Cities Index.
Agenda

Marina City Council
June 4, 2024

Document
Agenda
Meeting
June 4, 2024
Body
Marina City Council
Pages
27
Original file
38.4 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on www.cityofmarina.org. That file is the official record.

AGENDA
Tuesday, June 4, 2024 5:00 P.M. Closed Session
6:30 P.M. Open Session

REGULAR MEETING

CITY COUNCIL, AIRPORT COMMISSION,

MARINA ABRAMS B NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, PRESTON PARK

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, SUCCESSOR

AGENCY OF THE FORMER MARINA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD IN PERSON AND VIRTUALLY (HYBRID).

Council Chambers
211 Hillcrest Avenue
Marina, California
TELECONFERENCE LOCATION: 1
Fairfield Inn / Lobby
227 West San Marcos Boulevard
San Marcos, CA, USA 92069
AND
Zoom Meeting URL: https://zoom.us/j/730251556
Zoom Meeting Telephone Only Participation: 1-669-900-9128 - Webinar ID: 730 251 556

PARTICIPATION
You may participate in the City Council meeting in person or in real-time by calling Zoom Meeting via the weblink and phone number provided at the top of this agenda. Instructions on how to access, view and participate in remote meetings are provided by visiting the City’s home page at https://cityofmarina.org/. Attendees can make oral comments during the meeting by using the “Raise Your Hand” feature in the webinar or by pressing *9 on your telephone keypad if joining by phone only.

The most effective method of communication with the City Council is by sending an email to [email protected] Comments will be reviewed and distributed before the meeting if received by 5:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. All comments received will become part of the record.

Council will have the option to modify their action on items based on comments received.

AGENDA MATERIALS
Agenda materials, staff reports and background information related to regular agenda items are available on the City of Marina’s website www.cityofmarina.org. Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet will be made available on the City of Marina website www.cityofmarina.org subject to City staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.
1 Note: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(b), this meeting will include teleconference participation by Council Member Brian McCarthy from the address above. This Notice and Agenda will be posted at the teleconference location.

Agenda for City Council Meeting of Tuesday, June 4, 2024 Page 2

VISION STATEMENT
Marina will grow and mature from a small town bedroom community to a small city which is diversified, vibrant and through positive relationships with regional agencies, self -sufficient. The City will develop in a way that insulates it from the negative impacts of urban sprawl to become a desirable residential and business community in a natural setting. (Resolution No. 2006-112 - May 2, 2006)

MISSION STATEMENT
The City Council will provide the leadership in protecting Marina’s natural setting while developing the City in a way that provides a balance of housing, jobs and business opportunities that will result in a community characterized by a desirable quality of life, including recreation and cultural opportunities, a safe environment and an economic viability that supports a high level of municipal services and infrastructure. (Resolution No. 2006-112 - May 2, 2006)

LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The City recognizes that it was founded and is built upon the traditional homelands and villages first inhabited by the Indigenous Peoples of this region - the Esselen and their ancestors and allies - and honors these members of the community, both past and present.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL & ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM: (City Council, Airport Commissioners, Marina Abrams B Non-Profit Corporation, Preston Park Sustainable Communities Nonprofit Corporation, Successor Agency of the Former Redevelopment Agency Members and Marina Groundwater Sustainability Agency)

3. Jenny McAdams, Brian McCarthy, Kathy Biala, Mayor Pro-Tem/Vice Chair LiesbethVisscher, Mayor/Chair Bruce C. Delgado

4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:

5. CLOSED SESSION:
a. Conference with Legal Counsel: Anticipated Litigation (§ 54956.9(d)(2)) 2 cases:

A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Council on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the local agency.
b. Conference with Legal Counsel: Existing Litigation (§ 54956.9(d)) 1 case: (1) Davila v. City of Marina Police Department, ARB22-0249
6:30 PM - RECONVENE OPEN SESSION AND REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN

CLOSED SESSION

5. MOMENT OF SILENCE & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Please stand)

6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
a. Proclamations
i. Pride Month Proclamation
ii. Namwon Presentation

Agenda for City Council Meeting of Tuesday, June 4, 2024 Page 3

7. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS:

8. PUBLIC COMMENT: Any member of the public may comment on any matter within the City Council’s jurisdiction that is not on the agenda. This is the appropriate place to comment on items on the Consent Agenda. Action will not be taken on items not on the agenda. Comments are limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes. General public comment may be limited to thirty (30) minutes and/or continued to the end of the agenda. Any member of the public may comment on any matter listed on this agenda at the time the matter is being considered by the City Council.

Whenever possible, written correspondence should be submitted to the Council in advance of the meeting, to provide adequate time for its consideration.

9. CONSENT AGENDA FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER MARINA REDEVELOPMENT AGE NCY: Background information has been provided to the Successor Agency of the former Redevelopment Agency on all matters listed under the Consent Agenda, and these items are considered to be routine and non-controversial. All items under the Consent Agenda are normally approved by one motion. Prior to such a motion being made, any member of the public or City Council may ask a question or make a comment about an agenda item and staff may provide a response. If discussion or a lengthy explanation is required, the Council may remove an item from the Consent Agenda for individual consideration. If an item is pulled for discussion, it will be placed at the end of Other Action Items Successor Agency to the former Marina Redevelopment Agency.

10. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and non -controversial. All items under the Consent Agenda may be approved by one motion. Prior to such a motion being made, any member of City Council may ask a question or make a comment about an agenda item and staff may provide a response. If discussion or a lengthy explanation is required, Council may remove the item from the Consent Agenda and it will be placed at the end of Other Action Items.
a. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378) (1) Accounts Payable Check Numbers 104560-104617, totaling $1,732,749.02 b. MINUTES: (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378) (1) April 16, 2024, Regular City Council Meeting
c. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: None
d. AWARD OF BID: None
e. CALL FOR BIDS:
(1) Adopting Resolution No. 2024 -, approving advertising and call for bids for the 2024 Citywide Street Reconstruction Project. (project exempt from environmental review per § 15301(b) of the CEQA Guidelines for Existing Facilities) f. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS: (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378) (1) Adopting Resolution No. 2024 -, certifying City of Marina compliance with State law (Proposition 218) with respect to special assessment for the Cypress Cove II Landscape Maintenance Assessment District for FY 2024-2025. (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378) (2) Adopting Resolution No. 2024, certifying City of Marina compliance with State law (Proposition 218) with respect to special assessment for the Seabreeze Landscape Maintenance Assessment District for FY 2024-2025. (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378) Agenda for City Council Meeting of Tuesday, June 4, 2024 Page 4

(3) Adopting Resolution No. 2024 -, c ertifying City of Marina compliance with State law (Proposition 218) with respect to special assessment for the Monterey Bay Estates Landscape Maintenance Assessment District for FY 2024-2025. (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378) (4) Adopting Resolution N o. 2024 -, approving a correction to the salary schedule for the MPSMA Fire Division Chief. (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378)
(5) Adopting Resolution No. 2024 -, adopting an updated list of projects for Fiscal Year 2024-25 funded by SB 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378) g. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS: (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378) (1) Adopting Resolution No. 2024 -, a mending the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding cooperative assistance to comply with Senate Bill 1383, Food Waste Reduction and Organics Recycling Regulations, incorporating changes in the annual cost of program activities. (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378) (2) Adopting Resolution No. 2024-, calling for a general municipal election in the City of Marina on Tuesday, November 5, 20 24, for the election of certain city officers ; and requesting the Count of Monterey agree to the consolidation of the election with the statewide general election and requesting the County Elections Department to render any and all services required to conduct the election. (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378) h. ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: None
i. MAPS: None
j. REPORTS: (RECEIVE AND FILE): None
k. FUNDING & BUDGET MATTERS: None
l. APPROVE ORDINANCES (WAIVE SECOND READING):
(1) Read by Title Only and adopting Ordinance No. 2024 -06, modifying Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) to implement Program 7.1 of the Housing Element. This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. m. APPROVE APPOINTMENTS: (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378) (1) Appointing to P ublic Works Commission: Jaime Schrabeck and Joosik Choi. 2-seats expiring February 2026.

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS: In the Council’s discretion, the applicant/proponent of an item may be given up to ten (10) minutes to speak. All other persons may be given up to three (3) minutes to speak on the matter.
a. City Council to consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s April 11, 2024, approval of Coastal Development Permit (CDP 23 -0004) for the Monterey - Salinas Transit (MST) SURF! Busway and Rapid Transit (BRT) project. The Appeal is limited to the 0.37 -acre portion of the TAMC right -of-way located in the City’s Coastal permitting jurisdiction. The project is statutorily exempt from CEQA under SB 922, PRC § 21080.25(b). Continued from May 21, 2024.

Agenda for City Council Meeting of Tuesday, June 4, 2024 Page 5

12. OTHER ACTIONS ITEMS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER MARINA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Action listed for each Agenda item is that which is requested by staff. The Successor Agency may, at its discretion, take action on any items.

Members of the public may be given up to three (3) minutes to speak.

13. OTHER ACTION ITEMS: Action listed for each Agenda item is that which is requested by staff. The City Council may, at its discretion, take action on any items. Members of the public may be given up to three (3) minutes to speak.

Note: No additional major projects or programs should be undertaken without review of the impacts on existing priorities (Resolution No. 2006-79 – April 4, 2006). a. Receive presentation from Marina Coast Water District on Notice of Proposed Increase in Wa ter, Recycled Water and Se wer Service Charges and pr ovide staff with direction.
b. Adopting Resolution No. 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. c. Adopting Resolution N o. 2024 -, 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.
d. Adopting Resolution No. 2024 -, receiving an update presentation, providing input, and approving programming for Glorya Jean Tate Park Phase 2; approving relocating playground equipment from Sea Haven Community Park to Glorya Jean Tate Park and; approving transfer of funds from Glorya Jean Tate Park project and public facility impact fees to Sea Haven Community Park project. (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)
e. Council update on future Police, Fire and Community Facilities and potential General Obligation Bond ballot measure.
f. Briefing on the Establishment of an E nhanced Infr astructure Financing District (EIFD) with the County of Monterey and the City of Marina for the Joby Aviation Manufacturing Facility.

14. COUNCIL & STAFF INFORMATIONAL REPORTS:
a. Monterey County Mayor’s Association [Mayor Bruce Delgado] b. Council reports on meetings and conferences attended ( Gov’t Code Section 53232).

15. ADJOURNMENT:

CERTIFICATION

I, Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Marina, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing agenda was posted at City Hall and Council Chambers Bulletin Board at 211 Hillcrest Avenue, Monterey County Library Marina Branch at 190 Seaside Circle, City Bulletin Board at the corner of Reservation Road and Del Monte Boulevard on or before 6:30 p.m., Friday, May 31, 2024.

Agenda for City Council Meeting of Tuesday, June 4, 2024 Page 6

___________________________________

ANITA SHARP, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
City Council, Airport Commission and Redevelopment Agency meetings are recorded on tape and available for public review and listening at the Office of the City Clerk and kept for a period of 90 days after the formal approval of MINUTES.

City Council meetings may be viewed live on the meeting night and at 12:30 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. on Cable Channel 25 on the Sunday following the Regular City Council meeting date. In addition, Council meetings can be viewed at 6:30 p.m. every Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. For more information about viewing the Council Meetings on Channel 25, you may contact Access Monterey Peninsula directly at 831-333-1267.

Agenda items and staff reports are public record and are available for public review on the City's website (www.ciytofmarina.org), at the Monterey County Marina Library Branch at 190 Seaside Circle and at the Office of the City Clerk at 211 Hillcrest Avenue, Marina between the hours of 10:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m., on the Monday preceding the meeting.

Supplemental materials received after the close of the final agenda and through noon on the day of the scheduled meeting will be available for public review at the City Clerk’s Office during regular office hours and in a ‘Supplemental Binder’ at the meeting.

ALL MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. THE CITY OF MARINA DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. Council Chambers are wheelchair accessible. Meetings are broadcast on cable channel 25 and recordings of meetings can be provided upon request. To request assistive listening devices, sign language interpreters, readers, large print agendas or other accommodations, please call (831) 884 -1278 or e -mail:
[email protected]. Requests must be made at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.

