Additional Correspondence
Line for BRT would be more cost-effective than widening State Route 1. Consequently, MST and TAMC sought funds for the “SURF!” Busway and Bus Rapid Transit project, supported by $15 million from TAMC's Measure X local transportation sales tax measure.
The Caltrans 2018 State Rail Plan, the TAMC 2021 Monterey Bay Area Rail Network Integration Study, and the draft Caltrans 2023 State Rail Plan all endorse the near-term bus service as a precursor to eventual rail service on the corridor. The long-term vision of those plans includes passenger rail connecting Monterey to Santa Cruz by 2050.
With the SURF! project set to begin construction in October 2024, questions arose about its eligibility for Proposition 116 funds. Preliminary legal review by the CTC concluded that the project did not meet Proposition 116's definition of a rail project and that TAMC missed the ten-year window to begin rail service as required by Proposition 116 guidelines. To resolve this, CTC proposed TAMC repay the purchase price at fair-market value through credits for other eligible rail projects. Eligible fund
types and rail projects still need to be negotiated and agreed upon with CTC staff, but an example discussed was using the Agency's State Transportation Improvement Program funding on the Monterey County Rail Extension project as a credit toward that price. This course of action would allow the SURF! project to continue, provided that agreements can be in place in time for the project to receive its Coastal Commission permits, and the credit to be paid with investments the Agency would otherwise already be making in rail projects, meaning there would be no net loss of funding for
rail projects in Monterey County.
The Coastal Commission has a September 2024 deadline to consider the Coastal permit for the SURF! project. To meet this, TAMC will likely need to appraise the Monterey Branch Line corridor to establish the fair-market value, which would be used as the basis for the amount of the credit.
Executive Committee direction is needed to proceed with the appraisal and seek Board ratification at the June 2024 meeting. Concurrently, TAMC staff is working with CTC staff to determine if alternatives to fair-market valuation would satisfy the California Transportation Commission.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
WEB ATTACHMENTS:
Additional Correspondence
Amy R. Higuera
[email protected]
415.848.4836 Direct
415.848.4801 Fax
Downey Brand LLP
455 Market Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94105
415.848.4800 Main
downeybrand.com
May 3, 2024
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Tanisha Taylor
Executive Director
California Transportation Commission
1120 N Street, MS 52
Sacramento, CA 95814
[email protected]
R
e: Use of Proposition 116 funds by Transportation Agency for Monterey County D
ear Ms. Taylor:
We write on behalf of the Museum of Handcar Technology regarding the Monterey Branch Line in Monterey County. The Monterey Branch Line is owned by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC), which used funding from the California Transportation Commission (CTC), issued under Proposition 116 (Prop 116) for rail projects, to acquire the right-of-way in 2003.
In recent years, TAMC has been exploring a project to replace the existing rail line with what it refers to as the SURF! Busway project, rather than the rail project it had initially proposed.
However, for the reasons discussed below, the SURF! Busway proposal and much of TAMC’s associated activities are not permitted by the restrictions imposed by Prop 116 and the related funding agreements.
We understand that the CTC is generally aware of and looking into TAMC’s conduct related to the Monterey Branch Line. This letter is provided to share our own research and provide relevant background materials. We anticipate that the CTC will agree with our conclusions that TAMC is prohibited from using the Monterey Branch Line for any busway project.
Factual and Legal Background
Prop 116, also known as the Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act (Pub. Util. Code, § 99600 et seq.) was passed by voters by initiative in the June 5, 1990 election. The initiative authorized a general obligation bond of nearly two billion dollars ($1,990,000,000), which was to be used to fund rail projects across the State through the issuance of grants from the CTC. (Pub. Util. Code, § 99690.5 [bond provision], 99620-99555 [grant provisions].) The findings and declarations adopted by the electorate state that: “[r]ail transportation results in cleaner air, less energy use, more transportation opportunities for those who cannot drive, and less crowding on Additional Correspondence
Tanisha Taylor
May 3, 2024
already overcrowded streets and highways,” and that: “[f]or these reasons, it is appropriate to use state general obligation bonds to finance rail infrastructure.” (Pub. Util. Code, § 99601(a)-(b).) The statute governing Prop 116 grants to Monterey County, titled “Allocation for rail projects in Monterey County,” allocates $17,000,000 for eligible projects. (Pub. Util. Code, § 99638.) It also defines where those funds shall be allocated (Monterey County Transportation Commission (MCTC)), and what they may be used for (“Extension of CalTrain service” or “Other rail projects within Monterey County”). (Ibid.)
In 2003, TAMC submitted an application to the CTC for $9,370,000 in Prop 116 funding, which CTC approved later that year. (CTC Resolution PA-03-06 (Exhibit A).)1 The Project applied for and approved was the “San Francisco-Monterey Intercity Rail Service project” and the funds were to be used “for right of way acquisition” for that project. (Id., ¶¶ 1.11, 2.1.) Later in 2003, TAMC purchased the Monterey Branch Line rail line from Union Pacific with the Prop 116 funds. (Exhibit B, TAMC Real Property Ownership Policies, June 22, 2016, p. 1.) Rather than build the rail project it stated that it would, TAMC has spent the time since acquisition of the Monterey Branch Line seeking to replace the rail with a busway. This effort appears to have begun in or around 2011, when the agency hired consultants to prepare, and then update, a study evaluating “alternatives” to the rail project. (Monterey Peninsula Fixed Guideway Corridor Study, Exhibit C.) Additional studies have been prepared and revised in the time since, all to support a busway project to replace the rail project initially approved by the CTC, and all without returning to the CTC to report the changes.
TAMC has more recently been giving money, including revenues it received from its ownership of the Monterey Branch Line, to the Monterey-Salinas Transit District (MSTD) for it to study and then develop the busway project. (January 27, 2016 TAMC Memorandum (Exhibit D).) 2 The
most recent study was completed in 2018. (Monterey Bay Area Feasibility Study of Bus on Shoulder Operations on State Route 1 and the Monterey Branch Line, (Exhibit E).) Among other things, it states that its analysis of how the Monterey Branch Line might be used “assumed that no rail would be removed as part of the project.” (Id. at p. 4-27.) More recently, TAMC and MSTD have revealed they are, in fact, seeking to remove portions of the rail line. TAMC minutes from 2020 show internal concerns that the project, which had by then adopted its current name (the SURF! Busway), was proposing just this. (TAMC Final Rail Policy Committee Meeting Minutes of January 6, 2020 (Exhibit F), pp 2-3.) Conceptual plans prepared for the project in 2023 confirm that portions of the rail are proposed to be removed (January 2023 Conceptual Plans, (Exhibit G)), and video simulations on TAMC’s website of the 1 All exhibits referenced in this letter are available at the following link:
https://downeybrand.sharefile.com/d-sc0b0cb3b5f5b4c959f1f74785e7a7c43 2 Though TAMC has not addressed why it is giving money to another agency for the project, it may be because TAMC’s organic act only grants it authority to pursue rail projects. (Gov. Code, § 67931.) Funneling money to another agency, and giving over TAMC-owned right-of-way for it, likely violates the statute as well. However, we assume this issue is outside CTC’s jurisdiction.
Additional Correspondence
Tanisha Taylor
May 3, 2024
project show that the Busway would remove and pave over the right of way currently occupied by the Monterey Branch Line (https://www.tamcmonterey.org/surf-bus way-and-bus-rapid- transit-project).
In sum, over the past two decades, TAMC has sought to pivot the proposed project from the statutorily-mandated rail project to a busway that would remove the existing rail lines. For the reasons discussed below, there are numerous reasons why TAMC’s past and proposed conduct is unlawful.
The Monterey Branch Line cannot be used for non-rail projects under Prop 116.
As discussed above, TAMC and now MSTD are seeking to develop the SURF! Busway project usi
ng the Monterey Branch Line. The project would involve use of the right-of-way, as well as removal of at least some track, with construction of a roadway over the former track location. In its efforts to seek a Coastal Development Permit for the busway project, TAMC told the Coastal Commission that Prop 116 and its funding agreement with CTC “allows for bus and passenger rail service.” (June 23, 2023 Letter to Carl Sedoryk, (Exhibit H), p. 3.) However that claim was false. Because the Monterey Branch Line was acquired by TAMC using Prop 116 funds, any busway on this right-of-way is prohibited.
Prop 116 was titled “Rail Transportation Bond Act” when placed on the ballot as an initiative measure. (1990 Primary Election Ballot Pamphlet (Exhibit I), p. 3.) The electorate’s findings and declarations state that “Rail transportation” projects benefit the environment, and therefore that bonds should be used “to finance rail infrastructure.” (Pub. Util. Code, § 99601(a)-(b).) TAMC received funding to purchase the Monterey Branch Line under Public Utilities Code section 99368, titled “Allocation for rail projects in Monterey County.” The provision states that funds can be allocated for two categories of projects: “(a) Extension of CalTrain service [and] (b) Other rail projects within Monterey County.” (Pub. Util. Code, § 99638.) “Rail project” is defined in the law to mean “a commuter passenger rail service project, an intercity passenger rail project, or a rail transit project, and includes exclusive public mass transit guideway projects and [a rail project connecting Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors with Downtown Los Angeles].” (Pub. Util. Code, § 99602(j).) The term “exclusive public mass transit guideway project” as used in that provision is also defined, to mean a transit capital improvement project as that term is “applied and used in 70 Op. Atty. Gen. 119” or a transit capital improvement that received certain funding allocations prior to 1989. (Pub. Util. Code, § 99602(e).)
The cited Attorney General opinion (Exhibit J) finds that the phrase as used in two provisions predating Prop 116 “does not include exclusive bus-carpool transitways.” The Attorney General found the definition of “guideway” in the term to be of particular significance, as the term is defined to mean a track or similar apparatus “in which something is fitted so that the line of motion is controlled.” (70 Op. Atty. Gen. 119 citing Webster’s New Internat. Dict. (3d ed. 1971), pp. 793, 1009, 1388, 1836, 2428.) The opinion notes that, in contrast to guideways, on a bus- carpool transitway, “the vehicle operator would be able to maneuver the vehicle while on the transitway.”
Additional Correspondence
Tanisha Taylor
May 3, 2024
As such, a busway project is not within the allowable uses for which Prop 116 funding can be allocated. TAMC’s efforts to make use of the property it acquired with Prop 116 funding to construct such a busway, and in fact to remove portions of the rail, violates both the letter and spirit of the law.
Prop 116 cannot be amended to allow a busway project.
In a March 27, 2024 staff report on TAMC’s state and federal activities and proposed positions on draft legislation (Exhibit K), the agency seemed to acknowledge that the SURF! Busway proposal does not fall under the categories of projects eligible for funding under Prop 116.
Rather than comply with the law, the report states that the agency may seek to amend the law to allow the project. More specifically, the staff report states, “TAMC may need to pursue legislation to clarify project eligibility for Proposition 116 funding.” However, for the reasons discussed below, it is not legally possible for the Legislature to change the project eligibility requirements under Prop 116 as TAMC suggests.
“[U]nless an initiative measure expressly provides otherwise, an initiative measure may be amended or repealed only by the electorate.” (Rossi v. Brown (1995) 9 Cal.4th 688, 715.) Here, Prop 116’s provision governing amendment by Legislature states:
Except as otherwise provided in this part, the Legislature may amend this part, by statute passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, four-fifths of the membership concurring, if the statute is consistent with, and furthers the purposes of, this part. No changes shall be made in the way in which funds are allocated pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 99620), except pursuant to Section 99684.
(Pub. Util. Code, § 99605 [emphasis added].) Chapter 3 contains the provisions of Prop 116 that control what types of projects can receive grant funding, including the provision discussed above limiting funding within Monterey County so that it must be used for rail projects. (Pub. Util.
Code, § 99638.) This means that the funding restriction to rail projects cannot be changed except pursuant to Section 99684. That section allows for funds not expended by July 1, 2000 to be reallocated by the Legislature “for another rail project within the agency’s jurisdiction,” and thus cannot be used to allow funding for a non-rail project. As such, the Legislature cannot amend the funding restrictions to allow for additional project categories, even with the required four-fifths vote.
While TAMC could seek to amend the definition of a “rail project” to include non-rail projects such as the proposed busway, this would clearly not “further[] the purposes” of Prop 116 (Pub. Util Code, § 99605), and would therefore also be impermissible under the law.
T
AMC was required to commence rail operations mo re than a decade ago.
