIBIT A
14 EXHIBIT A
15 EXHIBIT A
16 EXHIBIT A
17 EXHIBIT A
18 EXHIBIT A
19 EXHIBIT A
20 EXHIBIT A
21 EXHIBIT A
22 EXHIBIT A
23 EXHIBIT A
24 EXHIBIT A
25 EXHIBIT A
26 EXHIBIT A
27 EXHIBIT A
28 EXHIBIT A
29 EXHIBIT A
30 EXHIBIT A
31 EXHIBIT A
32 EXHIBIT A
33 EXHIBIT A
34 EXHIBIT A
35 EXHIBIT A
36 EXHIBIT A
37 EXHIBIT A
38 EXHIBIT A
39 EXHIBIT A
40 EXHIBIT A
41 EXHIBIT A
42 EXHIBIT A
43 EXHIBIT A
44 EXHIBIT A
45 EXHIBIT A
46 EXHIBIT A
47 EXHIBIT A
48 EXHIBIT A
49 EXHIBIT A
50 EXHIBIT A
51 EXHIBIT A
52 EXHIBIT A
53 Del Monte Blvd
Multimodal & Road Diet
Traffic Analysis
December 2023
EXHIBIT A
54 Traffic Analysis Objectives
Determine a feasible Del Monte Boulevard roadway design consistent with the vision for a unique, vibrant, and pedestrian friendly downtown Marina
1. Compliment the Del Monte Boulevard Median Project
2. Utilize existing travel lanes to provide multimodal
improvem
ents (road diet) for bikes and pedestrians
3. Create a thriving downtown environment by improving
mult
imodal safety and access
4. Maintain acceptable traffic operations
2 EXHIBIT A
55 Traffic Analysis Overview
1. Traffic Volumes
2. Del Monte Blvd Layout Alternatives
3. Traffic Analysis & Simulations
4. Summary & Recommendations
3 EXHIBIT A
56 Traffic Operations Summary
•A multi-modal street design with road diet and traffic calming imp
rovements is a feasible solution to meet the vision and goals of downtown Marina
•Roundabout Layout is feasible
• Recommend a Road Diet with 1 southbound (SB) lane and 2 northbound (NB
) lanes to Palm
• Reindollar Int ersection 2-lane NB, 2-lane SB
• Palm Intersection 2-lane N B, 1-lane SB
•Signal Layout is feasible
• Recommend a Road Diet with 1 southbound (SB) lane and 2 northbound (NB
) lanes to Palm
•The Reservation/Del Monte signal will remain and include mu
ltimodal improvements from grant funding
4 EXHIBIT A
57 Traffic Volumes
•2018 Traffic Counts (Pre-COV ID)
• Volumes are 2% higher than 2023 counts
•2040 Traffic forecasts from AMBAG Travel Demand Model
• Volumes are 20% higher than 2018 counts
• 2040 volumes used in traffic analysis
• Marina Downtown Plan
• Regional and other city growth
5 EXHIBIT A
58 Del Monte Blvd Layout Alternatives
1. Existing 4-Lane R oadway with Signals
2. Proposed Roadway with Multi-lane R oundabouts
• 2 NB Lanes from Rei ndollar to Palm, 1 SB Lane
3. Proposed Roadway with Signals
• 2 NB Lanes from Rei ndollar to Palm, 1 SB Lane
6 Source: ITE
EXHIBIT A
59 73.5
110.3
147
183.8
220.5
38.4 86.4
153.6
240
345.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
20 30
40 50
60 Total Stopping Distance (ft)
Vehicle Speed (mph)
Perception & Reaction Distance (ft) Breaking Distance (ft) Travel Speed Impact to Stopping Distance
7 566
423.8
300.6
196.7
111.9
Total Stopping
Distance (ft)
Source: AASHTO
EXHIBIT A
60 Travel Speed Impact to Driver Vision
8 Source: ITE
EXHIBIT A
61 Travel Speed Impact to Pedestrian Fatality
9 Source: ITE
EXHIBIT A
62 Del Monte Layout
Existing 4-Lane Roadway - Signals
Reindollar Palm
Reservation
Existing Cross-Section
10 EXHIBIT A