U p c o m i n g 202 4 M e e t i n g s o f t h e C i t y C o u n c i l , A i r p o r t C o m m i s s i o n , M a r i n a A b r a m s B N o n - P r o f i t C o r p o r a t i o n , P r e s t o n P a r k S u s t a i n a b l e C o m m u n i t y N o n p r o f i t C o r p o r a t i o n , S u c c e s s o r A g e n c y o f t h e F o r m e r R e d e v e l o p m e n t A g e n c y a n d M a r i n a G r o u n d w a t e r S u s t a i n a b i l i t y A g e n c y R e g u l a r M e e t i n g s : 5 : 0 0 p . m . C l o s e d S e s s i o n ; 6 : 3 0 p . m . R e g u l a r O p e n S e s s i o n s

Tuesday, June 18, 2024

Tuesday, July 2, 2024
Tuesday, July 16, 2024 (Cancelled)

Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Tuesday, October 15, 2024

***Wednesday, November 6, 2024
Tuesday, November 19, 2024
**Wednesday, August 7, 2023
Tuesday, August 20, 2024 (Cancelled)

*Wednesday, September 4, 2024
Tuesday, September 17, 2024

Tuesday, December 3, 2024
Tuesday, December 17, 2024
* Regular Meeting rescheduled due to Monday Holiday
** Regular Meeting rescheduled due to National Night Out *** Regular Meeting rescheduled due to General Election Day Agenda for City Council Meeting of Tuesday, June 4, 2024 Page 7

C I T Y H A L L 202 4 H O L I D A Y S
(City Hall Closed)

Independence Day (City Offices Closed) ------------------------------ Thursday, July 4, 2024 Labor Day ------------------------------------------------------------ Monday, September 2, 2024 Veterans Day (City Offices Closed) ----------------------------- Monday, November 11, 2024 Thanksgiving Day ------------------------------------------------- Thursday, November 28, 2024 Thanksgiving Break -------------------------------------------------- Friday, November 29, 2024 Winter Break ---------------------- Tuesday, December 24, 2024-Friday, December 31, 2024

2024 COMMISSION DATES

U p c o m i n g 2024 M e e t i n g s o f P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n 2nd and 4th Thursday of every month. Meetings are held at the Council Chambers at 6:30 P.M.

June 13, 2024
June 27, 2024
August 8, 2024
August 22, 2024
October 10, 2024
October 24, 2024
July 11, 2024
July 25, 2024
September 12, 2024
September 26, 2024
November 14, 2024
November 28, 2024 (Cancelled)
December 12,2 024

U p c o m i n g 2024 M e e t i n g s o f P u b l i c W o r k s C o m m i s s i o n 3rd Thursday of every month. Meetings are held at the Council Chambers at 6:30 P.M.

June 20, 2024 August 15, 2024 October 17, 2024
July 18, 2024 September 19, 2024 November 21, 2024
December 19, 2024

U p c o m i n g 2024 M e e t i n g s o f R e c r e a t i o n & C u l t u r a l S e r v i c e s C o m m i s s i o n
1st Wednesday of every quarter month. Meetings are held at the Council Chambers at 6:30 P.M.

September 11, 2024 December 4, 2024

U p c o m i n g 2024 M e e t i n g s o f M a r i n a T r e e C o m m i t t e e 2nd Wednesday of every quarter month as needed. Meetings are held at the Council Chambers at 6:30 P.M.