TAMC applied to the CTC for funding to purchase the Monterey Branch Line, and CTC approved of the funding in Resolution PA-03-06 (Exhibit A). As stated in paragraph 2.2 of Resolution PA-03-06, CTC placed a condition on the funding requiring that, “once the right of Additional Correspondence
Tanisha Taylor
May 3, 2024
way has been purchased, [TAMC] or its successor is limited to a ten-year period to start operations...” This was highlighted in the CTC’s approval memo as well. (August 5, 2003 CTC Approval Memorandum, Exhibit L, p. 4 [“A condition has been placed in the attached resolution that once the right of way has been purchased, TAMC or its successor, is limited to a ten-year period to start operations…”].) The “operations” that were required to commence within ten years were “intercity passenger rail service within the corridor.” (Resolution PA-03-06 (Exhibit A), ¶ 1.9.)
TAMC purchased the rail line from Union Pacific in 2003. (Exhibit B, TAMC Real Property Ownership Policies, June 22, 2016, p. 1.) As such, it was required to commence rail operations by 2013.
Not only has TAMC failed to commence rail operations, they now threaten to remove portions of the rail line and use the existing right-of-way for bus service, in flagrant violation of Prop 116.
As such, by the plain and unambiguous terms of the Resolution, TAMC has stood in violation of the conditions placed on the Prop 116 funding it used to acquire the line.
While CTC can choose to excuse the timeliness of project commencement, it should make clear to TAMC that it is prohibited from using the right-of-way for the SURF! Busway or any purpose that would undermine or preclude the rail operations it was required to undertake more than a decade ago.
TAMC has been using profits from the Monterey Branch Line for improper purposes.
TAMC has been receiving profits from its ownership of the Monterey Branch line and using them for improper purposes. In 2009, TAMC requested $131,525, which it stated was for diligence related to the project, and identification and remediation of hazardous waste in the project area. The funding was approved as an amendment to the prior CTC resolution approving the initial funds. (CTC Financial Vote List, September 9-10, 2009 (Exhibit M).) The associated financial resolution contains a provision governing how TAMC may use “revenues or profits from any non-governmental use” of the Monterey Branch Line. (Id., ¶ 2.7.) Specifically, TAMC is required to use these revenues and profits “exclusively for the public transportation services for which the project was initially approved, either for capital improvement or maintenance and operational costs.” (Ibid.) If it does not do so, then it is required to pay the State back according to the percentage of State funding used to purchase the line. (Ibid.) Since that time, TAMC has received revenues and profits from its ownership of the line. These include, but may not be limited to, revenue from an easement granted to a water company in 2019 (Exhibit N), and the revenues from its lease agreement with the City of Marina (Exhibit O).
However, such revenues have not been used for “the public transportation services for which the project was initially approved,” as documents show that TAMC has instead siphoned them off to pay for the busway project that would actually prevent the initially-approved rail project by removing rail. (January 27, 2016 TAMC Memorandum re: Monterey-Salinas Transit Bus Study (Exhibit D) [“Approve allocation of $65,000 of Monterey Branch Line lease revenues for busway study by [MSTD]”].) TAMC has stated that the use of Monterey Branch Line revenues “is restricted to expenses related to the Monterey Branch Line,” without disclosing that the proposal was funding something that would seek to remove the line. (Ibid.) As such, TAMC has Additional Correspondence
Tanisha Taylor
May 3, 2024
been using profits and revenues from its ownership of the Monterey Branch Line in a manner prohibited by its Prop 116 funding conditions.
TAMC’s position that a busway project is necessary for a rail project is nonsensical.
Possibly in recognition of the legally questionable nature of its actions, TAMC in recent years has sought to construct a narrative in which the busway project does not preclude, and even supports, some future rail project. For instance, the Coastal Commission expressed concerns about the busway project and its impacts to the existing railroad tracks in early 2023. TAMC’s response acknowledged plans for track removal in multiple locations. (Exhibit H.) However, it claimed that the project had planned the busway alignment “so that bus and passenger rail service can co-exist within the historic rail corridor,” that they “provide symbiotic benefits,” and that TAMC hoped that success of the busway “will help make the case for future rail service, showing the latent ridership demand for a transit service in its own separate right-of-way.” (Ibid.) H
owever, TAMC’s plans show quite clearly that the busway project would remove the existing ra
il and pave a roadway over it. TAMC has also now funded at least three studies evaluating the right-of-way, all of which were drafted by TAMC’s consultants to support the idea that a busway, and not rail is the best use of the site. Even where the busway does not entirely cross over the existing rail, which it would in several places, the paved area is so close to the existing rail lines that it would not be possible to safely operate both vehicular traffic and a train.
Further, there is a finite demand for transportation along this corridor. If transportation is provided in one manner, then that reduces the need for additional services. TAMC’s statements that providing bus service would increase demand for rail service make no sense, and have no factual or evidentiary support.
Given the above, TAMC’s attempts to harmonize its statutory obligation to use the Monterey Branch Line for rail purposes with its efforts to use it for a busway project are disingenuous at best.
Conclusion
We appreciate the CTC’s attention in this matter and would be happy to discuss any of this further at your request.
Sincerely,
DOWNEY BRAND LLP
Amy R. Higuera
Additional Correspondence
Tanisha Taylor
May 3, 2024
cc: Kacey Ruggiero
Todd Clark
Mason Clark
4124476.1
Additional Correspondence
June 4, 2024
To: Marina City Council
From: Keep Fort Ord Wild
RE: Item 11a Regular Meeting of the City Council on June 4, 2024 With this correspondence Keep Fort Ord Wild (KFOW) requests the City Council NOT follow staff recommendation and NOT uphold the PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF CDP 23-0004.
KFOW reiterates its objections to the SURF project contained in its 4-11-24 letter to the Planning Commission and 5-21-24 letter to the City Council.
KFOW also provides the following additional comments for the City Council:
• Comments by MST staff at and after the 5-21-24 City Council meeting regarding SURF project compliance with Proposition 116 have proven to be demonstrably false. The claims by MST staff that SURF complies with Proposition 116 have, in fact, been nullified by the subsequent actions of TAMC. At the 6-3-24 TAMC Rail Committee meeting TAMC Director Todd Muck admitted the SURF project’s non-compliance with Proposition 116 as an incurable problem. At the same meeting, Muck also admitted on the record the current design of SURF will rip-up 1.75 miles of existing track.
Thus, repeated claims by MST and TAMC over the last few years that rail was a “long-term vision” are false.
Additional Correspondence
• As a matter of record, KFOW informed TAMC and MST that SURF couldn't happen due to Proposition 116 requirements in February 2023. Since then, TAMC has distributed at least $11.6 million to MST in public Measure X funds for the design and construction management of SURF. MST and TAMC staff knew the design would rip up long sections of track on the Monterey Branch Line. At the same time, they secured State and Federal grants based on the “rail as a long-term vision” narrative pretending SURF didn't meaningfully impact future rail plans when communicating with the various agencies.
However, it is now clear rail is not and never has been a long-term vision of the SURF project.
• As a further demonstration of the SURF project’s incurable non-compliance with Proposition 116, TAMC is now considering a buyout of the Monterey Branch Line to rid the SURF project of any obligations to use the corridor for rail. KFOW notes this proposed strategy by TAMC is tantamount to total abandonment of any future rail along the Monterey Branch line. (See attached 6-5-24 agenda item for the TAMC Executive Committee.) As a practical matter TAMC would be buying out the whole Monterey Branch Line even though SURF only uses the southern portion of the Monterey Branch Line. The immense additional cost would be a raw deal for the public, in that TAMC would be buying out the whole Monterey Branch Line to only use a portion of it as a busway. The result would be the entire Monterey Branch Line rendered useless for rail. The City Council should carefully consider TAMC’s proposed action to buy out the Monterey Branch Line to enable SURF. Significant sections of the Monterey Branch Line not related to SURF run through Marina. What will happen to those other sections if not used for rail? Will they be developed for other uses, etc.?
• At the 5-21-24 City Council meeting Councilmember McCarthy raised the issue of the SB 922 exemption for SURF. At the time, MST staff insisted SURF was still under the $100 million threshold. However, if TAMC proceeds with a plan to buy-out the Monterey Branch line the project cost will be well over $100 million, and the project will be required to present a business case for the project as well as a racial equity analysis and additional public meetings.
Additional Correspondence
• For emphasis, KFOW reiterates the dramatic non-compliance of the SURF project with the Coastal Act. The California Coastal Commission has consistently informed MST for the past several years through a series of detailed letters SURF was not approvable under the Coastal Act. MST chose to ignore these letters and proceed with the same design of SURF it knew was impossible for multiple reasons.
Request:
The SURF project would be a detriment to the citizens of Marina damaging coastal ESHA, recreation, coastal access and the promised future of rail service. The true design and impacts of the SURF project have been misrepresented for years. The SURF project has deep, and incurable flaws as proposed and the solutions to salvage it are becoming more extreme and more expensive for citizens. For all the reasons above, attached and more the Marina City Council should NOT uphold the approval of PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2024-09 dated April 11, 2024.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Salerno
Spokesman, Keep Fort Ord Wild.
Additional Correspondence
Agenda Item: 13a
June 4, 2024
1 2
3 4
5 6
May 28, 2024 Item No. 13b
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Marina City Council of June 4, 2024
THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -,
APPROVING THE BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING AGREEMENT FOR
THE MARINA STATION DEVELOPMENT . THIS ACTION IS EXEMPT
FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PER § 15162 OF THE CEQA
GUIDELINES.
REQUEST
It is requested that the Marina City Council:
1. Approve Resolution 2024-, approving the Below Market Rate Housing Agreement for the Marina Station Development and finding the action exempt from environmental review per § 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Marina and Creekbridge Homes, LLC (“Original Developer”) originally entered into a Development Agreement dated March 4, 2008 , related to the Marina Station project (the "Development Agreement"). The Development Agreement provided the Original Developer the opportunity to develop a 320-acre site into a mixed-use project on either side of Del Monte Avenue at the northern boundary of the City of Marina. The Development Agreement stipulated the terms and conditions for development of 1,360 resident ial units (887 single family units and 47 3 multifamily units), approximately 60,000 square feet of retail space, approximately 144,000 square feet of office space, approximately 652,000 square feet of business park/industrial, parks and open space (the "Development"). The project approvals include requirements for the development of affordable housing.
The Development Agreement was entered into by the City of Marina and the Original Developer pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 and the Marina Municipal Code Chapter 4.04. The Development Agreement was approved by the City Council on March 4, 2008. At that regular meeting of March 4, 2008, the City Council certified the EIR, approved the General Plan Amendments, the Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance Map Amendments, a Vesting Tentative Map (collectively the "Project Approvals"), Design Review and the De velopment Agreement for the Marina Station Project.
In 2022 the City Council approve d the assignment of the Development Agreement to Third Millennium Partners and the First Amendment to the Development Agreement, which among, other amendments, extended the term of the Development Agreement.
The Development Agreement requires that , prior to recordation of the Final Map for the first phase of the development, the Developer and the City are to enter into a Below Market Rate Housing Agreement that obligates the Developer to provide affordable housing as part of the Development consistent with the terms of the City’s General Plan and Housing Element. The Below Market Rate Housing Agreement is to provide at a minimum that 20% of the residential units in the Development be affordable units with the following affordability categories:
1 Income Category Percentage of Units Number of Units
Very Low Income (income at
or below 50% of AMI)
6% 82
Low Income (incomes greater
than 50% but no more than
80% of AMI)
7% 95
Moderate Income (income
greater than 80% but no more
than 120% of AMI)
7% 95
272
The Below Market Rate Housing Agreement provides that the Moderate Income Homes will be for sale homes and that the Very Low Income and Low-Income homes will be rentals.
The Below Market Rate Housing Agreement includes a phasing map for the Development setting forth the areas where the below market rate housing will be developed. The below market rate housing is disbursed throughout the development site as illustrated on E xhibit D to the Below Market Rate Housing Agreement.
The Below Market Rate Housing Agreement also includes development milestones that must be met by the Developer with regard to the development of the below market rate housing in order to ensure that the below market rate housing is developed in con currently with the market rate housing. In accordance with the terms of the Below Market Rate Housing Agreement, if the Developer fails to construct the below market rate housing in accordance with the phasing plan and milestones, the City can refuse to issue add itional certificates of occupancy for market rate homes. For example, if the Developer has not completed at least 19 Moderate Income Homes by the time that the City is asked to issue a certificate of occupancy for the 201st residential unit in the Development, the City can refuse to issue any additional certificates of occupancy until the appropriate number of below market rate homes are completed. In accordance with the milestone schedule, it is expected that first below market rate homes to be developed will be the Moderate Income Homes. Development of the very low- and low-income rental units will require the Developer to obtain various sources of public subsidies , so development of those units is expected after approximately 500 residential units are complete.