63 Del Monte Layout
Proposed Roadway - Roundabouts
Reindollar Palm Reservation
Reindollar to Palm (2NB, 1SB)
Palm to Reservation (1NB, 1SB)
11 EXHIBIT A
64 Del Monte Layout
Proposed Roadway - Signals
Reindollar Palm Reservation
Reindollar to Palm (2NB, 1SB)
Palm to Reservation (1NB, 1SB)
12 EXHIBIT A
65 Roadway Space Allocation Comparison
13 Road Layout Roadway Space %
Vehicle Bike Pedestrian Landscape
Existing
4-Lane Roadway 55% 5% 13% 27%
Proposed
Roadway with Median
Project and Road Diet
36% 16% 19% 29%
Existing
Proposed
EXHIBIT A
66 Del Monte Layout Comparison
Reindollar Palm Reservation
14 Approved and
funded CIP
Bike/Ped
Improvements
Signal
Roundabout
EXHIBIT A
67 Bike and Pedestrian Crossings
15 Reindollar Palm ReservationMortimer
Monterey
Recreation
TrailSeparated Bike &
Pedestrian Crosswalks at
the intersections
Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon (HAWK)
EXHIBIT A
68 Bike and Pedestrian Crossings
16 Bike & Ped Crossing (San Jose) Potential Decorative
Crosswalk Markings on
Bulb-outs
EXHIBIT A
69 Bike and Pedestrian Crossings
17 HAWK Pedestrian Beacon (California / Marina Heights)
EXHIBIT A
70 Traffic Analysis
•2040 AM & PM peak hour commute vehicle volumes
•Traffic simulation model and analysis using VISSIM
• Ideal tool for roundabout vs signal comparison
• Model bike, pedestrian, transit activity
• Roadway travel times, speeds
• Intersection vehicle delay, queues, level of service (LOS) 18 EXHIBIT A
71 Level of Service (LOS)
19 EXHIBIT A
72 Intersection LOS Summary
B B C
B C D
A C C
B B C
B B D
B D D
AM LOS PM LOS
Existing 4-Lane Roadway - Signals
Proposed Roadway - Signals
Proposed Roadway - Roundabouts
LOS Ranking A to F
LOS D is City Standard
20 EXHIBIT A
73 VISSIM Simulations
21 •2040 PM peak hour (critical scenario)
1. Existing 4-Lane Roadway – Signals
2. 2-Lane Road Diet – Signals
3. 2-Lane Road Diet – Roundabouts
4. Road Diet (2NB to Palm, 1SB) – Signals
5. Road Diet (2NB to Palm, 1SB) – Roundabouts
EXHIBIT A
74 Year 2040 PM Peak
(Existing) 4-Lane Roadway
Signals
Existing Cross-Section
22 EXHIBIT A
75 Year 2040 PM Peak
2-Lane Road Diet
Signals
2-Lane Road Diet
23 EXHIBIT A
76 Year 2040 PM Peak
2-Lane Road Diet
Roundabouts
2-Lane Road Diet
24 EXHIBIT A
77 Year 2040 PM Peak
Road Diet (2NB to Palm, 1SB)
Signals
Reindollar to Palm (2NB, 1SB) Palm to Reservation (1NB, 1SB) 25 EXHIBIT A
78 Year 2040 PM Peak
Road Diet (2NB to Palm, 1SB)
Roundabouts
Reindollar to Palm (2NB, 1SB) Palm to Reservation (1NB, 1SB) 26 EXHIBIT A
79 Summary & Recommendations
27 EXHIBIT A
80 2040 LOS Summary
Road Layout Control
Type
Reindollar LOS
AM (PM)
Palm LOS
AM (PM) Notes
Existing 4-Lane Signal B (B) B (B) Year 2040 Baseline Scenario 2-Lane Road Diet
Signal B (B) C (D) Heavy NB queues during PM peak
Roundabout A (F) C (F) Intersection NB queue fails at Palm during PM peak
Road Diet
(2NB to Palm, 1SB)
Signal B (B) C (B) Standing queues at intersection
Roundabout A (B) C (D) Moving queues at intersection
28 EXHIBIT A
81 2040 Vehicle Queue Summary
Road Layout Control
Type
Reindollar
Queues Ok?