July 13, 2024 October 12, 2024

Agenda Item: 6a(i)
Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 100 - General Fund
Department 120 - City Mgr/HR/Risk
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6300.305 - Prof Svc HR - Citywide Recruit/Background 11869 - Agile Occupational Medicine PC EM017911 Agile Occupational Medicine - Pre Emp Px
Paid by EFT #
4643
04/16/2024 05/08/2024 05/08/2024 05/24/2024 177.00
11869 - Agile Occupational Medicine PC EM018913 Agile Occupational Medicine - Pre Emp Px
Paid by EFT #
4643
05/02/2024 05/13/2024 05/13/2024 05/24/2024 354.00
11717 - Universal Background Screening -
Pluto Acquisition
202404023118 Background - Credit
Check
Paid by Check
# 104590
04/30/2024 05/08/2024 05/08/2024 05/24/2024 13.47
Account 6300.305 - Prof Svc HR - Citywide Recruit/Background Totals Invoice Transactions 3 $544.47 Account 6380.120 - Utilities Comm Mobile & Pager
10603 - Verizon Wireless 9963770191 Monthly Verizon Bill- 308174766 (4/11-
5/10/24)
Paid by EFT #
4650
05/10/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 183.51
Account 6380.120 - Utilities Comm Mobile & Pager Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $183.51 Account 6400.565 - Material & Suppl Office Supplies
10732 - Office Depot-General Account 365944128001 Office Depot Paid by Check # 104580
05/02/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 292.87
Account 6400.565 - Material & Suppl Office Supplies Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $292.87 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 5 $1,020.85 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 5 $1,020.85 Department 120 - City Mgr/HR/Risk Totals Invoice Transactions 5 $1,020.85 Department 130 - Finance
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6300.216 - Prof Svc Fin - Accounting Services
10511 - Richard B. Standridge 24-10 Service 5/06-16/2024 Paid by EFT # 4648
05/17/2024 05/23/2024 05/23/2024 05/24/2024 2,446.25
Account 6300.216 - Prof Svc Fin - Accounting Services Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $2,446.25 Account 6380.120 - Utilities Comm Mobile & Pager
10603 - Verizon Wireless 9963770191 Monthly Verizon Bill- 308174766 (4/11-
5/10/24)
Paid by EFT #
4650
05/10/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 141.17
Account 6380.120 - Utilities Comm Mobile & Pager Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $141.17 Account 6400.565 - Material & Suppl Office Supplies
10732 - Office Depot-General Account 367514212001 Office Supplies-Finance Paid by Check # 104580
05/10/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 416.23
Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/23/2024 01:52:16 PM Page 1 of 16 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/24/24 - 05/24/24
Agenda Item: 10a
1 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 100 - General Fund
Department 130 - Finance
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6400.565 - Material & Suppl Office Supplies
10732 - Office Depot-General Account 367515016001 Office Supplies-Finance Paid by Check # 104580
05/13/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 407.91
Account 6400.565 - Material & Suppl Office Supplies Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $824.14 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 4 $3,411.56 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 4 $3,411.56 Department 130 - Finance Totals Invoice Transactions 4 $3,411.56 Department 190 - Citywide Non-Dept
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6150.500 - Medical Vision
10607 - Vision Service Plan 06-01-24. VSP Adjustment
(06.2024)
Paid by Check
# 104598
06/01/2024 06/01/2024 06/01/2024 05/24/2024 230.04
Account 6150.500 - Medical Vision Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $230.04 Account 6170.400 - Other Benefits State Unempl Insur
10222 - Employment Development
Department
L0380222800 Employment
Development
Department 1st Q 2024
Paid by Check
# 104573
03/31/2024 05/08/2024 05/08/2024 05/24/2024 2,011.85
Account 6170.400 - Other Benefits State Unempl Insur Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $2,011.85 Account 6300.570 - Prof Svc Other
10588 - United Site Services INV-4499250 Windy Hill Beach and Deforest
Paid by Check
# 104589
05/16/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 260.35
Account 6300.570 - Prof Svc Other Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $260.35 Account 6380.150 - Utilities Comm Phone System
10758 - AT & T CALNET3 21707594 CALNET3-9391023436
(239-461-6578)
Paid by Check
# 104566
05/13/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 64.10
10758 - AT & T CALNET3 21716945 CALNET3-9391023491
(884-9654)
Paid by Check
# 104566
05/15/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 90.12
10758 - AT & T CALNET3 21716937 CALNET3-9391023482
(884-0985)
Paid by Check
# 104566
05/15/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 29.12
10758 - AT & T CALNET3 21716939 CALNET3-9391023485
(884-2573)
Paid by Check
# 104566
05/15/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 30.23
10758 - AT & T CALNET3 21716944 CALNET3-9391023490
(884-9568)
Paid by Check
# 104566
05/15/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 55.13
Account 6380.150 - Utilities Comm Phone System Totals Invoice Transactions 5 $268.70 Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/23/2024 01:52:16 PM Page 2 of 16 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/24/24 - 05/24/24
2 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 100 - General Fund
Department 190 - Citywide Non-Dept
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6380.300 - Utilities Gas & Electric
10463 - Pacific Gas & Electric May 2024 562-0 PG&E - 4758891562-0 Paid by Check # 104583
05/10/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/24/2024 1,531.19
Account 6380.300 - Utilities Gas & Electric Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $1,531.19 Account 6400.565 - Material & Suppl Office Supplies
10734 - Office Depot-Public Works Dept. 362746896003 Paper Paid by Check # 104581
05/01/2024 05/14/2024 05/14/2024 05/24/2024 40.14
10734 - Office Depot-Public Works Dept. 362746896004 Paper Paid by Check # 104581
05/02/2024 05/14/2024 05/14/2024 05/24/2024 13.73
10734 - Office Depot-Public Works Dept. 364223831001 Ink Corp Yard Paid by Check # 104581
04/30/2024 05/14/2024 05/14/2024 05/24/2024 128.93
10734 - Office Depot-Public Works Dept. 364236976001 Ink Corp Yard Paid by Check # 104581
04/30/2024 05/14/2024 05/14/2024 05/24/2024 140.38
10734 - Office Depot-Public Works Dept. 364239514001 Paper Paid by Check # 104581
04/30/2024 05/14/2024 05/14/2024 05/24/2024 254.04
10734 - Office Depot-Public Works Dept. 364239514002 Paper Paid by Check # 104581
05/01/2024 05/14/2024 05/14/2024 05/24/2024 27.47
10734 - Office Depot-Public Works Dept. 367243257001 Corp Yard Supplies Paid by Check # 104581
05/10/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 118.51
Account 6400.565 - Material & Suppl Office Supplies Totals Invoice Transactions 7 $723.20 Account 6600.340 - Other Charges Insur - Liability
10027 - Alliant Insurance Services - CSRMA 2658767 Alliant Pollution Liability Insurance - UST 24/25
Paid by EFT #
4644
05/08/2024 05/13/2024 05/13/2024 05/24/2024 1,773.00
Account 6600.340 - Other Charges Insur - Liability Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $1,773.00 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 17 $6,798.33 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 17 $6,798.33 Department 190 - Citywide Non-Dept Totals Invoice Transactions 17 $6,798.33 Department 210 - Police
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6380.150 - Utilities Comm Phone System
10758 - AT & T CALNET3 21716968 CALNET3-9391023435
(237-267-6922)
Paid by Check
# 104566
05/15/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 171.47
Account 6380.150 - Utilities Comm Phone System Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $171.47 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $171.47 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $171.47 Department 210 - Police Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $171.47 Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/23/2024 01:52:16 PM Page 3 of 16 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/24/24 - 05/24/24
3 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 100 - General Fund
Department 250 - Fire
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6360.360 - Maint & Repairs Janitorial
10005 - A-1 Sweeping Service May 2024 City Street Sweeping (May 2024)
Paid by Check
# 104561
05/31/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 6,172.50
Account 6360.360 - Maint & Repairs Janitorial Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $6,172.50 Account 6400.737 - Material & Suppl Tools & Equip
10323 - L.N. Curtis & Sons INV789079 Routine annual service for Hurst eDraulic Tools
Paid by EFT #
4646
02/02/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 361.00
Account 6400.737 - Material & Suppl Tools & Equip Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $361.00 Account 6400.739 - Material & Suppl Special Dept Exp-Fire Prevent 10323 - L.N. Curtis & Sons INV822952 Black LED Lantern Paid by EFT # 4646
05/01/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 492.54
10323 - L.N. Curtis & Sons INV805314 Service Mako Air
Compressor
Paid by EFT #
4646
03/25/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 3,130.15
Account 6400.739 - Material & Suppl Special Dept Exp-Fire Prevent Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $3,622.69 Account 6400.740 - Material & Suppl Special Dept Suppl
10323 - L.N. Curtis & Sons INV782771 SCBA Mask (3) Paid by EFT # 4646
01/16/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 1,982.89
Account 6400.740 - Material & Suppl Special Dept Suppl Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $1,982.89 Account 6400.795 - Material & Suppl Turnout Equip-Structure Fires 10323 - L.N. Curtis & Sons INV793130 Fire Jackets Paid by EFT # 4646
02/16/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 375.82
Account 6400.795 - Material & Suppl Turnout Equip-Structure Fires Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $375.82 Account 6400.796 - Material & Suppl Turnout Equip-Wildland Fires 10323 - L.N. Curtis & Sons INV787928 Wildland Nomex Pants (4)
Paid by EFT #
4646
01/31/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 1,519.67
10323 - L.N. Curtis & Sons INV786583 White Wildland Helmet Paid by EFT # 4646
01/26/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 182.11
Account 6400.796 - Material & Suppl Turnout Equip-Wildland Fires Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $1,701.78 Account 6400.800 - Material & Suppl Uniform
10323 - L.N. Curtis & Sons INV780369 Uniform pants for Sam Flores
Paid by EFT #
4646
01/05/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 160.20
Account 6400.800 - Material & Suppl Uniform Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $160.20 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 9 $14,376.88 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 9 $14,376.88 Department 250 - Fire Totals Invoice Transactions 9 $14,376.88 Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/23/2024 01:52:16 PM Page 4 of 16 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/24/24 - 05/24/24
4 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 100 - General Fund
Department 310 - Public Works
Division 311 - Buildings & Grounds
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6360.690 - Maint & Repairs Supplies
10728 - Ace Hardware-Public Works 088265 Supplies Paid by Check # 104563
05/09/2024 05/15/2024 05/15/2024 05/24/2024 61.15
10728 - Ace Hardware-Public Works 088263 Supplies Corp Yard Paid by Check # 104563
05/09/2024 05/15/2024 05/15/2024 05/24/2024 14.19
10728 - Ace Hardware-Public Works 088293 Facilities Annex Paid by Check # 104563
05/14/2024 05/15/2024 05/15/2024 05/24/2024 56.78
10728 - Ace Hardware-Public Works 088302 Facilities Annex Paid by Check # 104563
05/14/2024 05/15/2024 05/15/2024 05/24/2024 122.48
10728 - Ace Hardware-Public Works 088301 Facilities Vince Dimaggio Double Door
Repair
Paid by Check
# 104563
05/14/2024 05/15/2024 05/15/2024 05/24/2024 9.83
10728 - Ace Hardware-Public Works 088247 Supplies Paid by Check # 104563
05/07/2024 05/15/2024 05/15/2024 05/24/2024 66.34
10728 - Ace Hardware-Public Works 088255 Supplies Paid by Check # 104563
05/07/2024 05/15/2024 05/15/2024 05/24/2024 27.80
10046 - ARC (Former San Jose Blue) 12473485 PW Sign Paid by Check # 104564
05/09/2024 05/14/2024 05/14/2024 05/24/2024 774.58
10275 - Home Depot Credit Service 05-13-24 Home Depot (6035 3225 0395 9813)
Paid by Check
# 104575
05/13/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 175.37
10538 - Sherwin-Williams 5661-5 Paint Paid by Check
# 104584
05/09/2024 05/15/2024 05/15/2024 05/24/2024 183.10
10560 - Suburban Propane 1602-121311 Propane Corp Yard Paid by Check # 104586
05/10/2024 05/15/2024 05/15/2024 05/24/2024 614.18
Account 6360.690 - Maint & Repairs Supplies Totals Invoice Transactions 11 $2,105.80 Account 6380.500 - Utilities Water & Sewer
10349 - Marina Coast Water District 000056042
051724
3040 Lake Drive Paid by Check
# 104577
05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 126.75
10349 - Marina Coast Water District 000056006
051724
188 Seaside Circle Paid by Check
# 104577
05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 244.13
10349 - Marina Coast Water District 000056045
051724
3100 Preston Drive Paid by Check
# 104577
05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 1,792.94
10349 - Marina Coast Water District 000056046
051724
3100 Preston Drive Paid by Check
# 104577
05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 161.34
10349 - Marina Coast Water District 000056061
051724
Reservation/Locke
Paddon Park
Paid by Check
# 104577
05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 124.07
10349 - Marina Coast Water District 000056090
051724
Locke Paddon Park Paid by Check
# 104577
05/17/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 62.91
10349 - Marina Coast Water District 000056094
051724
2660 5th Ave Paid by Check
# 104577
05/17/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 440.92
Account 6380.500 - Utilities Water & Sewer Totals Invoice Transactions 7 $2,953.06 Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/23/2024 01:52:16 PM Page 5 of 16 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/24/24 - 05/24/24
5 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 100 - General Fund
Department 310 - Public Works
Division 311 - Buildings & Grounds
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6400.800 - Material & Suppl Uniform
12019 - Cesar Fernandez - refund only 05-16-24 Boot Reimbursement Paid by Check # 104569
05/16/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 225.00
Account 6400.800 - Material & Suppl Uniform Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $225.00 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 19 $5,283.86 Division 311 - Buildings & Grounds Totals Invoice Transactions 19 $5,283.86 Division 313 - Vehicle Maint
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6360.690 - Maint & Repairs Supplies
10275 - Home Depot Credit Service 05-13-24 Home Depot (6035 3225 0395 9813)
Paid by Check
# 104575
05/13/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 130.34
Account 6360.690 - Maint & Repairs Supplies Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $130.34 Account 6360.850 - Maint & Repairs Vehicle
10065 - Ben's Motorcycle Works 8075 BMW 2016 PD Paid by Check # 104567
04/25/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 1,482.42
10065 - Ben's Motorcycle Works 8074 2015 BMW PD Paid by Check # 104567
04/25/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 1,447.22
Account 6360.850 - Maint & Repairs Vehicle Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $2,929.64 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 3 $3,059.98 Division 313 - Vehicle Maint Totals Invoice Transactions 3 $3,059.98 Department 310 - Public Works Totals Invoice Transactions 22 $8,343.84 Department 410 - Planning
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6300.570 - Prof Svc Other
10515 - Rincon Consultants, Inc. 57036 Marina Grant Support and Prohousing
Paid by EFT #
4649
05/21/2024 05/21/2024 05/21/2024 05/24/2024 1,218.80
Account 6300.570 - Prof Svc Other Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $1,218.80 Account 6300.610 - Prof Svc Planning - Consultant
10515 - Rincon Consultants, Inc. 57021 Marina On-Call GIS Services 2023
Paid by EFT #
4649
05/20/2024 05/21/2024 05/21/2024 05/24/2024 2,626.00
Account 6300.610 - Prof Svc Planning - Consultant Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $2,626.00 Account 6380.120 - Utilities Comm Mobile & Pager
10603 - Verizon Wireless 9963770191 Monthly Verizon Bill- 308174766 (4/11-
5/10/24)
Paid by EFT #
4650
05/10/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 103.21
Account 6380.120 - Utilities Comm Mobile & Pager Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $103.21 Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/23/2024 01:52:16 PM Page 6 of 16 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/24/24 - 05/24/24
6 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 100 - General Fund
Department 410 - Planning
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6400.565 - Material & Suppl Office Supplies
10732 - Office Depot-General Account 365517100001 Building Office Furniture
Paid by Check
# 104580
05/06/2024 05/21/2024 05/21/2024 05/24/2024 661.05
Account 6400.565 - Material & Suppl Office Supplies Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $661.05 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 4 $4,609.06 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 4 $4,609.06 Department 410 - Planning Totals Invoice Transactions 4 $4,609.06 Department 420 - Engineering
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6300.570 - Prof Svc Other
11984 - Duffy Group, Inc COM-007 Public Works Director Paid by Check # 104572
05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 6,787.50
Account 6300.570 - Prof Svc Other Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $6,787.50 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $6,787.50 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $6,787.50 Department 420 - Engineering Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $6,787.50 Department 510 - Recreation & Culture
Division 100 - Admin
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6360.360 - Maint & Repairs Janitorial
10080 - Branch's Janitorial 228744 Custodial Services for March 2024
Paid by EFT #
4645
03/25/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 797.39
Account 6360.360 - Maint & Repairs Janitorial Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $797.39 Account 6380.150 - Utilities Comm Phone System
10053 - AT & T May 2024 520 5 AT&T 831-582-9957
520 5
Paid by Check
# 104565
05/13/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 391.35
Account 6380.150 - Utilities Comm Phone System Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $391.35 Account 6400.652 - Material & Suppl Recr Special Progr / Events 11885 - A to Z Rentals, Inc 1126470 staging and step Paid by Check # 104560
03/15/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 1,769.85
11784 - John Upshaw John Upshaw - DJ
Monterey
06-01-24 dj services Paid by Check
# 104594
04/25/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 1,200.00
11784 - John Upshaw John Upshaw - DJ
Monterey
06-03-24 dj services Paid by Check
# 104594
04/23/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 1,200.00
Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/23/2024 01:52:16 PM Page 7 of 16 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/24/24 - 05/24/24
7 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 100 - General Fund
Department 510 - Recreation & Culture
Division 100 - Admin
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6400.652 - Material & Suppl Recr Special Progr / Events 10008 - Monterey County Department of
Health - EHB
1209045 Multi-Cultural Event
Permit
Paid by Check
# 104578
05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 502.00
11827 - Pacific Ag Rentals LLC / Star
Sanitation
YS2024136 restroom & wash
stations
Paid by Check
# 104582
05/15/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 479.18
12025 - Print Gallery, Inc. 25859 shirts for event Paid by Check # 104596
05/16/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/24/2024 1,371.81
11871 - The State of California, Judicial
Council
06-01-24 parking lot licensed
fees
Paid by Check
# 104587
05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/24/2024 200.00
Account 6400.652 - Material & Suppl Recr Special Progr / Events Totals Invoice Transactions 7 $6,722.84 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 9 $7,911.58 Division 100 - Admin Totals Invoice Transactions 9 $7,911.58 Division 511 - Youth
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6360.360 - Maint & Repairs Janitorial
10080 - Branch's Janitorial 228744 Custodial Services for March 2024
Paid by EFT #
4645
03/25/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 370.19
Account 6360.360 - Maint & Repairs Janitorial Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $370.19 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $370.19 Division 511 - Youth Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $370.19 Division 512 - Teen
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6360.360 - Maint & Repairs Janitorial
10080 - Branch's Janitorial 228744 Custodial Services for March 2024
Paid by EFT #
4645
03/25/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 521.70
Account 6360.360 - Maint & Repairs Janitorial Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $521.70 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $521.70 Division 512 - Teen Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $521.70 Division 513 - Senior
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6360.360 - Maint & Repairs Janitorial
10080 - Branch's Janitorial 228744 Custodial Services for March 2024
Paid by EFT #
4645
03/25/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 370.19
Account 6360.360 - Maint & Repairs Janitorial Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $370.19 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $370.19 Division 513 - Senior Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $370.19 Department 510 - Recreation & Culture Totals Invoice Transactions 12 $9,173.66 Fund 100 - General Fund Totals Invoice Transactions 75 $54,693.15 Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/23/2024 01:52:16 PM Page 8 of 16 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/24/24 - 05/24/24
8 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 220 - Gas Tax
Department 000 - Non-Dept
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6380.300 - Utilities Gas & Electric
10463 - Pacific Gas & Electric May 2024 851-0 PG&E - 3440977851-0 Paid by Check # 104583
05/15/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/24/2024 223.75
10463 - Pacific Gas & Electric May 2024 148-6 PG&E - 5593414148-6 Paid by Check # 104583
05/09/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/24/2024 9.53
10463 - Pacific Gas & Electric May 2024 582-7 PG&E - 8161432582-7 Paid by Check # 104583
05/09/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/24/2024 195.95
10463 - Pacific Gas & Electric May 2024 943-2 PG&E - 6150212943-2 Paid by Check # 104583
05/09/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/24/2024 98.15
10463 - Pacific Gas & Electric May 2024 353-7 PG&E - 9930567353-7 Paid by Check # 104583
05/09/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/24/2024 74.91
10463 - Pacific Gas & Electric May 2024 202-3 PG&E - 6594070202-3 Paid by Check # 104583
05/10/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/24/2024 128.76
10463 - Pacific Gas & Electric May 2024 085-2 PG&E - 5434906085-2 Paid by Check # 104583
05/10/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/24/2024 123.34
10463 - Pacific Gas & Electric May 2024 720-0 PG&E - 0167505720-0 Paid by Check # 104583
05/10/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/24/2024 562.37
10463 - Pacific Gas & Electric May 2024 827-8 PG&E - 0423929827-8 Paid by Check # 104583
05/14/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/24/2024 194.70
10463 - Pacific Gas & Electric May 2024 535-3 PG&E - 6161832535-3 Paid by Check # 104583
05/14/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/24/2024 331.17
Account 6380.300 - Utilities Gas & Electric Totals Invoice Transactions 10 $1,942.63 Account 6380.500 - Utilities Water & Sewer
10349 - Marina Coast Water District 000056040
051724
Hilo Ave Paid by Check
# 104577
05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 28.34
10349 - Marina Coast Water District 000056028
051724
California at Jerry Ct Paid by Check
# 104577
05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 38.22
Account 6380.500 - Utilities Water & Sewer Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $66.56 Account 6400.740 - Material & Suppl Special Dept Suppl
10540 - Sierra Springs & Alhambra 14225799
051324
209 Cypress Ave Paid by Check
# 104585
05/13/2024 05/15/2024 05/15/2024 05/24/2024 125.91
Account 6400.740 - Material & Suppl Special Dept Suppl Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $125.91 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 13 $2,135.10 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 13 $2,135.10 Department 000 - Non-Dept Totals Invoice Transactions 13 $2,135.10 Fund 220 - Gas Tax Totals Invoice Transactions 13 $2,135.10 Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/23/2024 01:52:16 PM Page 9 of 16 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/24/24 - 05/24/24
9 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 223 - FORA Dissolution
Department 000 - Non-Dept
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6300.570 - Prof Svc Other
11278 - M3 Environmental Consulting, LLC 2411601 Blight Removal Paid by Check # 104576
05/07/2024 05/21/2024 05/21/2024 05/24/2024 21,980.00
10275 - Home Depot Credit Service 05-13-24 Home Depot (6035 3225 0395 9813)
Paid by Check
# 104575
05/13/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 592.80
11489 - Wallace Group, Inc. 62277 Blight Removal Paid by Check # 104593
05/17/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 343.75
11489 - Wallace Group, Inc. 62043 Blight Removal Paid by Check # 104593
04/15/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 6,522.50
Account 6300.570 - Prof Svc Other Totals Invoice Transactions 4 $29,439.05 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 4 $29,439.05 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 4 $29,439.05 Department 000 - Non-Dept Totals Invoice Transactions 4 $29,439.05 Fund 223 - FORA Dissolution Totals Invoice Transactions 4 $29,439.05 Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/23/2024 01:52:16 PM Page 10 of 16 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/24/24 - 05/24/24
10 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 232 - Seabreeze AD
Department 000 - Non-Dept
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6360.440 - Maint & Repairs Landscape General
10420 - Monterey County Weekly 297-090198-
00002
Notice of Hearing
Seabreeze
Paid by Check
# 104579
05/16/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 197.51
Account 6360.440 - Maint & Repairs Landscape General Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $197.51 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $197.51 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $197.51 Department 000 - Non-Dept Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $197.51 Fund 232 - Seabreeze AD Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $197.51 Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/23/2024 01:52:16 PM Page 11 of 16 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/24/24 - 05/24/24
11 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 233 - Monterey Bay Estates AD
Department 000 - Non-Dept
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6360.440 - Maint & Repairs Landscape General
10420 - Monterey County Weekly 296-090198-
00002
Notice of Public
Hearing Monterey Bay
Estates
Paid by Check
# 104579
05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 197.51
Account 6360.440 - Maint & Repairs Landscape General Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $197.51 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $197.51 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $197.51 Department 000 - Non-Dept Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $197.51 Fund 233 - Monterey Bay Estates AD Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $197.51 Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/23/2024 01:52:16 PM Page 12 of 16 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/24/24 - 05/24/24
12 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 235 - Cypress Cove II AD
Department 000 - Non-Dept
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6360.440 - Maint & Repairs Landscape General
10420 - Monterey County Weekly 298-090198-
00002
Notice of Public
Hearing Cypress Cove
II
Paid by Check
# 104579
05/16/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 197.51
Account 6360.440 - Maint & Repairs Landscape General Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $197.51 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $197.51 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $197.51 Department 000 - Non-Dept Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $197.51 Fund 235 - Cypress Cove II AD Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $197.51 Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/23/2024 01:52:16 PM Page 13 of 16 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/24/24 - 05/24/24
13 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 251 - CFD - Locke Paddon
Department 000 - Non-Dept
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6360.441 - Maint & Repairs Landscape Tree & ExtraodinarySvc 10152 - Collins Electric Co., Inc. S2240211-1 Reservation Rd & Del Monte Blvd
Paid by Check
# 104571
05/08/2024 05/14/2024 05/14/2024 05/24/2024 531.41
Account 6360.441 - Maint & Repairs Landscape Tree & ExtraodinarySvc Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $531.41 Account 6380.500 - Utilities Water & Sewer
10349 - Marina Coast Water District 012016000
051724
199 A Paddon Place Paid by Check
# 104577
05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 61.02
Account 6380.500 - Utilities Water & Sewer Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $61.02 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $592.43 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $592.43 Department 000 - Non-Dept Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $592.43 Fund 251 - CFD - Locke Paddon Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $592.43 Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/23/2024 01:52:16 PM Page 14 of 16 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/24/24 - 05/24/24
14 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 462 - City Capital Projects
Department 000 - Non-Dept
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6300.570 - Prof Svc Other
11776 - Bianca E. Koenig - BEK Collective 030-003 Marina Gateway Signs Paid by Check # 104568
05/03/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 12,260.96
10268 - Harris & Associates 62726 Imjin Parkway
Improvement Plan
Paid by Check
# 104574
05/16/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/24/2024 182,923.67
11762 - Raimi + Associates, Inc 23-6233 Marina GPU January 2024
Paid by EFT #
4647
02/29/2024 05/21/2024 05/21/2024 05/24/2024 11,857.40
11266 - Verde Design, Inc. 12-2207300 Glorya Jean Tate Park Improvement Project
Paid by Check
# 104591
05/14/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 13,597.84
10275 - Home Depot Credit Service 05-13-24 Home Depot (6035 3225 0395 9813)
Paid by Check
# 104575
05/13/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 178.70
10515 - Rincon Consultants, Inc. 57017 Marina Housing
Element Update-April
2024
Paid by EFT #
4649
05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 2,564.50
10515 - Rincon Consultants, Inc. 57035 Marina Downtown Vitalization SP and EIR
April 2024
Paid by EFT #
4649
05/21/2024 05/21/2024 05/21/2024 05/24/2024 689.00
11199 - WALD, RUHNKE & DOST