The Developer expects to transfer the portions of the property slated for the development of the very low- and low -income rental units to an affordable housing developer. The Below Market Rate Housing Agreement requires that the City approve any such developer.
The Below Market Rate Housing Agreement sets forth the specific requirements for the development and operation of the below market rate homes, including; • procedures for setting the affordable purchase prices and rents. • requirements that the Developer comply with the City’s adopted Below Market Rate Housing Policies and Procedures which include:
o the procedures for the qualification of the purchasers or renters of the below market rate homes;
o the requirements for resale restrictions for the ownership homes o the City’s local preference policy
o compliance reporting procedures.
• Management and maintenance requirements.
2 Environmental Determination
On March 4, 2008, the City Council of the City of Marina certified the final environmental impact report for the Marina Station Project (State Clearing House Number 2005061056) ("EIR"). The EIR served as the environmental review for the Development and the Project Approvals and entitlements as well as for the approval of the Development Agreement. Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines states that if an EIR or negative declaration has been adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR is to be prepared unless there have been substantial changes to the project, substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken or new information of substantial importance shows that the project would have significant effects not discussed i n the EIR. Since certification of the EIR there have been:
(i) no substantial changes to the project which would require revisions to the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of previously identified effects. The Below Market Rate Housing Agreement is consistent with the approvals granted in 2008 and does not significantly alter the Development or change the density or intensity of the uses approved for the Development such that there are new significant environmental effects; (ii) no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which require revisions to the EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously ide ntified effect. There have been no significant changes in the areas surrounding the Development since the EIR was approved that involve new significant impacts; and
(iii) no new information shows that the Development will a. have any significant effects that were not discussed in the EIR; b. that significant effects that were previously examined will be more severe; c. mitigations measures or alternatives that were found infeasible would in fact be feasible and reduce one or more significant effects; or d. new mitigation measures or alternatives that were not considered in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Development on the environment.
Based on the above, no additional environmental analysis is required for the approval of the Below Market Rate Housing Agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The approval of the Below Market Rate Housing Agreement will result in the following beneficial fiscal impacts to the City:
1. The project will be fiscally neutral or beneficial to the City based on an updated fiscal impact study that that was completed in 2022.
2. Development of the project as contemplated will result in increased property taxes benefiting the City as well as the other taxing entities.
Prepared by:
______________________
Karen Tiedemann, Goldfarb & Lipman
Special Counsel
City of Marina
3 REVIEW/CONCUR:
______________________
Guido F. Persicone, AICP
Director, CDD
City of Marina
Layne Long
City Manager
City of Marina
4 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA APPROVING THE
BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING AGREEMENT FOR THE MARINA STATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, Creekbridge Homes, LLC and the City previously entered into that certain Development Agreement dated as of March 4, 2008 (the "Development Agreement"), pursuant to which the City and Creekbridge Homes, LLC agreed to certain matters with respect to the deve lopment of a mixed use community with residential, commercial, office, industrial, public, cultural, recreation, and park land uses (the "Project") as more specifically provided for in the Marina Station Specific Plan adopted by the City of Marina; and
WHEREAS, the City approved the assignment of the Development Agreement to Third Millennium Partners (“Developer”) in 2022;
WHEREAS, the City approved the First Amendment to the Development Agreement which, among other amendments extended the term of the Development Agreement until 2036;
WHEREAS, a part of the Project Approvals for the Project and as a requirement of the Development Agreement, the Developer is required to develop 20% of the residential units in the Project as affordable homes, affordable to Very Low Income, Low Income and Moderate Income Households; and
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement requires that the City and the Developer enter into a Below Market Rate Housing Agreement prior to the approval of the Final Map for the first phase of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Developer and the City have negotiated the terms of the Below Market Rate Housing Agreement that is consistent with the City’s General Plan, Housing Element, the Development Agreement and the Project Approvals; and
WHEREAS, based on the information provided in the staff report no new environmental review for the Project is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and the final environmental impact report for the Marina Station Project (State Clearing House Number 2005061056) shall serve as the environmental review for the approval of the Below Market Rate Housing Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Marina hereby approves the Below Market Rate Housing Agreement included herein as Exhibit A for the Marina Station project substantially in the form on file with the City Clerk and authorizes the City Manager to sign the Below Market Rate Housing Agreement on behalf of the City and to take all actions consistent with the Below Market Rate Housing Agreement to implement the terms of such Agreement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Marina at a regular meeting duly held on the 4th day of June 2024, by the following vote:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
Bruce C. Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk
5 1
3762909.1
BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING AGREEMENT
(Marina Station)
This Below Market Rate Housing Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into as of __________, 2024 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the City of Marina, a municipal corporation (the “City”), and Third Millennium Partners, a California corporation (the “Developer”) (each individually a “Party” and together the “Parties”), with reference to the following facts.
RECITALS
A. Capitalized terms used but not defined in these recitals are as defined in Article 1 of this Agreement.
B. Pursuant to an assignment, 3rd Millennium Partners, a California corporation is the “Developer” under that certain Development Agreement for the Marina Station Project dated as of March 4, 2008 with the City, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Development Agreement dated as of November 18, 2022 and recorded with the Monterey County Clerk- Recorder on November 21, 2022 as Document Number 2022049372 (the “Development Agreement,” a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A). The subject of the Development Agreement is the real property described and depicted in Exhibit B hereto (the “Property”).
Developer’s development of the Property is known generally as the “Project” in the Development Agreement but specifically as the “Development” in Section 2.17 of the Development Agreement and also herein.
C. Pursuant to Section 2.17 of the Development Agreement, prior to the recordation of the final map for the first phase of the Development, Developer and the City shall enter into a Below Market Rate Housing Agreement that will obligate Developer to provide affordable housing as part of the Project consistent with the requirements of the City of Marina General Plan adopted by the City on October 31, 2000, as amended (the “General Plan”) and the Housing Element of the General Plan. The Below Market Rate Housing Agreement shall provide that a minimum of 20% of the 1360 residential units developed as part of the Project, excluding the "Carriage Apartments" as defined in the Marina Station Specific Plan adopted by the City on March 4, 2008 (the “Specific Plan”), shall be affordable units within the following definitions and categories: 6% shall be affordable to and occupied by Very Low-Income Households (less than or equal to fifty percent (50%) of Median Income), 7% shall be affordable to and occupied by Low-Income Households (households with incomes greater than 50% of Median Income and less than or equal to 80% of Median Income), and 7% shall be affordable to and occupied by Moderate-Income Households (households with incomes greater than 80% of Median income and less than or equal to120% of Median Income). Median Income shall mean the median income level for Monterey County, adjusted for household size, as periodically published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”).
D. Developer and the City therefore desire to enter this Agreement in furtherance of the provisions of Section 2.17 of the Development Agreement.
EXHIBIT A
6 2
3762909.1
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Developer and the City hereby agree as follows:
1. Definitions. When used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the respective meanings assigned to them in this Section 1.
1.1 “50% AMI Household” or “Very Low-Income Household” means a household with an annual income which does not exceed fifty percent (50%) of Area Median Income, adjusted for Actual Household Size pursuant to HCD’s published income limits.
1.2 “50% Units” or “Very Low-Income Units” means the Units which are required to be occupied by 50% AMI Households.
1.3 “80% AMI Household” or “Low-Income Household” means a household with an annual income which is greater than fifty percent (50%) of Area Median Income but does not exceed eighty percent (80%) of Area Median Income, adjusted for Actual Household Size pursuant to HCD’s published income limits.
1.4 “80% Units” or “Low-Income Units” means the Units which are required to be occupied by 80% AMI Households.
1.5 “120% AMI Household” or “Moderate-Income Household” means a household with an annual income which is greater than eighty percent (80%) of Area Median Income but does not exceed one hundred and twenty percent (120%) of Area Median Income, adjusted for Actual Household Size pursuant to HCD’s published income limits.
1.6 “120% Units” or “Moderate-Income Units” means the Units which are required to be occupied by 120% AMI Households.
1.7 “Actual Household Size” means the actual number of persons in the applicable household.
1.8 “Adjusted for Household Size Appropriate for the Unit” means “adjusted for family size appropriate to the unit” as such term is used in Section 50052.5 or Section 50053 of the California Health and Safety Code, as applicable.
1.9 "Affordable Housing Cost-Moderate Income" means a Monthly Housing Cost equal to thirty-five percent (35%) times one hundred ten percent (110%) of the Area Median Income, Adjusted for Household Size Appropriate for the Unit.
1.10 “Affordable Purchase Price” means the maximum purchase price paid by an Income Eligible Household determined such that the buyer’s Monthly Housing Cost for such Unit will not exceed an Affordable Housing Cost-Moderate Income.
EXHIBIT A
7 3
3762909.1
1.11 “Affordable Rent” means the applicable affordable rent for Income Eligible Households as provided in Sections 50052.5 and 50053 of the California Health and Safety Code as may be amended from time to time, as Adjusted for Household Size Appropriate for the Unit; provided however, that if a Rental Building is encumbered by a regulatory agreement in favor of the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (“TCAC”), subject to the prior approval of the City Manager, the Developer may use the affordable rent as determined by TCAC (utilizing TCAC’s assumed household sizes) as the Affordable Rent for the Rental Unit.
1.12 “Agreement” means this Below Market Rate Housing Agreement.
1.13 “AMI” or “Area Median Income” or “Median Income” means the area median income for Monterey County as published and periodically updated by HCD pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 50093, adjusted for Actual Household Size.
1.14 “BMR Procedures” means, collectively, (a) the City of Marina Below Market Rate Rental Housing Program Administrative Policies and Procedures (Revised 2021) in effect as of the Effective Date, a copy of which are attached hereto as Exhibit C-1 (the “BMR Rental Procedures”), and (ii) the City of Marina Below Market Rate Homeownership Program Administrative Policies and Procedures (Revised 2021) in effect as of the Effective Date, a copy of which are attached hereto as Exhibit C-2 (the “BMR Homeownership Procedures”).
1.15 “City” is defined in the first paragraph of this Agreement.
1.16 “Default” is defined in Section 8.1.
1.17 “Developer” is defined in the first paragraph of this Agreement.
1.18 “Developer Property” means whatever portions of the Property Developer owns at any time during the Term of this Agreement (including the Rental Units and the For-Sale Units prior to their initial sales).
1.19 “Development” is defined in Recital B.
1.20 “Effective Date” is defined in the first paragraph of this Agreement.
1.21 “Financing Agreement” means collectively (i) any agreement that Developer enters pursuant to a governmental tax credit or other subsidy or loan program that is utilized to finance the construction and/or operation of the Development, and (ii) all statutes, regulations and other laws compliance with which is required as a condition of participation in such governmental tax credit or other subsidy or loan program.
1.22 “For-Sale Unit” means one of the 95 for-sale Units in the Development intended to be sold to at Affordable Purchase Prices.
1.23 “HCD” means the California Department of Housing and Community Development or any successor agency.
EXHIBIT A
8 4
3762909.1
1.24 “Indemnitees” are defined in Section 9.1.
1.25 “Management Agent” is defined in Section 5.2.
1.26 “Income Eligible Household” shall mean a Very Low-Income Household, Low- Income Household or Moderate-Income Household, as applicable.
1.27 "Monthly Housing Cost" shall include all of the following costs associated with a For-Sale Unit: (a) Principal and interest on mortgage loans and any loan insurance fees associated therewith; (b) property taxes and assessments; (c) fire and casualty insurance covering replacement value of property improvements; and (d) any homeowners association fees; and (f) the Utility Allowance.
1.28 “Party” or “Parties” is defined in the first paragraph of this Agreement.
1.29 “Property” is defined in Recital B.
1.30 “Rental Building” means a building containing Rental Units
1.31 “Rental Unit” means one of the 177 Units in the Development occupied by an Income Eligible Household charged an Affordable Rent.
1.32 “Tenant” means a household legally occupying a Rental Unit pursuant to a valid lease with Developer or its assignee.
1.33 “Term” is defined in Section 7.2.
1.34 “Unit” means one of the affordable housing units constructed on the Property, all of which are subject to the affordability covenants of this Agreement. Units include both Rental Units and For-Sale Units.
1.35 “Utility Allowance” means an amount designated by the Monterey County Housing Authority as a reasonable estimate of the cost of utilities for an Income Eligible Household, for purposes of calculating the applicable Affordable Rent.