Palm
Queues Ok? Notes
Existing 4-Lane Signal Yes Yes Year 2040 Baseline Scenario 2-Lane Road Diet
Signal Yes No Heavy NB queues during PM peak
Roundabout No No Intersection NB queue fails at Palm
during PM peak
Road Diet
(2NB to Palm, 1SB)
Signal Yes Yes Standing queues at intersection
Roundabout Yes Yes Moving queues at intersection
29 EXHIBIT A
82 2040 Operations Summary
Road
Layout
Control
Type
Multimodal
Safety
Bike
Access & Mobility
Pedestrian
Access & Mobility
Transit
& Fire
Access?
Existing
4-Lane Signal
Poor
High speeds and
lack of facilities
Poor
No bike lanes on Del Monte
Poor
No streetscape & sidewalk
Long intersection crossings
Yes
2-Lane
Road Diet
Signal Ok
Very Good
Protected median Class IV
bike lanes
Good
Wide sidewalk & access
Long intersection crossings
Yes
Roundabout Good
Very Good
Protected median Class IV
bike lanes
Very Good
Wide sidewalk & access
Short intersection crossings
Yes
Road Diet
(2NB to Palm,
1SB)
Signal Ok
Very Good
Mix of protected striped &
median Class IV bike lanes
Good
Wide sidewalk & access
Long intersection crossings
Yes
Roundabout Good
Very Good
Mix of protected striped &
median Class IV bike lanes
Very Good
Wide sidewalk & access
Short intersection crossings
Yes
30 EXHIBIT A
83 Downtown Goals Summary
Road
Layout
Control
Type
Supports
Median
Project?
Provides
Bike/Ped
Improvements?
Creates
Downtown
Environment?
Maintains
Acceptable Traffic
Operations?
Existing
4-Lane Signal Yes No No Yes
2-Lane
Road Diet
Signal Yes Yes Yes No
NB queues in PM peak
Roundabout Yes Yes Yes No
NB queues in PM peak
Road Diet
(2NB to
Palm, 1SB)
Signal Yes Yes Yes Yes
Roundabout Yes Yes Yes Yes
31Road Diet and Roundabout is the preferred option
EXHIBIT A
84 La Jolla – San Diego, CA
32 La Jolla Blvd
Road Diet and Roundabouts
in Bird Rock Business District
EXHIBIT A
85 La Jolla – San Diego, CA
33 2007 – 5 Lane Roadway & Stop Control
2018 – 2 Lane Road Diet & Roundabouts
EXHIBIT A
86 Traffic Operations Summary
•A multi-modal street design with road diet and traffic calming imp
rovements is a feasible solution to meet the vision and goals of downtown Marina
•Roundabout Layout is feasible
• Recommend a Road Diet with 1 southbound (SB) lane and 2 northbound (NB
) lanes to Palm
• Reindollar Int ersection 2-lane NB, 2-lane SB
• Palm Intersection 2-lane N B, 1-lane SB
•Signal Layout is feasible
• Recommend a Road Diet with 1 southbound (SB) lane and 2 northbound (NB
) lanes to Palm
•The Reservation/Del Monte signal will remain and include mu
ltimodal improvements from grant funding
34 EXHIBIT A
87 35
EXHIBIT A
88 EXHIBIT A
89 EXHIBIT A
90 EXHIBIT A
91