ARCHITECTS, LLP
2301421 Equestrian Center Paid by Check
# 104592
12/31/2023 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 1,980.00
11489 - Wallace Group, Inc. 62182 Salinas Ave Widening Paid by Check # 104593
05/15/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 8,401.25
Account 6300.570 - Prof Svc Other Totals Invoice Transactions 9 $234,453.32 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 9 $234,453.32 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 9 $234,453.32 Department 000 - Non-Dept Totals Invoice Transactions 9 $234,453.32 Fund 462 - City Capital Projects Totals Invoice Transactions 9 $234,453.32 Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/23/2024 01:52:16 PM Page 15 of 16 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/24/24 - 05/24/24
15 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 555 - Marina Airport
Department 000 - Non-Dept
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6380.120 - Utilities Comm Mobile & Pager
10603 - Verizon Wireless 9963770191 Monthly Verizon Bill- 308174766 (4/11-
5/10/24)
Paid by EFT #
4650
05/10/2024 05/20/2024 05/20/2024 05/24/2024 51.58
Account 6380.120 - Utilities Comm Mobile & Pager Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $51.58 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $51.58 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $51.58 Department 000 - Non-Dept Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $51.58 Fund 555 - Marina Airport Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $51.58 Grand Totals Invoice Transactions 107 $321,957.16
Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/23/2024 01:52:16 PM Page 16 of 16 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/24/24 - 05/24/24
16 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 100 - General Fund
Department 120 - City Mgr/HR/Risk
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6300.465 - Prof Svc Legal - Special Counsel
11425 - Formation Environmental, LLC 8516 Professional Services - GSA GSPlan Task 9 -
Jan-Apr 2024
Paid by EFT #
4673
04/28/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 33,698.75
11505 - Shartsis Friese LLP 5491327 Professional Services - MPWSP - April 2024
Paid by Check
# 104610
05/28/2024 05/28/2024 05/28/2024 05/31/2024 156,623.53
Account 6300.465 - Prof Svc Legal - Special Counsel Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $190,322.28 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $190,322.28 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $190,322.28 Department 120 - City Mgr/HR/Risk Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $190,322.28 Department 150 - City Attorney
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6300.450 - Prof Svc Legal - City Attorney Other Svc 10257 - Goldfarb & Lipman 472609 The Dunes - April 2024 Paid by EFT # 4674
05/20/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 1,120.00
10257 - Goldfarb & Lipman 472608 General - April 2024 Paid by EFT # 4674
05/20/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 1,120.00
11704 - Wellington & Rathie - Robert R
Wellington Jr.
26398 Police Personnel
Matters - April 2023
Paid by Check
# 104616
05/20/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 40.00
Account 6300.450 - Prof Svc Legal - City Attorney Other Svc Totals Invoice Transactions 3 $2,280.00 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 3 $2,280.00 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 3 $2,280.00 Department 150 - City Attorney Totals Invoice Transactions 3 $2,280.00 Department 190 - Citywide Non-Dept
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6150.200 - Medical Dental
10737 - Premier Access Insurance-Premium
Payment
06-01-.24 Dental Claim (06.2024) Paid by Check
# 104617
06/01/2024 06/01/2024 06/01/2024 05/31/2024 2,818.87
Account 6150.200 - Medical Dental Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $2,818.87 Account 6360.570 - Maint & Repairs Other Svc Agr
10129 - Cintas Corporation 4193772977 Mat Service City Hall Paid by Check # 104602
05/24/2024 05/28/2024 05/28/2024 05/31/2024 52.60
Account 6360.570 - Maint & Repairs Other Svc Agr Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $52.60 Account 6380.300 - Utilities Gas & Electric
10463 - Pacific Gas & Electric May 2024 795-7 PG&E - 4467294795-7 Paid by Check # 104609
05/21/2024 05/28/2024 05/28/2024 05/31/2024 547.91
10463 - Pacific Gas & Electric May 2024 172-2 PG&E - 5618207172-2 Paid by Check # 104609
05/19/2024 05/28/2024 05/28/2024 05/31/2024 798.16
Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/30/2024 12:27:09 PM Page 1 of 9 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/31/24 - 05/31/24
17 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 100 - General Fund
Department 190 - Citywide Non-Dept
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6380.300 - Utilities Gas & Electric
10463 - Pacific Gas & Electric May 2024 683-2 PG&E 6217294683-2 Paid by Check # 104609
05/17/2024 05/28/2024 05/28/2024 05/31/2024 186.36
Account 6380.300 - Utilities Gas & Electric Totals Invoice Transactions 3 $1,532.43 Account 6400.635 - Material & Suppl Postage Shipping
10235 - FedEx 8-509-70775 Shiping Charges - BMR
Housing Program
Paid by Check
# 104603
05/24/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 47.28
Account 6400.635 - Material & Suppl Postage Shipping Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $47.28 Account 6600.010 - Other Charges Alarm
10239 - First Alarm 819010 Alarm Monitoring - 211
Hillcrest Ave
Audio/Visual Room
Paid by EFT #
4672
05/15/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 109.62
10239 - First Alarm 821430 Alarm Monitoring -
3200 Del Monte Blvd.