2. The Development; Affordability and Occupancy.
2.1 Developer shall develop 95 For-Sale Units in phases pursuant to and in accordance with the phasing plan attached hereto as Exhibit E. The For-Sale Units will be Townhomes. Each For-Sale Unit shall be sold to a Moderate-Income Household at an Affordable Purchase Price. Developer and City shall qualify each Moderate-Income Household in compliance with the BMR Homeownership Procedures. If Developer fails to construct the For-Sale Units in accordance with Exhibit E, the City shall have no obligation to issue certificates of occupancy for market rate units beyond the number set forth in Exhibit E.
2.2 Developer shall prepare a marketing plan for the For-Sale Units that demonstrates compliance with the BMR Homeownership Procedures. Developer shall provide the
EXHIBIT A
9 5
3762909.1
marketing plan to the City one hundred eighty (180) days prior to marketing the For-Sale Units. The City shall approve or disapprove the marketing plan within thirty (30) days of receipt of the marketing plan, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. If the City disapproves the marketing plan, the City shall state the reasons for such disapproval with specificity. The Developer shall resubmit the marketing plan addressing the City’s reasons for disapproval. The City shall approve or disapprove the resubmitted marketing plan within fifteen (15) days of receipt. The Developer shall not market any of the For- Sale Units until the City has approved the marketing plan; provided however, that the City’s failure to respond within any of the timeframes set forth in this Section 2.2 hereinabove shall be deemed to be approval.
2.3 Developer shall provide the City with advance written notice of each anticipated initial sale of a For-Sale Unit. Developer shall reasonably cooperate with the City in ensuring that each initial sale of a For-Sale Unit complies with the BMR Homeownership Procedures, including by ensuring that all City-required closing documents are signed, delivered and recorded (as applicable). Without limiting the foregoing, Developer acknowledges and agrees that it will ensure that each homebuyer executes a resale restriction agreement, a promissory note for the benefit of the City and a deed of trust as well as any other documents requested by the City and that any recordable documents are recorded in the priority directed by the City.
2.4 Developer shall develop 177 Rental Units in multiple Rental Buildings over multiple phases pursuant to and in accordance with the phasing plan attached hereto as Exhibit E. Eighty-two (82) Rental Units will be Very Low-Income Units, and 95 Rental Units will be Low-Income Units. Developer and City shall qualify each Income Eligible Household for the applicable Rental Unit in compliance with the BMR Rental Procedures. If Developer fails to construct the Rental Units in accordance with Exhibit E, the City shall have no obligation to issue certificates of occupancy for market rate units beyond the number set forth in Exhibit E.
2.5 Developer shall prepare a marketing plan for the Rental Units that demonstrates compliance with the BMR Rental Procedures. Developer shall provide the marketing plan to the City for approval at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior to marketing the Rental Units. The City shall approve or disapprove the marketing plan within thirty (30) days of receipt of the marketing plan, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. If the City disapproves the marketing plan, the City shall state the reasons for such disapproval with specificity. The Developer shall resubmit the marketing plan addressing the City’s reasons for disapproval. The City shall approve or disapprove the resubmitted marketing plan within fifteen (15) days of receipt. The Developer shall not market any of the Rental Units until the City has approved the marketing plan; provided however, that the City’s failure to respond within any of the timeframes set forth in this Section 2.5 hereinabove shall be deemed to be approval.
2.6 Developer will establish, maintain and update waitlists for the Units in accordance with the BMR Procedures. The City shall have the right to request that Developer apply certain preferences or priorities in connection with such waitlists. To the extent that
EXHIBIT A
10 6
3762909.1
preferences and priorities for occupancy are applied by the City to the Units pursuant to the BMR Procedures, such preferences and priorities shall not violate applicable law, including but not limited to, Federal and State Fair Housing Laws, and the City shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Developer, its directors, officers, employees, agents and its successor and assigns ("Indemnified Parties") against all claims which arise from the implementation of any preferences and priorities imposed by the City, provided, however the City's indemnification obligation shall not extend to any claim arising from an Indemnified Party’s negligence or willful misconduct or an Indemnified Party’s failure to perform its obligations with respect to such preference and priority policy.
2.7 Developer intends to develop the For-Sale Units and Rental Units in accordance with Exhibit D hereto, which sets forth, by Development phase, the lot locations and numbers of each type of Unit (Very Low-Income, Low-Income and Moderate-Income), and the type of building in which the Units are located (Townhomes or Apartment Buildings). Developer may change the phasing only after obtaining the City’s prior written consent, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed if the revised phasing provides the same number of Units and does not result in a significant delay in the development of the Units. The Developer shall, at least one year prior to the commencement of construction of any of the Units provide the City with notice of its intent to commence construction. The City may, no later than six (6) months prior to the projected commencement of construction date, give Developer notice of its desire to reconsider the affordability breakdown of the Units, in which event the City and the Developer shall meet to consider alternative income limits for the Units consistent with the City’s housing policies and goals.
3. Monitoring and Compliance; City Approvals; City Staffing and Responsibilities
3.1 The City shall have the right, at its sole cost, to monitor the compliance of Developer with the terms of this Agreement and Developer shall, upon reasonable notice from the City, allow the City, at is sole cost, to inspect its books and records related to the rental and sale of the Units upon request, including its books and records related to the comparable market rate rents and purchase prices.
3.2 The City shall promptly and in good faith exercise all approval rights granted to it under this Agreement, consistent with the terms of the Development Agreement and this Agreement.
3.3 The City shall provide qualified staffing to timely perform its obligations under this Agreement.
4. Operation of the Development.
4.1 Residential Use. The Property and the Units shall be used only for residential purposes and home occupations as provided in the Marina Municipal Code, and the Units shall be operated and maintained as residences for the Term of this Agreement. No part of the Units shall be operated as transient housing in which the term of the lease or rental agreement is less than thirty (30) days.
EXHIBIT A
11 7
3762909.1
4.2 BMR Procedures. Developer will operate the Development in conformance with the BMR Procedures, except as set out in Section 7.4 below.
4.3 Taxes and Assessments. Developer shall timely pay all real and personal property taxes, assessments and charges and all franchise, income, employment, old age benefit, withholding, sales, and other taxes assessed against it, or payable by it that may become a lien or charge against the Developer Property, subject to any applicable exemptions or right to contest; provided, however, that Developer shall have the right to contest in good faith, any such taxes, assessments, or charges. In the event Developer exercises its right to contest any tax, assessment, or charge against it, Developer, on final determination of the proceeding or contest, shall promptly pay or discharge any decision or judgment rendered against it, together with all costs, charges and interest.
5. Property Management.
5.1 Developer is responsible for all management functions with respect to the Rental Buildings.
5.2 To perform its management duties hereunder, Developer shall retain a professional property management company with demonstrated ability to operate affordable housing properties in order to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing, approved by the City in its reasonable discretion (as approved, the “Management Agent”). Developer shall submit such information about the background, experience, and financial condition of any proposed Management Agent as is reasonably necessary for the City to determine whether the proposed Management Agent meets the standard for a qualified Management Agent set forth herein. Within thirty (30) days of such submission, the City in its reasonable discretion shall determine whether the proposed Management Agent meets that standard and notify Developer in writing, stating with reasonable specificity the basis for any disapproval.
5.3 The City reserves the right to conduct an annual (or more frequently, if deemed necessary by the City) review of the management practices and financial status of the Rental Buildings. The purpose of each periodic review will be to enable the City to determine if the Rental Buildings is being operated and managed in accordance with the requirements and standards of this Agreement. Developer shall cooperate with the City in such reviews.
5.4 If, as a result of a periodic review, the City determines in its reasonable discretion that any Rental Building is not being operated and managed in accordance with any of the material requirements and standards of this Agreement, the City shall deliver written notice to Developer, Developer’s senior mortgage lender of record (“Senior Lender”) and Developer’s tax credit investor limited partner (“Limited Partner”), if applicable, of the City’s intention to cause replacement of the Management Agent, including the reasons therefor. Within fifteen (15) days of receipt by Developer of such written notice, City staff and Developer (and Senior Lender and Limited Partner at each’s option) shall meet in good faith to consider methods for improving the financial and operating status of the Rental Buildings, including, without limitation, replacement of the Management Agent.
EXHIBIT A
12 8
3762909.1
5.5 If, after such meeting, City staff recommends in writing the replacement of the Management Agent, Developer shall promptly dismiss the then Management Agent, terminating its contract as necessary, and shall appoint as the Management Agent a person or entity approved by the City pursuant to Section 5.2 above.
5.6 Any contract for the operation or management of the Rental Buildings entered into by Developer shall provide that the contract can be terminated as set forth above.
Failure to remove the Management Agent in accordance with the provisions of this Section shall constitute Default under this Agreement, and the City may enforce this provision through legal proceedings as specified in Section 8.3.
6. Property Maintenance.
6.1 Developer shall, for the entire Term of this Agreement, maintain all interior and exterior improvements, including landscaping and protected trees, on the Rental Buildings, and prior to sale, the For-Sale Units, in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, ordinances, orders and regulations of all federal, state, county, municipal, and other governmental agencies and bodies having or claiming jurisdiction and all their respective departments, bureaus, and officials (collectively, “Applicable Standards”). Applicable Standards, which apply equally to other development projects in the City, include without limitation as of the date of this Agreement, the following maintenance conditions:
i. Landscaping. Developer shall have landscape maintenance performed as needed. Developer shall adequately water the landscaping on the Developer Property and the Rental Buildings. No improperly maintained landscaping on the Developer Property or Rental Buildings shall be visible from public streets and/or rights of way.
ii. Yard Area. No yard areas on the Developer Property or the Rental Buildings shall be left in an unmaintained condition. Unmaintained conditions include without limitation:
(1) broken or discarded furniture, appliances and other household equipment stored in yard areas for a period exceeding one (1) week; (2) packing boxes, lumber trash, dirt and other debris in areas visible from public prope1ty or neighboring properties; and
(3) vehicles parked or stored in other than approved parking areas. iii. Building. The buildings located on the Developer Property and the Rental Buildings may not be left in an unmaintained condition. Unmaintained conditions include without limitation:
(1) violations of state law, uniform codes, or City ordinances;
EXHIBIT A
13 9
3762909.1
(2) conditions that constitute an unsightly appearance that detracts from the aesthetics or value of the Developer Property or the Rental Buildings or constitutes a private or public nuisance;
(3) broken windows; and
(4) graffiti left in place for a period exceeding seventy-two (72) hours. iv. Sidewalks. Developer shall maintain, repair, and replace as necessary all public sidewalks adjacent to the Developer Property and the Rental Buildings.
6.2 In the event that Developer breaches any of the covenants contained in Section
6.1 and such Default continues for a period of ten (10) days after written notice from the City with respect to graffiti, debris, waste material, and general maintenance or thirty (30) days after written notice from the City with respect to landscaping and building improvements, then the City, in addition to whatever other remedy it may have at law or in equity, shall have the right to enter upon the Property and perform or cause to be performed all such acts and work necessary to cure the Default; provided, however, in either case that if such cure cannot reasonably be effectuated within the timeframe prescribed, the City shall prescribe a reasonable timeframe within which to complete the work. Pursuant to such right of entry, the City shall be permitted (but is not required) to enter upon the Property and perform all acts and work necessary to protect, maintain, and preserve the improvements and landscaped areas on the Property according the Applicable Standards, and to attach a lien on the Property, or to assess the Property, in the amount of the expenditures arising from such acts and work of protection, maintenance, and preservation by the City and/or costs of such cure, which amount shall be promptly paid by Developer to the City upon demand.
6.3 Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, upon the Developer’s conveyance of a Rental Building or For-Sale Unit to a third party, Developer shall be relieved of its maintenance obligations hereunder with respect to such Rental Building or For-Sale Unit as applicable, and the applicable transferee shall assume such obligations therefor pursuant to the regulatory agreement.
7. Assignment; Term and Conflicts.
7.1 Assignment. This Agreement shall bind any successor, heir or assign of Developer throughout the Term, whether a change in interest occurs voluntarily or involuntarily, by operation of law or otherwise, except as expressly released by the City.
Developer may not assign its obligations under this Agreement (other than to an affiliate) to any purchaser of a portion of the Developer Property designated for the development of For-Sale Units or the Rental Units without the written consent of the City, which consent may be provided by the City Manager in his or her reasonable discretion based on the prior experience of the proposed assignee and the proposed assignee’s financial capacity. The City shall not approve any assignment unless any such assignee assumes all of the Developer’s applicable obligations pursuant to the terms of a written assignment
EXHIBIT A
14 10
3762909.1
and assumption agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney. No such assignment shall release the Developer unless the City specifically agrees to such release.