Paid by EFT #
4672
05/15/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 176.04
Account 6600.010 - Other Charges Alarm Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $285.66 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 8 $4,736.84 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 8 $4,736.84 Department 190 - Citywide Non-Dept Totals Invoice Transactions 8 $4,736.84 Department 210 - Police
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6360.360 - Maint & Repairs Janitorial
10080 - Branch's Janitorial 228745 Janitorial Service - Police/Fire/Airport
March 2024
Paid by EFT #
4670
03/25/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/31/2024 1,308.34
10080 - Branch's Janitorial 228770 Janitorial Service - Police/Fire/Airport May
2024
Paid by EFT #
4670
05/27/2024 05/29/2024 05/29/2024 05/31/2024 1,308.34
Account 6360.360 - Maint & Repairs Janitorial Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $2,616.68 Account 6400.785 - Material & Suppl Trophies & Awards
10594 - V&V Manufacturing 58446 Marina police Dept -
Officer of the Year
badge
Paid by Check
# 104613
01/23/2024 05/24/2024 05/24/2024 05/31/2024 117.92
Account 6400.785 - Material & Suppl Trophies & Awards Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $117.92 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 3 $2,734.60 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 3 $2,734.60 Department 210 - Police Totals Invoice Transactions 3 $2,734.60 Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/30/2024 12:27:09 PM Page 2 of 9 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/31/24 - 05/31/24
18 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 100 - General Fund
Department 250 - Fire
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6360.360 - Maint & Repairs Janitorial
10080 - Branch's Janitorial 228745 Janitorial Service - Police/Fire/Airport
March 2024
Paid by EFT #
4670
03/25/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/31/2024 516.66
10080 - Branch's Janitorial 228770 Janitorial Service - Police/Fire/Airport May
2024
Paid by EFT #
4670
05/27/2024 05/29/2024 05/29/2024 05/31/2024 516.66
Account 6360.360 - Maint & Repairs Janitorial Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $1,033.32 Account 6360.570 - Maint & Repairs Other Svc Agr
10129 - Cintas Corporation 4193773016 Shop towels Paid by Check # 104602
05/24/2024 05/29/2024 05/29/2024 05/31/2024 138.05
Account 6360.570 - Maint & Repairs Other Svc Agr Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $138.05 Account 6360.850 - Maint & Repairs Vehicle
10927 - Ace Hardware - Fire Dept. 088319 Cored plug for 21-01 Auto Drain
Paid by Check
# 104599
05/16/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/31/2024 34.92
Account 6360.850 - Maint & Repairs Vehicle Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $34.92 Account 6400.740 - Material & Suppl Special Dept Suppl
10927 - Ace Hardware - Fire Dept. 088355 Cleanining Supplies for Station 2
Paid by Check
# 104599
05/21/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 84.54
11976 - Kaye F Foster / Elite Backgrounds 749 Background for Frank Isola and Adam
Lawson
Paid by Check
# 104604
05/22/2024 05/29/2024 05/29/2024 05/31/2024 1,400.00
Account 6400.740 - Material & Suppl Special Dept Suppl Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $1,484.54 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 6 $2,690.83 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 6 $2,690.83 Department 250 - Fire Totals Invoice Transactions 6 $2,690.83 Department 310 - Public Works
Division 311 - Buildings & Grounds
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6360.065 - Maint & Repairs Bdg NonFlagship
10580 - Tri County Fire Protection SY107080 Vince Dimaggio Paid by Check # 104612
05/21/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 166.85
Account 6360.065 - Maint & Repairs Bdg NonFlagship Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $166.85 Account 6400.800 - Material & Suppl Uniform
10043 - VESTIS GROUP, INC./(f/k/a

ARAMARK UNIFORM & C
5110466473 PW Uniforms Paid by Check
# 104614
05/17/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 166.58
Account 6400.800 - Material & Suppl Uniform Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $166.58 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $333.43 Division 311 - Buildings & Grounds Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $333.43 Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/30/2024 12:27:09 PM Page 3 of 9 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/31/24 - 05/31/24
19 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 100 - General Fund
Department 310 - Public Works
Division 313 - Vehicle Maint
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6360.690 - Maint & Repairs Supplies
10728 - Ace Hardware-Public Works 088361 Tate Park Paid by Check # 104600
05/21/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 28.38
10728 - Ace Hardware-Public Works 088349 Supplies Paid by Check # 104600
05/21/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 13.09
10728 - Ace Hardware-Public Works 088350 Corp Yard Protective Gear
Paid by Check
# 104600
05/21/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 68.79
10728 - Ace Hardware-Public Works 088329 Supplies Paid by Check # 104600
05/17/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 54.59
10728 - Ace Hardware-Public Works 088328 Protective Gear Paid by Check # 104600
05/17/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 21.84
10728 - Ace Hardware-Public Works 088375 Vince Dimaggio Paid by Check # 104600
05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 18.56
10728 - Ace Hardware-Public Works 088324 Corp Yard Facilities Paid by Check # 104600
05/16/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 55.70
Account 6360.690 - Maint & Repairs Supplies Totals Invoice Transactions 7 $260.95 Account 6360.850 - Maint & Repairs Vehicle
10428 - Monterey Tire Service 1-118132 PD Tires Paid by Check # 104607
05/02/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 1,576.46
10403 - NAPA Auto Parts - former Monterey
Auto Supply
980863 Rotor Paid by Check
# 104608
05/05/2023 05/14/2024 05/14/2024 05/31/2024 (174.28)
10403 - NAPA Auto Parts - former Monterey
Auto Supply
969112 Air Filter Paid by Check
# 104608
03/10/2023 05/14/2024 05/14/2024 05/31/2024 (37.78)
10403 - NAPA Auto Parts - former Monterey
Auto Supply
941464 Fuel Filter Paid by Check
# 104608
10/19/2022 05/14/2024 05/14/2024 05/31/2024 (66.41)
10403 - NAPA Auto Parts - former Monterey
Auto Supply
053497 Warranty Paid by Check
# 104608
04/29/2024 05/14/2024 05/14/2024 05/31/2024 (72.05)
10403 - NAPA Auto Parts - former Monterey
Auto Supply
049346 Core Deposit Paid by Check
# 104608
04/09/2024 05/15/2024 05/15/2024 05/31/2024 (79.95)
10403 - NAPA Auto Parts - former Monterey
Auto Supply
034846 Core Deposit Paid by Check
# 104608
01/29/2024 05/15/2024 05/15/2024 05/31/2024 (19.67)
10403 - NAPA Auto Parts - former Monterey
Auto Supply
4006-055267 PD Brake Pads Paid by Check
# 104608
05/07/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 301.72
10403 - NAPA Auto Parts - former Monterey
Auto Supply
057408 FD Paid by Check
# 104608
05/17/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 198.49
Account 6360.850 - Maint & Repairs Vehicle Totals Invoice Transactions 9 $1,626.53 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 16 $1,887.48 Division 313 - Vehicle Maint Totals Invoice Transactions 16 $1,887.48 Department 310 - Public Works Totals Invoice Transactions 18 $2,220.91 Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/30/2024 12:27:09 PM Page 4 of 9 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/31/24 - 05/31/24
20 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 100 - General Fund
Department 410 - Planning
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6330.100 - Fee Agr Costs - Planning
10316 - Kimley-Horn & Associates 28149539 Marina Station Traffic Paid by Check # 104605
04/30/2024 05/28/2024 05/28/2024 05/31/2024 2,359.73
Account 6330.100 - Fee Agr Costs - Planning Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $2,359.73 Account 6400.352 - Material & Suppl IT - Software (non-capitalize) 10046 - ARC (Former San Jose Blue) 12481383 Lease/Payment May 24 Paid by Check # 104601
05/17/2024 05/28/2024 05/28/2024 05/31/2024 326.46
Account 6400.352 - Material & Suppl IT - Software (non-capitalize) Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $326.46 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $2,686.19 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $2,686.19 Department 410 - Planning Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $2,686.19 Department 420 - Engineering
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6330.200 - Fee Agr Costs - Engineering
10171 - CSG Consultants 56292 Via Del Mar Subdivision
(3220 Abdy Way)
Paid by EFT #
4671
05/10/2024 05/13/2024 05/13/2024 05/31/2024 2,310.00
Account 6330.200 - Fee Agr Costs - Engineering Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $2,310.00 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $2,310.00 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $2,310.00 Department 420 - Engineering Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $2,310.00 Department 430 - Building Inspection
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6400.565 - Material & Suppl Office Supplies
10456 - Shred-it USA - Stericycle, Inc. 8007273003 Planning Shred Paid by Check # 104611
05/25/2024 05/28/2024 05/28/2024 05/31/2024 658.31
Account 6400.565 - Material & Suppl Office Supplies Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $658.31 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $658.31 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $658.31 Department 430 - Building Inspection Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $658.31 Fund 100 - General Fund Totals Invoice Transactions 44 $210,639.96 Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/30/2024 12:27:09 PM Page 5 of 9 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/31/24 - 05/31/24
21 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 220 - Gas Tax
Department 000 - Non-Dept
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6380.300 - Utilities Gas & Electric
10463 - Pacific Gas & Electric 080-9.May24 5th Ave Bldg 1A-136 (3479881080-9)
Paid by Check
# 104609
05/09/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 23.82
10463 - Pacific Gas & Electric May 2024 533-8 PG&E - 2253666533-8 Paid by Check # 104609
05/17/2024 05/28/2024 05/28/2024 05/31/2024 150.80
10463 - Pacific Gas & Electric May 2024 362-9 PG&E - 5996678362-9 Paid by Check # 104609
05/19/2024 05/28/2024 05/28/2024 05/31/2024 160.51
10463 - Pacific Gas & Electric May 2024 683-2 PG&E 6217294683-2 Paid by Check # 104609
05/17/2024 05/28/2024 05/28/2024 05/31/2024 570.71
Account 6380.300 - Utilities Gas & Electric Totals Invoice Transactions 4 $905.84 Account 6400.800 - Material & Suppl Uniform
10043 - VESTIS GROUP, INC./(f/k/a