7.2 Term. The term of this Agreement (“Term”) commences on the Effective Date and ends upon the later of: (a) the issuance of a certificate of occupancy of the Rental Building containing the last Rental Unit required to be developed hereunder, and (b) the closing of the sale of the final For-Sale Unit.
7.3 Affordable Housing Covenants. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the Rental Buildings, the City shall have recorded against each Rental Building a regulatory agreement in accordance with City Municipal Code Section 17.48.020.
7.4 Relationship of BMR Procedures, Agreement, and Financing Agreements.
This Agreement, the BMR Procedures, and any applicable Financing Agreements independently regulate the Units in the Development. Developer agrees that the BMR Procedures governs the operation of the Units, except that in the event of any inconsistency between the BMR Procedures and this Agreement, this Agreement shall govern.
7.5 Notice of Financing Agreements. Upon execution, amendment, or termination of any Financing Agreement at any time during the term of this Agreement, Developer shall provide City with written notice and, as applicable, a copy of such agreement.
Developer shall also provide City with sufficient information to provide any required notice to Senior Lender and Limited Partner.
8. Defaults
8.1 Failure by Developer to perform any obligation under this Agreement shall constitute a “Default” by Developer under this Agreement.
8.2 The City shall give written notice to Developer and Limited Partner (if applicable) specifying the nature of the violation giving rise to the Default. If the violation is not corrected to the satisfaction of City within a reasonable period of time, not longer than thirty (30) days after the date the notice is mailed, except as provided herein for specific Defaults, or within such further time as the City reasonably determines is necessary to correct the violation, the City may declare a Default under this Agreement by written notice to Developer. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the City agrees that any cure of any default made or tendered by the Limited Partner shall be deemed to be a cure by Developer, and shall be accepted or rejected on the same basis as if made or tendered by Developer; provided, however, that the Limited Partner shall not have any obligation to effectuate such cure.
8.3 The occurrence of any Default following the expiration of all applicable notice and cure periods will give the City the right to proceed with any and all remedies available at law and equity. The Parties acknowledge that damages alone would be an inadequate remedy for any breach of the provisions of this Agreement, and agree that the obligations of the Parties hereunder may be enforced in equity including, without limitation, specific performance and injunctive relief.
EXHIBIT A
15 11
3762909.1
9. Indemnification.
9.1 To the fullest extent allowed by law, Developer shall indemnify and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, officials, agents, employees, servants, consultants and volunteers (hereinafter, “Indemnitees”) from and against any liability, loss, damage, expense, and cost (including reasonable legal fees and costs of litigation or arbitration), resulting from injury to or death of any person, damage to property, or liability for other claims, stop notices, demands, causes of actions and actions, arising out of or in any way related to Developer’s performance or nonperformance of its duties under this Agreement, or from negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of Developer, its agents, employees, contractors, or subcontractors.
Developer shall, at his/her own cost and expense, defend any and all claims, actions, suits or legal proceedings that may be brought against the City or any of the Indemnitees (with counsel acceptable to City) in connection with this Agreement or arising out of Developer’s performance or nonperformance of his/her duties and obligations hereunder, including all claims, demands, causes of action, liability or loss because of or arising out of, in whole or in part, the operation of the Property, Units, and/or the Development, except to the extent any of the foregoing is caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the City or the City’s agents, employees and independent contractors.
9.2 Each Party shall notify the other Party by phone as soon as possible and in writing within ten (10) business days of any claim or damage related to activities performed under this Agreement. The Parties shall cooperate with each other in the investigation and disposition of any claim arising out of the activities under this Agreement, provided that nothing shall require either Party to disclose any documents, records or communications that are protected under the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product privilege.
9.3 The provisions of this Section shall survive the expiration of the Terms and any release of part or all of the Property from the burdens of this Agreement.
10. Miscellaneous.
10.1 Entire Understanding of the Parties. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties and no modification shall be binding unless reduced to writing and signed by the Parties. If there is any conflict between this Agreement and the Development Agreement, the more restrictive provision, as determined by the City in its reasonable discretion, shall control.
10.2 Each Party’s Role in Drafting the Agreement. Each Party to this Agreement has had an opportunity to review the Agreement, confer with legal counsel regarding the meaning of the Agreement, and negotiate revisions to the Agreement. Accordingly, neither Party shall rely upon Civil Code Section 1654 in order to interpret any uncertainty in the meaning of the Agreement.
10.3 Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be the County of Monterey.
EXHIBIT A
16 12
3762909.1
10.4 Title of Parts and Sections. Any titles of the sections or subsections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in interpreting any part of the Agreement’s provisions.
10.5 Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. In any action brought to enforce this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to all costs and expenses of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. This section shall be interpreted in accordance with California Civil Code Section 1717 and judicial decisions interpreting that statute.
10.6 Modifications, Approvals and Waivers. Any approval, modification or waiver issued by the City hereunder shall be in writing; provided that the City shall not unreasonably withhold its approval to any reasonable request made by Developer pursuant to Section 2 hereof. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the City recognizes that given the anticipated length of time during which the Developer will complete the Project, circumstances may change that would cause the Developer to seek the City’s consent to grant a modification or wavier to a specific requirement set forth in this Agreement, and that the City will consider such request in its reasonable discretion.
In connection therewith, the City Manager shall have full power and authority to grant any approval, modification or waiver on behalf of the City pursuant to a writing executed by the City Manager. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no waiver will be implied from any delay or failure by the City to take action on any breach or Default of Developer or to pursue any remedy permitted under this Agreement or applicable law. Any extension of time granted to Developer to perform any obligation under this Agreement shall not operate as a waiver or release from any of its obligations under this Agreement. Consent by the City to any act or omission by Developer shall not be construed to be consent to any other or subsequent act or omission or to waive the requirement for the City’s written consent to future waivers.
10.7 Notices. Any notice requirement set forth herein shall be deemed to be satisfied one business day after deposit with federal express or another reputable overnight carrier or three (3) days after mailing of the notice first-class United States certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the appropriate Party as follows:
EXHIBIT A
17 13
3762909.1
Developer: Third Millennium Partners
5671 Santa Teresa Blvd., Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95123
Attention: Dustin Bogue, Partner and CEO
With a copy to:
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
Los Angeles, California 90067
Attention: David P. Cohen
City: City of Marina
211 Hillcrest Avenue
Marina, CA 93933
Attention: Layne Long, City Manager
10.8 Such written notices, demands and communications may be sent in the same manner to such other addresses as the affected Party may from time to time designate by mail as provided in this Section. Receipt shall be deemed to have occurred on the date shown on a written receipt as the date of delivery or refusal of delivery (or attempted delivery if undeliverable).
10.9 Severability. Except to the extent that it would frustrate the Parties’ intent in entering into this Agreement, if any provision of this Agreement shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining portions of this Agreement shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.
10.10 Multiple Originals: Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, and may be signed in counterparts.
[signature page follows]
EXHIBIT A
18 CITY OF MARINA:
Approved as to form:
[name] Layne Long, City Manager
[City Attorney]
DEVELOPER:
THIRD MILLENNIUM PARTNERS, a
California corporation
[name]
[title]
EXHIBIT A
19 A-1
EXHIBIT A, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
On file with the City of Marina Community Development Dept.
EXHIBIT A
20 B-1
3762909.1
EXHIBIT B, THE PROPERTY
EXHIBIT A
21 C-1 -1
3762909.1
EXHIBIT C-1, THE BMR RENTAL PROCEDURES
City of Marina BMR Rental Housing Program
https://cityofmarina.org/DocumentCenter/View/13435/Rental-Program-BMR-Admin-Pols-and- Procedures-3121
EXHIBIT A
22 C-2-1
3762909.1
EXHIBIT C-2, THE BMR HOMEOWNERSHIP PROCEDURES
City of Marina BMR Homeownership Program
https://cityofmarina.org/DocumentCenter/View/13434/Homeownership-BMR-Admin-Pols-and- Procedures-3121?bidId=
EXHIBIT A
23 D-1
3762909.1
EXHIBIT D, THE UNITS
EXHIBIT A
24 3762909.1
EXHIBIT E, UNIT MILESTONES
MAP
LOCATION AMI TYPE
OWNER/
RENTAL
#
HOMES
BMR’s TO BE
COMPLETED PRIOR
TO C of O FOR
MARKET RATE UNIT #
B1 thru B3 Mod TH O 19 201
B4 thru B10 Mod TH O 45 506
MU1 Low MF R 32 726
Very Low 28
B11 thru B14 Mod TH O 31 887
MU2 thru MU4 Low MF R 63 1100
Very Low 54
272
Owner 95
Rental 177
• B1 thru B3 (19 Moderate Income Townhomes) must be complete before the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy (“C of O”) for the 201st residential unit.
• B4 thru B10 (45 Moderate Income Townhomes) must be complete before the issuance of the C of O for the 506th residential unit.
• MU-1 (32 Low Income Units and 28 Very Low Income Units) must be complete before the issuance of the C of O for the 726th residential unit.
• B11 thru B 14 (31 Moderate Income Townhomes) must be complete before the issuance of C of O for the 887th residential unit.
• MU 2 thru 4 (63 Low Income Units and 54 Very Low Income Units) must be complete before the issuance of the C of O for the 1,100th residential unit.
EXHIBIT A
25 May 29, 2024 Item No. 13c
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Marina City Council of June 4, 2024
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 2024-, MAKING FINDINGS AND APPROVING REVISIONS TO MITIGATION MEASURE 4.4 -1 FOR THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MARINA STATION SPECIFIC PLAN . THIS ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PER § 15162 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
REQUEST:
It is requested that the Marina City Council:
1. Approve Resolution 202 4-, making findings and approving revisions to Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 for the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Station Specific Plan and find the action exempt from environmental review per § 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Marina certified a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Station Specific Plan (SCH 2005061056) on March 4, 2008, and approved the Marina Station Specific Plan. As part of the Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”), the City adopted certain mitigation measures to reduce significant environmental impacts identified in the FEIR and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”). The mitigation measures addressed a variety of issues includ ing traffic impacts and measures to address the biological impacts of the Marina Station Project.
The FEIR identified that the “project would require grading, excavation, and other activities that would result in a permanent loss or disturbance of 51 acres of Monterey spineflowe r, a federally threatened plant species” as a significant impact that could be mitigated to a less than significant level with the following mitigation:
Mitigation 4.1. -1 The applicant shall mitigate for the loss of 51 acres of Monterey spineflower through a program of see d and/or soil bank salvage, establishment of a new spineflower restoration area at a 1:1 ration to the area impacted (either on- or off-site), and managing and monitoring to assure that there will be no net loss of spineflower affected by the project. A Re storation Plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist outlining the details pertaining to onsite or offsite restoration areas, plant salvage, seeding, and planting specifications, and monitoring programs which describe s annual monitoring efforts incorporating success criteria and contingency planning if success criteria are not met. The plan shall be completed and approved by the City and USFWS and funding secured prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for the project and shall not term inate until there has been verif ication from a qualified biologist and City st aff, in consultation with USFWS, that such measures have been successfully implemented . Possible restoration sites include the adjacent Armstrong Ranch, the coastal dunes scrub habitat west of Highway 1 within Monterey County Regional Parks land (Marina Dunes Reserve) or private ownership land south of the project site owned by the Monterey Regional Parks District adjacent to Locke Paddon Community Park, or an inland population of Monterey spineflower located along the Salina s River near Soledad. Restoration areas shall be preserved through establishment of a conservation easement. 1 In April 2008, Creekbridge Homes, LLC (“Original Developer”) and the Sierra Club, Ventana Chapter (“SCVC”) entered into an Agreement, Mutual Release and Covenant Not to Sue (“SCVC Agreement”) related to the Marina Station project (“Development”). The SCVC Agreement was entered into to avoid potential litigation from SCVC challenging the adequacy of the FEIR. As part of the SCVC Agreement, the Original Developer agree d to make some modifications to the Development including revisions to Phase 8 of the Development to preserve two wet meadows in that area consisting of approximately 28.5 acres. Additionally, the SCVC Agreement provided for revisions to mitigation measure 4.4-1 related to the preparation of a Restoration Plan pertaining to Monterey spineflower. The SCVC Agreement provided that the Original Developer would apply to the City to amend mitigation measure 4.4 -1 to allow for the recording of the Final Map and construction on Phases 1 through 7 of the Development to occur prior to the Restoration Plan for the Monterey spineflower being approved by the City and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) . The SCVC Agreement requires that the grading of Phase 8 of the Development cannot occur prior to the approval of the Restoration Plan.
The preservation of the wet meadows in Phase 8 of the Development provides a restoration area of the spineflower within the project site. The 28.5 acres in Phase 8 along with additional 79.78 acres of restoration area directly north of Phase 8 of the Development site would result in a mitigation area of approximately 1 08 acres which in SCVC estimation, in accordance with its comments on the FEIR , would be sufficient to mitigate the 51 acres of spineflower habitat that would be lost as a result of the Development.
The City, as part of the approval of the tentative map for the Development approved revisions to the Development in Phase 8 consistent with the SCVC Agreement preserving the wet meadows and creating an additional 28.5 acres of habitat area for the spineflower that will be incorporated into the conservation easement (“Easement”) covering the lands to the north, outside of the Project boundary. As a result of the revisions to Phase 8 of the Development and the additional 28.5 acres of habitat area created by those revisions with the project site and the 79.78 acres to the north for a total of 108 acres of conserved mitigation areas, the approval of the Restoration Plan by the City and the USFWS before approval of the Final Map and building permits is no longer necessary to mitigate the significant environmental impact identified in the FEIR related to the loss of 51 acres of spinefl ower habitat. As noted in the FEIR, the intent of the mitigation measure 4.4 -1 as originally drafted was to ensure that prior to commencement of construction , habitat restoration areas were identified in the Restoration Plan. 1 Those habitat restoration areas are now clearly identified within the Development itself as part of Phase 8.
Third Millenium Partners, the current developer of the Development contracted with Denise Duffy & Associates (“DD&A”) to prepare the Restoration Plan. The final Restoration Plan, dated April 25, 2024 was approved by the SCVC on May 1, 2024. It should be noted that the original certification of the FEIR as well as the SCVC Agreement identified DD& A as the “biologist of record” and as being uniquely qualified to prepare follow up documents required by the MMRP including the Restoration Plan. City staff has also reviewed the Restoration Plan and has determined that it meets the requirements of the FEIR. However, obtaining USFWS review and approval of the Restoration Plan will take additional time. Third Millenium Partners is seeking approval of the Final M ap and intends to start grading Phase 1 /2 of the project. Revisions of Mitigation measure 4.4 -1 as proposed below will continue to mitigate the impact of the Development on the spineflower to a less than significant level.
1 Marina Station Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, pg. 62. 2 Staff is proposing that Mitigation measure 4.4 -1 be amended to read as follows (new language underlined and bolded):
Mitigation 4.1. -1 The applicant shall mitigate for the loss of 51 acres of Monterey spineflower through a program of see d and/or soil bank salvage, establishment of a new spineflower restoration area at a 1:1 ration to the area impacted (either on- or off-site), and managing and monitoring to assure that there will be no net loss of spineflower affected by the project. A Re storation Plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist outlining the details pertaining to onsite or offsite restoration areas, plant salvage, seeding, and planting specifications, and monitoring programs which describes annual monitoring efforts incorporating success criteria and contingency planning if success criteria are not met. The plan shall be completed and approved by the City and USFWS, as applicable, and funding secured prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for Phase 8 of the project and shall not terminate until there has been verification from a qualified biologist and City staff, in consultation with USFWS, that such measures have been successfully implemented. Possible restoration sites includes the adjacent Armstrong Ranch, the coastal dunes scrub habitat west of Highway 1 within Monterey County Regional Parks land (Marina Dunes Reserve) or private ownership land south of the pr oject site owned by the Monterey Regional Parks District adjacent to Locke Paddon Community Park, or an inland population of Monterey spineflower located along the Salina s River near Soledad or the wet meadows area located in Phase 8 of the project. Restoration areas shall be preserved through establishment of a conservation easement.
Environmental Determination
On March 4, 2008, the City Council of the City of Marina certified the final environmental impact report for the Marina Station Project (State Clearing House Number 2005061056). The FEIR served as the environmental review for the Development and the Project Approvals and entitlements. Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines states that if an FEIR or negative declaration has been adopted for a project, no subsequent FEIR is to be prepared unless there have been substantial changes to the project, substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken or new information of substantial importance shows that the project would have significant effects not discussed in the FEIR. Since certification of the FEIR there have been:
(i) no substantial changes to the project which would require revisions to the FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or an increase in the severity of previously identified effects. The revision to the mitigation measure is consistent with prior approvals for the project, including the approval of the tentative map that revised Phase 8 to provide an additional 28.5 acres of habitat restoration area and does not result in new significant e nvironmental effects but rather provides as surances as to the implementation of the mitigation measure consistent with the findings in the FEIR;
(ii) no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which require revisions to the FEIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified effect. There have been no significant changes in the areas surrounding the Development since the FEIR was approved that involve new significant impacts; and
(iii) no new information shows that the Development will a. have any significant effects that were not discussed in the FEIR; b. that significant effects that were previously examined will be more severe; 3 c. mitigations measures or alternatives that were found infeasible would in fact be feasible and reduce one or more significant effects; or d. new mitigation measures or alternatives that were not considered in the FEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Development on the environment.
Based on the above, no additional environmental analysis is required for the approval of the revised mitigation measure.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The approval of the revised mitigation measure will not have fiscal impact on the City.
Prepared by:
______________________
Karen Tiedemann, Goldfarb & Lipman
Special Counsel
City of Marina
REVIEW/CONCUR:
______________________
Guido F. Persicone, AICP
Director, CDD
City of Marina
Layne Long
City Manager
City of Marina
4 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA MAKING FINDINGS AND APPROVING REVISIONS TO MITIGATION MEASURE 4.4-1 OF THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MARINA STATION SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Marina (the “City Council”) certified a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Station Specific Plan (SCH 2005061056) on March 4, 2008 (“FEIR”) and approved the Marina Station Specific Plan as well as certain entitlements for the Marina Station development project (“Project”);
WHEREAS, the City Council as part of the certification of the FEIR pursuant to Resolution No. 2008-41 adopted certain mitigation measures and adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (“MMRP”); and
WHEREAS, the mitigation measures adopted by the City Council included Mitigati on Measure
4.4-1 related to the preparation and approval of a Restoration Plan for the Monterey spineflower; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the certification of the FEIR and the adoption of the mitigation measures and the MMRP, changes were made to the Project to retain approximately 28.5 acres of wet meadow area within Phase 8 of the Project to provide additional habitat restoration area including for the Monterey spineflower; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the revisions to the Project and the preservation of the 28.5 acres of wet meadow area in Phase 8 along with the Project developer’s agreement to provide an additional
79.78 acres of restoration area immediately north of Phase 8, ap proximately 108 acres of restoration area is being provided to address the biological impacts of the Project including the impacts on the Monterey spineflower; and
WHEREAS, the Project developer has prepared a Restoration Plan that addresses the requirements of the mitigation measures included in the MMRP; and
WHEREAS, the approval of the Restoration Plan by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service prior to the approval of Final Map and building permits for the Project is no longer necessary since the inclusion of the additional restoration areas in Phase 8 of the Project as well as the dedication of the 79.78 acres of restoration land by the Project developer north of Phase 8 of the Project resulting in approximately 108 acres of restoration area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, based on information provided in the staff report and at the publicly noticed City Council meeting, has determined that revision of Mitigation Measure 4.4 -1 as proposed below will continue to reduce the significant impacts identified in the FEIR to less than significant and will not create any new significant impacts or increase the severity of any already identified impacts in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, On March 4, 2008, the City Council of the City of Marina certified the final environmental impact report for the Marina Station Project (State Clearing House Number 2005061056). The FEIR served as the environmental review for the Development and the Project Approvals and entitlements. Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines states that if an FEIR or negative declaration has been adopted for a project, no subsequent FEIR is to be prepared unless there have been substantial changes to the project, sub stantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken or new information of substantial importance shows that the project would have significant effects not discussed in the FEIR.
5 Resolution No. 2024
Page Two
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Marina hereby approves revisions to Mitigation Measure 4.4-1, including in the MMRP to read as follows:
Mitigation 4.1. -1 The applicant shall mitigate for the loss of 51 acres of Monterey spineflower through a program of seed and/or soil bank salvage, establishment of a new spineflower restoration area at a 1:1 ration to the area impacted (either on- or off-site), and managing and monitoring to assure that there will be no net loss of spineflower affected by the project. A Restoration Plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist outlining the details pertaining to onsite or offsite restoration areas, plant salvage, seeding, and planting specifications, and monitoring programs which describes annual monitoring efforts incorporating success criteria and contingency planning if success criteria are not met. The plan shall be completed and approved by the City and USFWS, as applicable, and funding secured prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for Phase 8 of the project and shall not terminate until there has been verification from a qualified biologist and City staff, in consultation with USFWS, that such measures have been successfully implemented. Possible restoration sites includes the adjacent Armstrong Ranch, the coastal dunes scrub habitat west of Highway 1 within Monterey County Regional Parks land (Marina Dunes Reserve) or private ownership land south of the pro ject site owned by the Monterey Regional Parks District adjacent to Locke Paddon Community Park, or an inland population of Monterey spineflower located along the Salinas River near Soledad or the wet meadows area located in Phase 8 of the project. Restoration areas shall be preserved through the establishment of a conservation easement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Marina at a regular meeting duly held on the 4th day of June 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
Bruce C. Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk
6 May 29, 2024 Agenda Item: 13d
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the Marina City Council of June 4, 2024
CITY COUNCI L TO CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 20 24-,
RECEIVING AN UPDATE ON SEA HAVEN AND GLORYA JEAN TATE
FINAL PARK DESIGNS AND CONSIDER TRANSFERRING CAPITAL
PROJECT FUNDS BETWEEN SEA HAVEN AND GLORYA JEAN TATE
PARKS CAPITAL PROJECT ACCOUNTS.
REQUEST:
It is requested that the City Council consider approving and adopting Resolution No. 2024-, for the following actions:
1. Approve final design of Sea Haven Park including relocating playground equipment originally purchased for Sea Haven Park to Glorya Jean Tate Park.
2. Approve final design of Glorya Jean Tate Park.
3. Approving transferring the needed u nexpended fund balance of approximately $1,813,136 from Glorya Jean Tate Par k (Capital Project # QLP211 9) to Sea Haven Community Park (Capital Project # QLP 2016).
BACKGROUND:
In 2005 the City of Marina adopted a Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. One of the key goals of this plan was to, “Prioritize the improvement of existing parks and development of new parks.” The City Council has prioritized the funding, design, and construction of city parks including the new Sea Haven Park and Dunes City Park and the renovation of the existing Glorya Jean Tate Park, Windy Hill Park, and Preston Park.
The funding for these parks improvements primarily comes from the Park Impact fee which is charged to each new residential building permit that is issued and is approximately $10,500 per single family unit. This fee provides for the development of new parks impacted by the new homes being built.
Many public meetings and open houses have been held for improvements to city parks, particularly, Sea Haven, Glorya Jean Tate and Dunes City Park. An open house on parks design was held on November 1 3th, 2018. At the open house, community members viewed plan sheets that showed the existing parks and bubble diagrams containing elements identified in master plans.
The parks concept plans were presented to a joint Public Works Commission and Recreation and Cultural Services Commission on February 21, 2019. The Commissioners received the presentation, heard comments from the public, and made recommendations for changes.
On April 9, 2019, the City Council passed Resolution 2019-36, receiving presentations on various park concept plans and provided comments. The revised concept plan for Glorya Jean-Tate Park served as a basis for the pump track and future park improvement design s. In subsequent meetings the council has approved final design plans for Sea Haven and Glorya Jean Tate Parks.
ANALYSIS:
Sea Haven Park
Wathens Castanos Developers (WCD), the developer for Sea Haven is responsible for the construction of Sea Haven Park. The developer committed to funding $3.0 million towards the construction of this park ($2.1 million provided by the developer and $0.9 million provided by the city through park impact fee reimbursements). The initial projected costs of the park came in higher, so the city agreed to pay for the purchase and installation of playground equipment in the park. The city council approved $1.8 million (Capital Project #QLP 2016) for an additional city contribution to this park to cover playground and other improvements.
In December 2023 WCD went out to bid for construction of Sea Haven Park and their bid prices came back at $4,524,071, approximately $1.5 million over their established budget of $3.0 million. This excluded the playground equipment which the City had already purchased. The City requested that WCD increase their budgeted amount for the park, which they declined and instead they recommended value engineering park amenities to close the ga p. Their proposal includes, changing pickleball courts from standard painted concrete to asphalt, reduction of trail and pathway system around the park, reducing parking lot spaces, park amenities, and the open lawn play area.
The council can either approve the value engineering options or approve transferring in additional funds to close the gap.