ARAMARK UNIFORM & C
5110466474 PW Shop Supplies Paid by Check
# 104614
05/17/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 70.51
Account 6400.800 - Material & Suppl Uniform Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $70.51 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 5 $976.35 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 5 $976.35 Department 000 - Non-Dept Totals Invoice Transactions 5 $976.35 Fund 220 - Gas Tax Totals Invoice Transactions 5 $976.35 Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/30/2024 12:27:09 PM Page 6 of 9 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/31/24 - 05/31/24
22 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 251 - CFD - Locke Paddon
Department 000 - Non-Dept
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6380.300 - Utilities Gas & Electric
10463 - Pacific Gas & Electric May 2024 272-1 PG&E - 2862559272-1 Paid by Check # 104609
05/17/2024 05/28/2024 05/28/2024 05/31/2024 41.34
Account 6380.300 - Utilities Gas & Electric Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $41.34 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $41.34 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $41.34 Department 000 - Non-Dept Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $41.34 Fund 251 - CFD - Locke Paddon Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $41.34 Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/30/2024 12:27:09 PM Page 7 of 9 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/31/24 - 05/31/24
23 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 462 - City Capital Projects
Department 000 - Non-Dept
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6300.570 - Prof Svc Other
10425 - Monterey Peninsula Engineering 03-33 10 March Imjin Payment Paid by Check # 104606
03/31/2024 05/22/2024 05/22/2024 05/31/2024 1,161,833.69 11489 - Wallace Group, Inc. 62352 Del Monte Medians Paid by Check # 104615
05/20/2024 05/28/2024 05/28/2024 05/31/2024 24,181.88
10171 - CSG Consultants 56293 Marina Carmel Ave
Drainage
Improvements
Paid by EFT #
4671
05/10/2024 05/13/2024 05/13/2024 05/31/2024 6,642.50
10171 - CSG Consultants 56294 Marina Dr Drainage
Improvements
Paid by EFT #
4671
05/10/2024 05/13/2024 05/13/2024 05/31/2024 5,532.50
Account 6300.570 - Prof Svc Other Totals Invoice Transactions 4 $1,198,190.57 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 4 $1,198,190.57 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 4 $1,198,190.57 Department 000 - Non-Dept Totals Invoice Transactions 4 $1,198,190.57 Fund 462 - City Capital Projects Totals Invoice Transactions 4 $1,198,190.57 Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/30/2024 12:27:09 PM Page 8 of 9 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/31/24 - 05/31/24
24 Vendor Invoice No. Invoice Description Status Held Reason Invoice Date Due Date G/L Date Received Date Payment Date Invoice Amount Fund 555 - Marina Airport
Department 000 - Non-Dept
Division 000 - Non-Div
Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv
Account 6360.360 - Maint & Repairs Janitorial
10080 - Branch's Janitorial 228745 Janitorial Service - Police/Fire/Airport
March 2024
Paid by EFT #
4670
03/25/2024 05/17/2024 05/17/2024 05/31/2024 410.00
10080 - Branch's Janitorial 228770 Janitorial Service - Police/Fire/Airport May
2024
Paid by EFT #
4670
05/27/2024 05/29/2024 05/29/2024 05/31/2024 410.00
Account 6360.360 - Maint & Repairs Janitorial Totals Invoice Transactions 2 $820.00 Account 6380.300 - Utilities Gas & Electric
10463 - Pacific Gas & Electric May 2024 683-2 PG&E 6217294683-2 Paid by Check # 104609
05/17/2024 05/28/2024 05/28/2024 05/31/2024 123.64
Account 6380.300 - Utilities Gas & Electric Totals Invoice Transactions 1 $123.64 Sub-Division 00 - Non-Subdiv Totals Invoice Transactions 3 $943.64 Division 000 - Non-Div Totals Invoice Transactions 3 $943.64 Department 000 - Non-Dept Totals Invoice Transactions 3 $943.64 Fund 555 - Marina Airport Totals Invoice Transactions 3 $943.64 Grand Totals Invoice Transactions 57 $1,410,791.86
Run by Melanie Hernandez on 05/30/2024 12:27:09 PM Page 9 of 9 Accounts Payable by G/L Distribution Report
Payment Date Range 05/31/24 - 05/31/24
25 Agenda Item: 10b(1)
City Council Meeting of
June 4, 2024

MINUTES
Tuesday, May 21, 2024 5:00 P.M. Closed Session
6:30 P.M. Open Session

REGULAR MEETING

CITY COUNCIL, AIRPORT COMMISSION,

MARINA ABRAMS B NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, PRESTON PARK

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, SUCCESSOR

AGENCY OF THE FORMER MARINA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND MARINA

GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY
THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD IN PERSON AND VIRTUALLY (HYBRID).

Council Chambers
211 Hillcrest Avenue
Marina, California
AND
Zoom Meeting URL: https://zoom.us/j/730251556
Zoom Meeting Telephone Only Participation: 1-669-900-9128 - Webinar ID: 730 251 556

PARTICIPATION
You may participate in the City Council meeting in person or in real-time by calling Zoom Meeting via the weblink and phone number provided at the top of this agenda. Instructions on how to access, view and participate in remote meetings are provided by visiting the City’s home page at https://cityofmarina.org/. Attendees can make oral comments during the meeting by using the “Raise Your Hand” feature in the webinar or by pressing *9 on your telephone keypad if joining by phone only.

The most effective method of communication with the City Council is by sending an email to [email protected] Comments will be reviewed and distributed before the meeting if received by 5:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. All comments received will become part of the record.

Council will have the option to modify their action on items based on comments received.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL & ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM: (City Council, Airport Commissioners, Marina Abrams B Non -Profit Corporation, Preston Park Sustainable Communities Nonprofit Corporation, Successor Agency of the Former Redevelopment Agency Members and Marina Groundwater Sustainability Agency) MEMBERS PRESENT: Jennifer McAdams, Brian McCarthy, Kathy Biala, Mayor Pro-Tem/Vice Chair Liesbeth Visscher
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor/Chair Bruce C. Delgado

3. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None
1 MINUTES for City Council Meeting of Tuesday, May 21, 2024 Page 2

4. CLOSED SESSION:
a. Real Property Negotiation (Govt. Code Section 54956.8) i. Property: Tarmac Area, 3200 Imjin Road, Marina, CA
Negotiating Party: Joby Aero Inc
Negotiator(s): City Manager
Terms: Price and Terms
ii. Property: Commercial Property at Southwest corner of Del Monte Blvd and Palm Ave. (APN: 031-303-038 a portion)
Negotiating Party: Dave Howell
Negotiator(s): City Manager
Terms: Price and Terms
iii. Property: 306 Reservation Road, Unit 6, Marina, CA 93933 (APN 032-173-006-000) Negotiating Party: Christian Haun (Realtor)/John Lawson (owner of the property)
Negotiator(s): City Manager
Terms: Price and Terms

6:30 PM - RECONVENE OPEN SESSION AND REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN

CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney reported out Closed Session: With regard to item 4a(iii), 306 Reservation Road, Unit 6 the City Council exercised the “option to purchase” and no other reportable action was taken.

5. MOMENT OF SILENCE & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Please stand)

6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
a. County Housing Element Opportunity Sites Presentation.

7. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS:
• Council Member McAdams – Commented on school graduations taking place and spoke about the history of Memorial Day.
• Recreation Director Willer – Announced Multicultural Festival on June 1, 2024, at Vince Di Maggio Park from 11:00am -3:00pm. Announced May 31, 2024, last day of school and summer camp signups.
• Council Member McCarthy – Announced Marina’s 3rd annual Pride Flag raising ceremony on June 1 st at 10:30am at the corner of Del Monte Blvd. and Reservation Rd. at the main flagpole.
• Council Member Biala – Announced Sister City Program delegates from Marina returned from Namwon South Korea and noted there will be a slide prestation at the June 4 th council meeting of what we learned while there.

8. PUBLIC COMMENT: Any member of the public may comment on any matter within the City Council’s jurisdiction that is not on the agenda. This is the appropriate place to comment on items on the Consent Agenda. Action will not be taken on items not on the agenda. Comments are limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes. General public comment may be limited to thirty (30) minutes and/or continued to the end of the agenda. Any member of the public may comment on any matter listed on this agenda at the time the matter is being considered by the City Council. Whenever possible, written correspondence should be submitted to the Council in advance of the meeting, to provide adequate time for its consideration.
2 MINUTES for City Council Meeting of Tuesday, May 21, 2024 Page 3

• Cristina Medina Dirksen – Commented on Chaparral Country Corporation. • Christopher Wilmot – Asked about a memorial bench at the beach in honor of his father. • Denise Turley – Commented on Imjin Widening project and no issues so far. • Michelle B – Commented on Chaparral Country Corporation.

9. CONSENT AGENDA FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER MARINA REDEVELOPMENT AGE NCY: Background information has been provided to the Successor Agency of the former Redevelopment Agency on all matters listed under the Consent Agenda, and these items are considered to be routine and non -controversial. All items under the Consent Agenda are normally approved by one motion. Prior to such a motion being made, any member of the public or City Council may ask a question or make a comment about an agenda item and staff may provide a response. If discussion or a lengthy explanation is required, the Council may remove an item from the Consent Agenda for individual consideration. If an item is pulled for discussion, it will be placed at the end of Other Action Items Successor Agency to the former Marina Redevelopment Agency.

10. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and non -controversial. All items under the Consent Agenda may be approved by one motion. Prior to such a motion being made, any member of City Council may ask a question or make a comment about an agenda item and staff may provide a response. If discussion or a lengthy explanation is required, Council may remove the item from the Consent Agenda and it will be placed at the end of Other Action Items. a. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378) (1) Accounts Payable Check Numbers 104495-104559, totaling $1,245,577.99.

Accounts Payable Successor Agency Check Number 124, totaling $3,000.00. b. MINUTES: (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378) (1) May 7, 2024, Regular City Council Meeting
c. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: None
d. AWARD OF BID: None
e. CALL FOR BIDS: None
f. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS: None
g. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS: (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378) (1) Adopting Resolution No. 2024-47, authorizing the City Manager, or his designee to enter into a standard voluntary agreement with the California Department of Toxic Substance Control and pay associated fees and approving advertising and call for bids for the city of marina buildings blight removal 2024 project.
h. ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: None
i. MAPS: None
j. REPORTS: (RECEIVE AND FILE): None
k. FUNDING & BUDGET MATTERS: None
l. APPROVE ORDINANCES (WAIVE SECOND READING):
m. APPROVE APPOINTMENTS: None
3 MINUTES for City Council Meeting of Tuesday, May 21, 2024 Page 4

Mayor Pro Tem Visscher requested to vote on agenda item 10b(1) separately since she was not present during that meeting.

MCCARTHY/BIALA: TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA MINUS 10b(1) . 4 -0- 1(Delgado)-0 Motion Passes
MCCARTHY/BIALA: TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 10b(1) . 3 -0-1(Delgado)-0 Motion Passes

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS: In the Council’s discretion, the applicant/proponent of an item may be given up to ten (10) minutes to speak. All other persons may be given up to three (3) minutes to speak on the matter.
a. Council open a public hearing and consider adopting Resolution No. 2024-48, confirming diagram, assessment and ordering levy of $ 180.78 for FY 2024-25 assessment for Cypress Cove II Landscape Maintenance Assessment District; and authorize City Clerk to file a certified copy of the diagram and assessment with the Monterey County Auditor -Controller prior to August 1, 202 4. (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378)
Mayor Opened public hearing for comments: None received.

MCADAMS/MCCARTHY: TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -48, C ONFIRMING DIAGRAM, ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING LEVY OF $180.78 FOR FY 2024 -25

ASSESSMENT FOR CYPRESS COVE II LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT; AND AUTHORIZE CITY CLERK TO FILE A CERTIFIED

COPY OF THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT WITH THE MONTEREY COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER PRIOR TO AUGUST 1, 2024 . 4 -0-1(Delgado)-0 Motion Passes.

b. Council open a public hearing and consider adopting Resolution No. 2024-49, Confirming diagram, assessment and ordering levy of $182.42 for FY 2024 - 25 assessment for Seabreeze Landscape Maintenance Assessment District; and authorize the City Clerk to file a certified copy of the diagram and assessment with the Monterey County Auditor -Controller prior to August 1, 2024. (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378) Mayor Opened public hearing for comments: None received.

MCCARTHY/BIALA: TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -49, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM, ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING LEVY OF $182.42 FOR FY 2024 -25

ASSESSMENT FOR SEABREEZE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT; AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY CLERK TO FILE A CERTIFIED COPY OF

THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT WITH THE MONTEREY COUNTY AUDITOR - CONTROLLER PRIOR TO AUGUST 1, 2024. 4-0-1(Delgado)-0 Motion Passes

c. Council open a public hearing and consider adopting Resolution No. 2024-50, Confirming diagram, assessment and ordering levy of $ 77.14 for FY 2024-25 assessment for Monterey Bay Estates Lighting & Landscape Maintenance Assessment District; and authorize the City Clerk to file a certified copy of the diagram and assessment with the Monterey County Auditor -Controller prior to August 1, 2024. (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378) Mayor Opened public hearing for comments: None received. 4 MINUTES for City Council Meeting of Tuesday, May 21, 2024 Page 5

BIALA/MCCARTHY: TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -50, CONFIRMING DIAGRAM, ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING LEVY OF $77.14 FOR FY 2024 -25

ASSESSMENT FOR MONTEREY BAY ESTATES LIGHTING & LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT; AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY CLERK

TO FILE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT WITH THE MONTEREY COUNTY AUDITOR -CONTROLLER PRIOR TO AUGUST 1, 2024 . 4 -0- 1(Delgado)-0 Motion Passes
d. City Council to consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s April 11, 2024, approval of Coastal Development Permit (CDP 23 -0004) for the Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) SURF! Busway and Rapid Transit (BRT) project. The Appeal is limited to the 0.37 -acre portion of the TAMC right -of- way located in the City’s Coastal permitting jurisdiction. The project is statutorily exempt from CEQA under SB 922, PRC § 21080.25(b). Item continued to June 4, 2024.

Mayor Opened public hearing for comments:

The following people spoke in support of the MST Project:

Kevin Date, Todd Muck, Michael Hernandez, Christopher Wilmot, Nickolas Crecker, Maryann Leffel, Wendy Root Askew, Mike LeBarre, Tonja Roos.

The following people spoke in opposition of the MST Project:

Howard Gustafson, Unknown person, Margaret Davis, Tommy Bolea

BIALA/MCCARTHY: TO TABLE/CONTINUED THIS ITEM AND DISCUSS IN CLOSED SESSION AND OPEN SESSION WITHIN THE 60 -DAY TIMEFRAME . 4-0- 1(Delgado)-0 Motion Passes

e. City Council open public hearing and consider introduction of Ordinance No. 2024-06, modifying Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) to implement Program 7.1 of the Housing Element. This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Mayor Opened public hearing for comments: None received.

BIALA/MCADAMS: TO APPROV E THE INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2024-06, MODIFYING TITLE 17 (ZONING ORDINANCE) TO IMPLEMENT PROGRAM 7.1 OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT. THIS ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061(B)(3) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. 4-0-1(Delgado)-0 Motion Passes

12. OTHER ACTIONS ITEMS OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER MARINA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY : Action listed for each Agenda item is that which is requested by staff. The Successor Agency may, at its discretion, take action on any items. Members of the public may be given up to three (3) minutes to speak.

5 MINUTES for City Council Meeting of Tuesday, May 21, 2024 Page 6

13. OTHER ACTION ITEMS: Action listed for each Agenda item is that which is requested by staff. The City Council may, at its discretion, take action on any items. Members of the public may be given up to three (3) minutes to speak.

Note: No additional major projects or programs should be undertaken without review of the impacts on existing priorities (Resolution No. 2006-79 – April 4, 2006). a. Adopting Resolution No. 2024 -51, amending the rate adjustment calculation of the franchise agreement with Green Waste Recovery utilizing a sector specific uniform percentage adjustment and approving maximum rates to be charged by Green Waste Recovery effective July 1, 2024, for collection of franchised solid waste, recycling, and organics. (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378)
Public Comments: None received.

MCADAMS/BIALA: TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -51, AMENDING THE RATE

ADJUSTMENT CALCULATION OF THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH GREEN

WASTE RECOVERY UTILIZING A SECTOR SPECIFIC UNIFORM PERCENTAGE

ADJUSTMENT AND APPROVING MAXIMUM RATES TO BE CHARGED BY GREEN WASTE RECOVERY EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2024, FOR COLLECTION OF FRANCHISED SOLID WASTE, RECYCLING, AND ORGANICS . 4-0-1(Delgado)-0 Motion Passes

14. COUNCIL & STAFF INFORMATIONAL REPORTS:
a. Monterey County Mayor’s Association [Mayor Bruce Delgado] b. Council reports on meetings and conferences attended ( Gov’t Code Section 53232).

15. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:42 P.M.

Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk

ATTEST:

Liesbeth Visscher, Mayor Pro Tem
6 May 30, 2024 Item No. 10e(1)

Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of
of the Marina City Council June 4, 2024

RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 20 24-, APPROVING ADVERTISING AND CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 2024

CITYWIDE STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Adopting Resolution No. 20 24-, approving advertising and call for bids for the 2024 Citywide Street Reconstruction Project.

BACKGROUND:

At the regular meeting of June 20, 2023, the City Council of the City of Marina adopted Resolution No. 2023-66, receiving a presentation on the City’s Pavement Management Program for Fiscal Years 23/24, 24/25 and 25/26. As part of the staff presentation, the City’s annual street resurfacing project was introduced with Senate Bill 1 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Accoun t funds, Measure X and General Fund funding for roadway maintenance.

ANALYSIS:

The annual resurfacing of streets will extend the useful life of the City’s pavement infrastructure.

Streets are selected by the pavement management program to provide the greatest benefit to the street network within the given budget. The proposed project to be advertised is one of two Phases of Construction for this fiscal year. This Phase will address specific areas of the City that require full-reconstruction of the roadway (EXHIBIT A).

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to calling for bids. The current budget for this project is approximately $11 million. The project’s budget is funded with Senate Bill 1 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account funds, Measure X and General Fund funding for roadway maintenance.

CEQA Findings:

The City has determined the project exempt from environmental review per § 15301(b) of the CEQA Guidelines for Existing Facilities.

CONCLUSION:

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

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________
Edrie Delos Santos, P.E.

Public Works Department
City of Marina

1 REVIEWED/CONCUR:

____________________________
Nourdin Khayata, P.E.

Interim Public Works Director
City of Marina

_____________________________
Layne P. Long
City Manager
City of Marina
2 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA
APPROVING ADVERTISING AND CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 2024

CITYWIDE STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

WHEREAS, at the regular meeting of June 20, 2023, the City Council of the City of Marina adopted Resolution No. 2023 -66, receiving a presentation on the City’s Pavement Management Program for Fiscal Years 23/24, 24/25 and 25/26. As part of the staff presentation, t he City’s annual street resurfacing project was introduced with Senate Bill 1 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account funds, Measure X and General Fund funding for roadway maintenance, and;

WHEREAS, the annual resurfacing of streets will extend the useful life of the City’s pavement infrastructure. Streets are selected by the pavement management program to provide the greatest benefit to the street network within the given budget. The proposed project to be advertised is one of two Phases of Construction for this fiscal year. This Phase will address specific areas of the City that require full-reconstruction of the roadway, and;

WHEREAS, there is no fiscal impact to calling for bids. The current budget for this project is approximately $11 million. The project’s budget is funded with Senate Bill 1 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account funds, Measure X and General Fund funding for roadway maintenance, and;

WHEREAS, the City has determined the project exempt from environmental review per § 15301(b) of the CEQA Guidelines for Existing Facilities, and;

WHEREAS, the project is ready for advertisement.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Marina does hereby approve advertising and call for bids for the 2024 Citywide Street Reconstruction Project.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Marina, 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
3 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

CITY OF MARINA
211 HILLCREST AVENUE
MARINA, CALIFORNIA 93933
PH: (831) 884­1212
FAX: (831) 384­0425
SCALE: NONE
Exhibit A
05/30/2024
Phase 1
Citywide Street
Reconstruction Exhibit
CIP APR1801

EXHIBIT A
4 May 22, 2024 Item No. 10f(1)
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Marina City Council of June 4, 2024
CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 20 24-,

CERTIFYING CITY OF MARINA COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW
(PROPOSITION 218) WITH RESPECT TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR

THE CYPRESS COVE II LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025
RECOMMENDATION:

It is requested that the City Council consider:
(1) Adopting Resolution No. 20 24-, certifying City of Marina compliance with State law (Proposition 218) with respect to special assessment for the Cypress Cove II Landscape Maintenance Assessment District for FY 2024-2025.

BACKGROUND:

On May 21 2024, the City Council passed Resolution No. 202 4-48, setting FY 2024-2025 special assessment for the Cypress Cove II Landscape Maintenance Assessment District, as recommended in the Engineer's report.

Except for the Constitutionally-limited 1% ad valorem tax, the Monterey County Auditor -Controller will not place taxes, assessments, fees or charges on the rolls unless the City Council certifies by resolution that the City is in compliance with Proposition 218, the 1996 'Right to Vote on Taxes Act ' with respect to each such tax, assessment, fee and charge. Certification resolution(s) must contain hold harmless and indemnification provisions for administrative expenses of the County associated with collection of the City's taxes, assessments, fees and charges placed on the rolls. These certifications, along with copies of the resolutions setting the tax, assessment fee and/or charge rates and certain other documentation, must be submitted to the County no later than August 1, 2024.

ANALYSIS:

The following special levy, adopted by Resolution No. 2024-48 on May 21, 2024, is for assessment district operations and must be included in the certification adopted by the Council:

Cypress Cove II Landscape Maintenance Assessment District $ 180.78 FISCAL IMPACT:

Special assessments finance the assessment district's approved maintenance. Total to be credited to the district is as follows:

Cypress Cove II Landscape Maintenance Assessment District $ 19,885.80 1 CONCLUSION:

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

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________
Edrie Delos Santos, P.E.

Public Works Department
City of Marina

REVIEWED/CONCUR:

________________________________
Laura Pruneda, CPA
Finance Director
City of Marina

____________________________
Nourdin Khayata
Interim Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Marina

________________________________
Layne P. Long
City Manager
City of Marina

2 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MARINA CERTIFYING

COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW WITH RESPECT TO
LEVYING OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025

WHEREAS, The City of Marina requests that the Monterey County Auditor -Controller enter the special assessment identified in Exhibit “A” on the property tax roll for collection and distribution by the Monterey County Treasurer-Tax Collector commencing with the property tax bills for fiscal year 2024-25 (“EXHIBIT A”).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Marina as follows:

1. The City hereby certifies that it has, without limitation, complied with all legal procedures and requirements necessary for the levying and imposition of the general or special taxes and assessments identified in EXHIBIT A regardless of whether those procedures and requirements are set forth in the Constitution of the State of California, in State statutes, or in the applicable decisional law of the State of California.

2. The City further certifies that, except for the sole negligence or misconduct of the County of Monterey, its officers, employees and agents, the City shall be solely liable and responsible for defending, at its sole expense, cost and risk, each and every action, suit or other proceeding brought against the County of Monterey, its officers, employees and agents for every claim, demand or challenge to the levying or imposition of the general or special taxes and assessments identified in EXHIBIT A and that the City shall pay or satisfy any judgment rendered against the County of Monterey, its officers, employees and agents on every such action, suit, or other proceeding, including all claims for refunds and interest thereon, legal fees, court costs and adminis trative expenses of the County of Monterey to correct the tax rolls.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Marina City Council at a regular meeting duly held on the 4th day of June 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: Council Members:

NOES: Council Members:

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:

_________________________
Bruce C. Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:

__________________________
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk

3 EXHIBIT A

ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 2024-__ OF THE CITY OF MARINA, COUNTY

OF MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW

WITH RESPECT TO THE LEVYING OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025

PER-PARCEL ASSESSMENTS:

Assessment District – Operations:
• Cypress Cove II Landscape Maintenance Assessment District $180.78

4 May 22, 2024 Item No. 10f(2)
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Marina City Council of June 4, 2024
CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 20 24-,

CERTIFYING CITY OF MARINA COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW
(PROPOSITION 218) WITH RESPECT TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR

THE SEABREEZE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025
RECOMMENDATION:

It is requested that the City Council consider:
(1) Adopting Resolution No. 2024-, certifying City of Marina compliance with State law (Proposition 218) with respect to special assessment for the Seabreeze Landscape Maintenance Assessment District for FY 2024-2025.

BACKGROUND:

On May 21, 2024, the City Council passed Resolution 2024-49 setting FY 2024/25 special assessment for the Seabreeze Landscape Maintenance Assessment District as recommended in the engineer's report.

Except for the Constitutionally-limited 1% ad valorem tax, the Monterey County Auditor -Controller will not place taxes, assessments, fees or charges on the rolls unless the City Council certifies by resolution that the City is in compliance with Propositio n 218, the 1996 ' Right to Vote on Taxes Act ' with respect to each such tax, assessment, fee and charge. Certification resolution(s) must contain hold harmless and indemnification provisions for administrative expenses of the County associated with collection of the City's taxes, assessments, fees and charges placed on the rolls. These certifications, along with copies of the resolutions setting the tax, assessment fee and/or charge rates and certain other documentation, must be submitted to the County no later than August 1, 2024.