Glorya Jean Tate Park
City Council has approved the design plans for Glorya Jean Tate Park and preparation of bidding documents. Our park consultant Verde has given us an updated total project estimate of $6,186,864 for completion of the park including construction costs, soft costs , and playground equipment. This results in a savings of $1,813,136 from what has been budgeted for the park.
The Glorya Jean Tate Park Improvement s, Phase 2, shown on Illustrative plan, EXHIBIT B, highlights the following park elements;
• Dog Park, sectioned to separate the smaller dogs from that of the larger dogs. • Basketball court, two pickleball courts, exercise area and horsesho e/cornhole court.
• Picnic areas, open turf area and walkways in and around the park. • Play area, using play equipment initially procured for the Sea Haven Community Park. “EXHIBITS C and D” show th e playground layout and playground equipment profile, respectively.
• Additional Park entrances at Reservation Road and along Cardoza Avenue. • Additional parking will be provided by restriping the east side of Cardoza Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff proposes relocating the original playground equipment that was purchased for Sea Haven Park and is sitting in boxes at our corporation yard to Glorya Jean Tate Park. This equipment and installation are budgeted at $1.5 million and this amount is already budgeted in the Glorya Jean Tate budge t. Additionally, the playground manufacturer will start increasing our installation costs if we keep delaying installation of the equipment.
Staff also proposes purchasing new playground equipment for Sea Haven park and keeping that budget around $1 million dollars, which is already funded with Capital Project #QLP 2016.
Additionally, staff recommends transferring the needed unexpended fund balance of approximately $1,813,136 from Glorya Jean Tate Park (Capital Project # QLP 2119) to Sea Haven Community Park (Capital Project # 2016) to close the funding gap of $1,438,799.
Over the past several months City staff and WCP Developers have worked together to make modest adjustments to the park to reduce the funding gap. These adjustments reduced the gap by $85,272 resulting in a fund gap of $1,438,799.
City staff also worked with Verde and Kompan to check viability of locating the play equipment purchased for the Sea Haven Community Park at the Glorya Jean Tate Park playground area.
The relocation of the playground equipment purchased for Sea Haven Community Park to Glorya Jean Tate Park was determined to be a viable option which would enhance the Glorya Jean Tate Park while also reducing the cost of the Sea Haven Community Park projec t as there is opportunity to redesign a less expensive playground for Sea Haven Community Park.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no additional impact to the General Fund. The proposal shifts excess fund balance from the Glorya Jean Tate Park (Capital Project QLP 2119) to Sea Haven Park (Capital Project # 2016) to bridge the funding gap in the Sea Haven Park.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
This presentation and providing design input for Glorya Jean Tate Park Improvements Phase 2 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,
Andrea M. Willer, Ed. D.
Recreation & Cultural Services Director
City of Marina
Layne P. Long
City Manager
City of Marina
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARIN A
RECEIVING AN UPDATE ON SEA HAVEN AND GLORYA JEAN TATE
FINAL PARK DESIGNS AND CONSIDER TRANSFERRING FUNDS
BETWEEN SEA HAVEN AND GLORYA JEAN TATE PARKS CAPITAL
PROJECTS ACCOUNTS.
WHEREAS, one of the key goals of the City of Marina Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan is to, “prioritize the improvement of existing parks and development of new parks.”; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has prioritized the funding, design, and construction of new city parks public and renovating existing city parks; and
WHEREAS, the parks concept plans were presented to a joint Public Works Commission and Recreation and Cultural Services Commission on February 21, 2019. The Commissioners received the presentation, heard comments from the public, and made recommendations for changes; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2019, the City Council passed Resolution 2019 -36, receiving presentations on park concept plans for Sea Haven Park and provided comments; and
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2022, the City Council passed Resolution 2022 -104 approving amendment No. 1 to the On Call Landscape Architectural Services with Verde Design, Inc. to allow the design and preparation of bidding documents for the Glorya Jean Tate Park Improvements, Phase 2; and
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2023 a community outreach meeting was held to collect input on the proposed playground equipment. Early this year the City staff worked with Verde and Kompan to check viability of the play equipment purchased for the Sea Haven Par k for the Glorya Jean Tate Park playground area; and
WHEREAS, the Glorya Jean Tate Park Improvements, Phase 2 project (QLP 2119) is included in the Capital Improvement Program with a budget of $8M; and
WHEREAS, the Sea Haven Community Park has a funding gap of approximately $1,438,799; and
WHEREAS, presentation and providing design input for Glorya Jean Tate Park Improvements Phase 2 and Sea Haven Park 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; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Marina that does hereby:
1. Approve final design of Sea Haven Park including relocating playground equipment originally purchased for Sea Haven Park to Glorya Jean Tate Park.
2. Approve final design for Glorya Jean Tate Park.
3. Approve transferring the needed unexpended fund balance of approximately $1,813,136 from Glorya Jean Tate Par k (Capital Project # QLP 2119) to Sea Haven Community Park project Capital Project # 2016).
Resolution No. 2024-
Page Two
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Marina at a regular meeting duly held on the 4th day of June 2024, 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
Glorya Jean Tate
Park Update
June 4, 2024
City Council
Exhibit A
Timeline
• June 21, 2005 – City Council adopts Parks & Recreation Facilities
Master Plan, including Glorya Jean Tate Park
• Nov. 13, 2018 – P ublic is invited to provide input on initial concept • Feb. 21, 2019 – Public Works Commission and Recreation & Cultural Services Commission approves preliminary plan with
input
• April 9, 2019 – C ity Council approves park concept with input
• Oct. 17, 2023 – P hase I (Restrooms & Pump Track) are completed
Timeline (Cont.)
• Aug. 3, 2022 – City Council approves Verde Designs, Inc. to proceed with design for Phase 2
• Dec. 2, 2023 – P ublic is invited to provide input on initial concept • June 4, 2024 – City Council receives presentation for Glorya Jean Tate Park, Phase 2 @ 30% design
Glorya Jean Tate Park – Illustrative Plan
Fiscal Impact
• Glorya Jean Tate Park Improvements, Phase 2 project is included in the C
apital Improvement Program with a budget of $8M
• Estimated total cost to date is $6,186,864
• Estimated fund balance is $1,813,136
Recommendation to Install Sea Haven
Play Equipment at Glorya Jean Tate Park
• Nov. 14, 2022 – T he City purchased playground equipment for the Sea Haven Community Park playground ($1,530,352)
• Dec. 2, 2024 – W CP Developers (Sea Haven Community) informed City staff that the Sea Haven Community Park estimates were $1.5M over budget, excluding the playground
• One strategy to reduce this funding gap is to install this play equ
ipment at Glorya Jean Tate Park playground, and design
a less expensive ($1M) playground for Sea Haven
Community Park
Glorya Jean Tate Park – Playground Site
Plan
Glorya Jean Tate Park – Equipment List
Sea Haven Community Park Project
Funding Gap
• Sea Haven Community Park project estimates exceed the developer’s co
ntribution of $3M by $1,524,071, excluding the playground equipment
• The City was able to reduce this gap by $85,272 with modest changes to
the original park design, resulting in a fund gap of $1,438,799 • The City is responsible to fund the playground
• Staff recommends designing a new playground not to
e
xceed $1M
• Total funding gap estimated at $2,438,799
Closing the Gap
• Total funding gap estimated at $2,438,799
• Staff recommends the following strategy
• Transfer existing playground equipment and expense to Gl orya Jean Tate Park project and design a new, less expensive playground at Sea Haven Community Park
• Transfer anticipated fund balance of $1,813,136 from Gl orya Jean Tate Park project to Sea Haven Community Park project
• Transfer $625,663 from Public Facilities Impact Fees to the Sea
Haven Community Park project
Recommended Motion
I move to approve programming for Glorya Jean Tate Park per 30% illustrative plan, relocating playground equipment purchased for Sea Haven Community Park project to Glorya Jean Tate Park project, transferring $1,813,136 from Glorya Jean Tate Park project (QLP 2119) to Sea Haven Community Park project (QLP 2016), transferring $625,663 from Public Facility Impact Fees (Fund215) to Sea haven Community Park project (QLP 2016).
-
Jr'
I I I 1
I I
I
I I
•
I
\
•
•
I I II I I \ I \
I I
•
•
ENTRY
PLAZA
\
• •
I
\
\
OPEN TURF AREA
SECURITY LIGHT,
TYP.
/ CARDOZA AVE PARALLEL
---._ ,j, PARKING (19 SPACES) t
Y:\Pro'eds-SC\2022\2207300 - Morino - GJT Pork full Development\CAD\Base-22073 - lllustrative.dw Ma 22, 2024 01:2Spm •
-
-----------•
I
I
I
I
\_.
-r-----i
ASE ONE - PUMP T A K-
• 0
PLAY AREA
Im· otl
;J
•
I I
--1--
-r -
•
) I
I
I -
•
~
..
\
•
•
•
_1nact--__ - HORSESHOE =
1 U; CORN HOLE i:.-r-,....
Pt 4
ASKET�Al.L
\j -- (E) BUILDING
0..
•
) -\
�
CCU
PICKLEBALI
RTS (2)
•
CARDOZA A'i..E....;;;;;;;..,.;;;._====== == = =� = :=�=ACCESS -
Illustrative Plan
Glorya Jean Tate Park
City of Marina
Marina, Cardoza Ave.
-===-
• •
1111\
[ii
�
PICNIC
�
•
DOG PARK
•
' .. •
I
•
""o .,, � 41.; ,.
-� )'
:-1�<'.)
�
��
/
=
•
•
CARDOZA AVE 45 °
---._j° PARKING (15 SPACES) t
•
�)--
NORTH
;io• 60'
1---1
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN
2455 The Alameda, Ste. 200
Santa Clara, CA 95050
tel, 408.985.7200
VE RD E DES I G N 1axa 400.985.7260
www.verdedesigninc.com
AA
BB
CC
90'-10 1/2"[2770cm]
X
Y
0,0
FOR USE BY CONTRACTOR, ENGINEER, OR DESIGN PROFESSIONAL OF RECORD. SEE SIGNED SALES PROPOSAL FOR COMPLETE SCOPE TO BE PROVIDED BY KOMPAN OR REPRESENTING AGENCY. CONFIRM FINAL PLAN AND SCOPE WITH KOMPAN SALES REP OR PROJECT MANAGER PRIOR TO USE FOR REVIEW, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION.
TO BE READ CONTINGENTLY WITH KOMPAN'S STANDARDS FOR SITE PREPARATION, MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION PROCESSES; PROVIDED AFTER EQUIPMENT PURCHASE. A COMPLIANT PLAYGROUND TO KOMPAN'S STANDARDS MUST SATISFY ALL REQUIREMENTS IN THE CODE OF CONDUCT.
SLAB BY OTHERS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. FOR SURFACE MOUNT OPTIONS, THE CONCRETE REQUIREMENTS MAY BE UP TO 5½" OF 3,500 PSI MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. CONTACT KOMPAN FOR SPECIFIC PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS.
ALL COMPOSITE STRUCTURES SHOWN REQUIRE A SITE GRADE OF 2% MAXIMUM, 1% OPTIMAL. SPECIFICATIONS FOR EACH KOMPAN STRUCTURE MAY BE FOUND AT KOMPAN.COM/KOMPANMASTER
DIMENSIONS OF PLAY AREA, SIZE AND ORIENTATION, LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND SITE FURNISHINGS TO BE FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
PREPARED AND PRINTED IN USA BY KOMPAN © 2024 KOMPAN, INC. AUSTIN, TX. USA 800-426-9788 MANUFACTURER'S SHOP DRAWING:
LAYOUT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F1487
Glorya Jean Tate
Playground
Marina, CA
Site Plan
001632
1/16"=1'-0" ON 11" x 17" SHEET
DATE
SALES REPRESENTATIVE
DRAWN BY
SHEET
REV. NO.REVISION NOTES REV. DATEREV. BY
REVIEW BY
Doris Harpain
DESIGN JulLem -K1.0
5 JulLem 01 May 24 Layout & Surfacing
PLANTING BED
BY OTHERS
PLANTING BED
BY OTHERS
PLANTING BED
BY OTHERS
PLANTING BED BY OTHERS
PLANTING BED BY OTHERS
PLANTING BED
BY OTHERS
PLANTING BED BY OTHERS
BENCH
BY OTHERS
BENCH BY OTHERS
BENCH BY OTHERS
BENCH BY OTHERS
BENCH BY OTHERS
BENCHES
BY OTHERS
CURB BY OTHERS
CURB BY OTHERS
CURB BY OTHERS CURB BY OTHERS
CURB BY OTHERS
CURB BY OTHERS
I2
I1
G1
C1
M1
A1
E1
B1
H2
K1
L1
H1
F2
D1
#Product NumberProduct NameM.F.H. Count
A NRO899348Custom 4-Bay Swing7' 9"1
B COR203301-xx12Inclusive Twister7' 4" 1
C NRO883-xx01Double Zipline, Flat Space6' 11"1
DPCM157-xx03Universal Carousel1' 3"1
E NRO613-xx01Music Play Panel 20' 0"1
F GXY935000-xx17Starsurfer2' 4" 1
GM18701-xxPOcean Seesaw3' 3"1
HELE400024-xx17BLSpinner Bowl2' 0"2
INRO899793Zipline Platform2' 11" 2
JKRS8200553Robinia Baby Whale4' 10"1
KELE400158-xx17FJunior Spica0' 7"1
L PCM103-xx01Dolphin1' 4" 1
#Product NumberProduct NameM.F.H. Count
M KNS8500326C+PCTG200715Custom Ocean Giant & Skywalk9' 4"1 NCB005IDS Sandstone Arch5' 10"1
OSF-002-SMIDS Stepping Rock- Small1' 6"4
PSF-002-MDIDS Stepping Rock- Medium1' 6"4
QSF-002-LGIDS Stepping Rock- Large1' 6"1
J1
N1
O1
O2
O3
O4
P1P2
P3P4 Q1
PLAYGROUND SITE MUST MEET SURFACING
REQUIREMENTS AS PER ASTM F1292
STEPPING FORMS FOR 5-12 AGE GROUP SHALL BE NO
GREATER THAN 18" FROM EDGE TO EDGE PER
ASTM1487.8.15.6
QUALIFYING ADA RAMP FOR ACCESSIBLE PATH
TRANSITION INTO PLAY AREAS WITH ACCESSIBLE
LOOSE FILL SURFACING IS REQUIRED. MAINTENANCE
OF SURFACING IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE
OWNER/OPERATOR.
ADA ACCESSIBLE PATH TO SITE IS REQUIRED, PER
2010 ADA STANDARDS (SECTION 206)
USE ZONES MUST BE CLEAR OF ALL OBSTRUCTIONS.
6-INCH OFFSET BETWEEN BORDER AND USE ZONE
REFLECTS INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICE TO
ACCOMMODATE REAL WORLD CONSTRUCTION
TOLERANCES. FAILURE TO DO SO CAN RESULT IN
NON-COMPLIANT INSTALLATION CONDITIONS I.E. ASTM
& CPSC.
SURFACING TOTALS
TOTAL PLAYGROUND AREA: 16,806 SF
EWF SAFETY SURFACING: 11,082 SF
LIGHT BLUE PIP SAFETY SURFACING: 2,667 SF + 120 LF
TURNDOWN @ APPX 12" (SEE MANUFACTURER DETAIL)
DARK BLUE PIP SAFETY SURFACING: 3,030 SF + 100 LF
TURNDOWN @ APPX 12" (SEE MANUFACTURER DETAIL)
GRAY PIP SAFETY SURFACING: 27 SF
PIP TOTAL:
5724 SF
+
220 LF
TURNDOWN
ZIPLINE SHORTENED
TO FIT SITE
AA
BB
CC
90'-10 1/2"
[2770cm]
X
Y
0,0
FOR USE BY CONTRACTOR, ENGINEER, OR DESIGN PROFESSIONAL OF RECORD. SEE SIGNED SALES PROPOSAL FOR COMPLETE SCOPE TO BE PROVIDED BY KOMPAN OR REPRESENTING AGENCY. CONFIRM FINAL PLAN AND SCOPE WITH KOMPAN SALES REP OR PROJECT MANAGER PRIOR TO USE FOR REVIEW, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION.
TO BE READ CONTINGENTLY WITH KOMPAN'S STANDARDS FOR SITE PREPARATION, MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION PROCESSES; PROVIDED AFTER EQUIPMENT PURCHASE. A COMPLIANT PLAYGROUND TO KOMPAN'S STANDARDS MUST SATISFY ALL REQUIREMENTS IN THE CODE OF CONDUCT.
SLAB BY OTHERS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. FOR SURFACE MOUNT OPTIONS, THE CONCRETE REQUIREMENTS MAY BE UP TO 5½" OF 3,500 PSI MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. CONTACT KOMPAN FOR SPECIFIC PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS.
ALL COMPOSITE STRUCTURES SHOWN REQUIRE A SITE GRADE OF 2% MAXIMUM, 1% OPTIMAL. SPECIFICATIONS FOR EACH KOMPAN STRUCTURE MAY BE FOUND AT KOMPAN.COM/KOMPANMASTER
DIMENSIONS OF PLAY AREA, SIZE AND ORIENTATION, LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND SITE FURNISHINGS TO BE FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
PREPARED AND PRINTED IN USA BY KOMPAN
© 2024 KOMPAN, INC. AUSTIN, TX. USA 800-426-9788
MANUFACTURER'S SHOP DRAWING:
LAYOUT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F1487
Glorya Jean TatePlayground
Marina, CA
Site Plan
0 0
16 32
1/16"=1'-0" ON 11" x 17" SHEET
DATE
SALES REPRESENTATIVE
DRAWN BY
SHEET
REV. NO.
REVISION NOTES
REV. DATE
REV. BY
REVIEW BY
Doris Harpain
DESIGN
JulLem
-
K1.0
5 JulLem
01 May 24
Layout & Surfacing
PLANTING BED
BY OTHERS
PLANTING BED
BY OTHERS
PLANTING BED
BY OTHERS
PLANTING BED BY OTHERS
PLANTING BED BY OTHERS
PLANTING BED
BY OTHERS
PLANTING BED BY OTHERS
BENCH
BY OTHERS
BENCH BY OTHERS
BENCH BY OTHERS
BENCH BY OTHERS
BENCH BY OTHERS
BENCHES
BY OTHERS
CURB BY OTHERS
CURB BY OTHERS
CURB BY OTHERS
CURB BY OTHERS
CURB BY OTHERS
CURB BY OTHERS
I2
I1
G1
C1
M1
A1
E1
B1
H2
K1
L1
H1
F2
D1
#
Product Number
Product Name
M.F.H.
Count
A
NRO899348
Custom 4-Bay Swing
7' 9"
1 B
COR203301-xx12
Inclusive Twister
7' 4"
1 C
NRO883-xx01
Double Zipline, Flat Space
6' 11"
1 D
PCM157-xx03
Universal Carousel
1' 3"
1 E
NRO613-xx01
Music Play Panel 2
0' 0"
1 F
GXY935000-xx17
Starsurfer
2' 4"
1 G
M18701-xxP
Ocean Seesaw
3' 3"
1 H
ELE400024-xx17BL
Spinner Bowl
2' 0"
2 I
NRO899793
Zipline Platform
2' 11"
2 J
KRS8200553
Robinia Baby Whale
4' 10"
1 K
ELE400158-xx17F
Junior Spica
0' 7"
1 L
PCM103-xx01
Dolphin
1' 4"
1 #
Product Number
Product Name
M.F.H.
Count
M
KNS8500326C+PCTG200715
Custom Ocean Giant & Skywalk
9' 4"
1 N
CB005
IDS Sandstone Arch
5' 10"
1 O
SF-002-SM
IDS Stepping Rock- Small
1' 6"
4 P
SF-002-MD
IDS Stepping Rock- Medium
1' 6"
4 Q
SF-002-LG
IDS Stepping Rock- Large
1' 6"
1 J1
N1
O1
O2
O3
O4
P1
P2
P3
P4
Q1
PLAYGROUND SITE MUST MEET SURFACING
REQUIREMENTS AS PER ASTM F1292
STEPPING FORMS FOR 5-12 AGE GROUP SHALL BE NO
GREATER THAN 18" FROM EDGE TO EDGE PER
ASTM1487.8.15.6
QUALIFYING ADA RAMP FOR ACCESSIBLE PATH
TRANSITION INTO PLAY AREAS WITH ACCESSIBLE
LOOSE FILL SURFACING IS REQUIRED. MAINTENANCE
OF SURFACING IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE
OWNER/OPERATOR.
ADA ACCESSIBLE PATH TO SITE IS REQUIRED, PER
2010 ADA STANDARDS (SECTION 206)
USE ZONES MUST BE CLEAR OF ALL OBSTRUCTIONS.
6-INCH OFFSET BETWEEN BORDER AND USE ZONE
REFLECTS INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICE TO
ACCOMMODATE REAL WORLD CONSTRUCTION
TOLERANCES. FAILURE TO DO SO CAN RESULT IN
NON-COMPLIANT INSTALLATION CONDITIONS I.E. ASTM
& CPSC.
SURFACING TOTALS
TOTAL PLAYGROUND AREA: 16,806 SF
EWF SAFETY SURFACING: 11,082 SF
LIGHT BLUE PIP SAFETY SURFACING: 2,667 SF + 120 LF
TURNDOWN @ APPX 12" (SEE MANUFACTURER DETAIL)
DARK BLUE PIP SAFETY SURFACING: 3,030 SF + 100 LF
TURNDOWN @ APPX 12" (SEE MANUFACTURER DETAIL)
GRAY PIP SAFETY SURFACING: 27 SF
PIP TOTAL:
5724 SF
+
220 LF
TURNDOWN
ZIPLINE SHORTENED
TO FIT SITE
Glorya Jean Tate Park
Equipment List
A1- Swings B1- Inclusive Twister
D1- Universal Carousel E1- Music Panel F1- Starsurfer
G1- Ocean Seesaw
H1&2- Spinner Bowls J1- Robinia Baby Whale
K1- Jr. Spica L1- Dolphin Springer
M1- Ramped Giant w/ Net
N1- Sandstone Arch O1-4, P1-4, Q1- Stepping Stones
C1 - Zipline (w/ Platforms)
May 28, 2024 Item No. 13f
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Marina City Council of June 4, 2024
CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ENHANCED
INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT (EIFD) WITH THE COUNTY OF
MONTEREY AND THE CITY OF MARINA FOR THE JOBY AVIATION
MANUFACTURING FACILITY.
REQUEST:
It is recommended that the City Council accept a briefing on the status and next steps in establishment of an EIFD with the County of Monterey and the City of Marina for the Joby Aviation manufacturing facility.
BACKGROUND:
Per prior direction from the City Council, City staff and the City’s consultant team have been working with the County of Monterey and Joby Aviation on the expansion of their manufacturing facility at the City’s airport. As was previously reported, Joby Aviation announced they will be constructing their main production facility in Dayton, Ohio. However, they also announced their intention to construct a new 226,000 square foot advanced manufacturing facility estimated to cost approximately $50 million in Marina and have broken ground on their new manufacturing facility.
Joby Aviation was also awarded a California Competes Grant from the State for $9.8 million for their new advanced manufacturing facility in Marina.
ANALYSIS:
Joby Aviation requested the City and Monterey County form an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) to allow new revenues (primarily Property taxes and VLF revenues) created by their expanded manufacturing facility to be distributed back to them to help defray the costs of constructing and equipping the new manufacturing facility. An analysis of these revenues has been prepared by Keyser Martson and Associates and attached to this report (EXHIBIT A). A portion of the new property tax revenues created by their new facilities are proposed to be annually allocated back to Joby Aviation for a 25-year term. Annually this amount is approximately $162,000 and proposed to be split between the City of Marina and Monterey County. Over the 25-year term it is estimated to total approximately $5.1 million.
The next step in the formation of the EIFD is to prepare a report required under the County’s recently adopted EIFD Policy. The report will formally request that the County participate in the EIFD with the City and outline the proposed County contribution of net new property tax revenues from the project to the EIFD. The report will also provide information regarding the benefits of the new Joby Aviation manufacturing facility to the County. As indicated by the report prepared by Keyser Marston and Associates, the annual direct, indirect and induced economic impacts for the County of Monterey will be approximately $243 million annually.
City staff and the City’s Consultant team have been in contact with County staff about the proposed EIFD for the Joby Aviation manufacturing facility and the required report. 1 FISCAL IMPACT
The project is estimated to generate 360 jobs in Marina with a combined $45 million in annual employee payroll, including both on-site jobs and off-site jobs that are supported by business-to- business and employee spending. The project is estimated to be fiscally neutral to the City’s General Fund after the City makes a proposed contribution of 60% of net new property taxes and property tax in-lieu of VLF to the EIFD.
CONCLUSION:
This briefing is submitted to update the City Council regarding the proposed EIFD.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Layne Long
City Manager
City of Marina
2 EXHIBIT A
3 EXHIBIT A
4 EXHIBIT A
5