ANALYSIS:

The following special levy, adopted by Resolution 2024-49 on May 21, 2024, is for assessment district operations and must be included in the certification adopted by the Council:

Seabreeze Landscape Maintenance Assessment District $ 182.42 per parcel FISCAL IMPACT:

Special assessments finance the assessment district's approved maintenance. Total to be credited to the district is as follows:

Seabreeze Landscape Maintenance Assessment District $ 6,749.54 CONCLUSION:

This request is submitted for City Council consideration and possible action. 1 Respectfully submitted,

____________________________
Edrie Delos Santos, P.E.

Public Works Department
City of Marina

REVIEWED/CONCUR:

________________________________
Laura Pruneda, CPA
Finance Director
City of Marina

____________________________
Nourdin Khayata
Interim Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Marina

________________________________
Layne P. Long
City Manager
City of Marina

2 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MARINA CERTIFYING

COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW WITH RESPECT TO
LEVYING OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025

WHEREAS, The City of Marina requests that the Monterey County Auditor -Controller enter those special assessments identified in Exhibit “A” on the property tax roll for collection and distribution by the Monterey County Treasurer-Tax Collector commencing with the property tax bills for fiscal year 2024-2025 (“EXHIBIT A”).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Marina as follows:

1. The City hereby certifies that it has, without limitation, complied with all legal procedures and requirements necessary for the levying and imposition of the general or special taxes and assessments identified in EXHIBIT A regardless of whether those procedures and requirements are set forth in the Constitution of the State of California, in State statutes, or in the applicable decisional law of the State of California.

2. The City further certifies that, except for the sole negligence or misconduct of the County of Monterey, its officers, employees and agents, the City shall be solely liable and responsible for defending, at its sole expense, cost and risk, each and every action, suit or other proceeding brought against the County of Monterey, its officers, employees and agents for every claim, demand or challenge to the levying or imposition of the general or special taxes and assessments identified in EXHIBIT A and that the City shall pay or satisfy any judgment rendered against the County of Monterey, its officers, employees and agents on every such action, suit, or other proceeding, including all claims for refunds and interest thereon, legal fees, court costs and adminis trative expenses of the County of Monterey to correct the tax rolls.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Marina City Council at a regular meeting duly held on the 4th day of June 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: Council Members:

NOES: Council Members:

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:

_________________________
Bruce C. Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:

__________________________
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk

3 EXHIBIT A

ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 2024-__ OF THE CITY OF MARINA, COUNTY

OF MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW

WITH RESPECT TO THE LEVYING OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025

PER-PARCEL ASSESSMENTS:

Assessment Districts – Operations:
• Seabreeze Landscape Maintenance Assessment District $182.42

4 May 22, 2024 Item No. 10f(3)
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Marina City Council of June 4, 2024
CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 20 24-,

CERTIFYING CITY OF MARINA COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW
(PROPOSITION 218) WITH RESPECT TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR

THE MONTEREY BAY ESTATES LANDSCAPE M AINTENANCE
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025
RECOMMENDATION:

It is requested that the City Council consider:
(1) Adopting Resolution No. 20 24-, certifying City of Marina compliance with State law (Proposition 218) with respect to special assessment for the Monterey Bay Estates Landscape Maintenance Assessment District for FY 2024-2025.

BACKGROUND:

On May 21, 2024, the City Council passed Resolution No. 2024-50 setting the FY 2024/25 special assessment for the Monterey Bay Estates Landscape Maintenance Assessment District as recommended in the engineer's report.

Except for the Constitutionally-limited 1% ad valorem tax, the Monterey County Auditor -Controller will not place taxes, assessments, fees or charges on the rolls unless the City Council certifies by resolution that the City is in compliance with Proposition 218, the 1996 ' Right to Vote on Taxes Act ' with respect to each such tax, assessment, fee and charge. Certification resolution(s) must contain hold harmless and indemnification provisions for administrative expenses of the County associated with collection of the City's taxes, assessments, fe es and charges placed on the rolls. These certifications, along with copies of the resolutions setting the tax, assessment fee and/or charge rates and certain other documentation, must be submitted to the County no later than August 1, 2024.

ANALYSIS:

The following special levy, adopted by Resolution 2024-50 on May 21, 2024, is for assessment district operations and must be included in the certification adopted by the Council:

Monterey Bay Estates Landscape Maintenance Assessment District $ 77.14 per parcel FISCAL IMPACT:

Special assessments finance the assessment district's approved maintenance. Total to be credited to the district is as follows:

Monterey Bay Estates Landscape Maintenance Assessment District $ 12,496.68 1 CONCLUSION:

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

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________
Edrie Delos Santos, P.E.

Public Works Department
City of Marina

REVIEWED/CONCUR:

________________________________
Laura Pruneda, CPA
Finance Director
City of Marina

____________________________
Nourdin Khayata
Interim Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Marina

________________________________
Layne P. Long
City Manager
City of Marina

2 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MARINA CERTIFYING

COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW WITH RESPECT TO
LEVYING OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025

WHEREAS, The City of Marina requests that the Monterey County Auditor -Controller enter that special assessment identified in Exhibit “A” on the property tax roll for collection and distribution by the Monterey County Treasurer-Tax Collector commencing with the property tax bills for fiscal year 2024-2025 (“EXHIBIT A”).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Marina as follows:

1. The City hereby certifies that it has, without limitation, complied with all legal procedures and requirements necessary for the levying and imposition of the general or special taxes and assessments identified in EXHIBIT A regardless of whether those procedures and requirements are set forth in the Constitution of the State of California, in State statutes, or in the applicable decisional law of the State of California.

2. The City further certifies that, except for the sole negligence or misconduct of the County of Monterey, its officers, employees and agents, the City shall be solely liable and responsible for defending, at its sole expense, cost and risk, each and every action, suit or other proceeding brought against the County of Monterey, its officers, employees and agents for every claim, demand or challenge to the levying or imposition of the general or special taxes and assessments identified in EXHIBIT A and that the City shall pay or satisfy any judgment rendered against the County of Monterey, its officers, employees and agents on every such action, suit, or other proceeding, including all claims for refunds and interest thereon, legal fees, court costs and adminis trative expenses of the County of Monterey to correct the tax rolls.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Marina City Council at a regular meeting duly held on the 4th day of June 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: Council Members:

NOES: Council Members:

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:

_________________________
Bruce C. Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:

__________________________
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk

3 EXHIBIT A

ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 2024-__ OF THE CITY OF MARINA, COUNTY

OF MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW

WITH RESPECT TO THE LEVYING OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025

PER-PARCEL ASSESSMENTS:

Assessment District – Operations:
• Monterey Bay Estates Landscape Maintenance Assessment District $77.14

4 June 4, 2024 Item No. 10f(4)
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Marina City Council of June 4, 2024
CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 2024-,

APPROVAL OF CORRECTIONS TO THE SALARY SCHEDULE FOR THE

MPSMA FIRE DIVISION CHIEF
REQUEST:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Adopting Resolution No. 2024-, approving a correction to the salary schedule for the MPSMA Fire Division Chief.

BACKGROUND:

At the May 7th Council meeting, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Marina Professional Firefighters Association (MPFFA) and the Marina Public Safety Management Association (MPSMA) that included salary schedules. The salary schedule for the MPSMA Fire Division Chief included in the staff report was inaccurate, as the numbers listed in the staff report were calculated based on the previous agreement, which listed the 2021 salary changes. The salary schedule table did not reflect the 2022 increases.

Per the MOU, the Fire Division Chief salary range will be at least 5% above the Step E of the Fire Captain salary range. The budget calculations were accurate, as these were based on current payroll and finance data.

ANALYSIS:

Staff is requesting approval to make the necessary corrections to the salary schedules for the MPSMA Fire Division Chief.

The calculation for the salary schedule for the Fire Division Chief is as follows:

Fire Captain Step E: $45.2322
$45.2322 X 2912 (scheduled hours) = $131,719.166 (annual salary) $131,719.166 ÷ 2080 (Fire Division Chief scheduled hours) = $63.32508 $63.32508 X 5% = $66.491334 (Fire Division Chief Step A) The previously approved 2023 and 2024 cost of living increases for the MPFFA and MPSMA have not changed. The proposed corrections align with the City Council focus and commitment to accuracy and transparency. Attached as “EXHIBIT A” is the corrected salary schedule for the MPSMA Fire Division Chief. Changes reflect only the corrections to the salary schedule.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact for the correction to the salary schedule. 1 CONCLUSION:

This request is submitted for City Council consideration and approval.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________
Belinda Varela, Director,
Human Resources & Risk Management
City of Marina

REVIEWED/CONUR:

____________________________
Layne Long
City Manager
City of Marina

2 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA APPROVING A

CORRECTION TO THE SALARY SCHEDULE FOR THE MPSMA

WHEREAS, on May 7th, 2024, the City Council approved salary changes and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Marina Professional Firefighters Association (MPFFA) and the Marina Public Safety Management Association (MPSMA); and,

WHEREAS, staff identified necessary corrections to the salary table for the MPSMA Fire Division Chief salary; and,

WHEREAS, the is no additional fiscal impact of the corrections; and,

WHEREAS all other terms of the Memorandum of Understanding remain unchanged.

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

1. Adopting Resolution No. 2024- approving a correction to the salary schedule for the MPSMA.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Marina at a regular meeting duly held on the 7th 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

3 Exhibit A

SALARY SCHEDULES

Effective July 2023

MPSMA
Title Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
Fire Division
Chief $ 66.4913 $ 69.8159 $ 73.3067 $ 76.9720 $ 80.8206

4 May 29, 2024 Item No. 10f(5)

Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of
of the Marina City Council June 4, 2024

CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 20 24-,

ADOPTING A N UPDATED LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2024-25 FUNDED BY SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Adopting Resolution No. 2024-, adopting an updated list of projects for Fiscal Year 2024-25 funded by SB 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.

BACKGROUND:

On April 28, 2017 the Governor signed Senate Bill 1 (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017), which is known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. To address basic road maintenance, rehabilitation and critical safety needs on both the state highway and local streets and road system, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1): increases per gallon fuel excise taxes; increases diesel fuel sales taxes and vehicle registration fees; and provides for inflationary adjustments to tax rates in future years.

The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 provides $5.2 billion annually and is a significant investment in California’s transportation infrastructure. The bill provides $15 billion for local streets and roads over the next ten years. Monterey County's share of the local streets and roads funding is approximately $20.4 million in fiscal year 2024/25.

Beginning November 1, 2017, the State Controller deposits various portions of this new funding into the newly created Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA). A percentage of this new RMRA funding is apportioned by formula to eligible cities and counties for basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety projects on the local streets and roads system.

Prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds from the State Controller in a fiscal year, a city or county must submit to the California Transportation Commission a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds. All projects proposed to receive funding must be adopted by resolution by the applicable city council or county board of supervisors at a regular public meeting. The list of projects must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement. This report is due to the California Transportation Commission by July 1st of each year.

In addition to the project list report, for each fiscal year in which RMRA funds are received and expended, cities and counties must submit documentation to the California Transportation Commission that details the expenditure of all RMRA funds, including a description and location of each completed project, the amount of funds expended on the project, the completion date, and the estimated useful life of the improvement. This report on expenditures is due to the California Transportation Commission by October 1st of each year.

1 ANALYSIS:

As part of the City’s Pavement Management Program’s annual street maintenance project budget, the City has developed a fiscal year project list that will utilize the RMRA funds to supplement the financing of project administration and construction. This project list is substantially consistent with funding appropriations previously approved by the Council for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Annual Street Resurfacing . The City Council can add more streets to the Annual Street Resurfacing street segment list at a later date as a result of the budget approval process for Fiscal Year 24/25.

The proposed list (“EXHIBIT A”) is a representation of the City’s intent for roadway maintenance projects to the California Transportation Commission to fulfill its annual reporting requirements and can be amended after submission . This action only pertains to the proposed expenditure of RMRA funds for the fiscal year 202 4-2025. Once adopted, staff will enter the project list into the State SB1 Programs Project Intake website prior to the July 1st deadline.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Should the City Council approve this request, the entry of the City’s proposed project list will allow the City to receive an estimated $571,551 of SB 1 revenue. The submission of the project list is a declaration of intent to the California Transportation Commission that the City will dedicate the RMRA funds towards roadway maintenance.

CONCLUSION:

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

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________
Edrie Delos Santos, P.E.

Public Works Department
City of Marina

REVIEWED/CONCUR:

____________________________
Nourdin Khayata, P.E.

Interim Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Marina

_____________________________
Layne P. Long
City Manager
City of Marina

2 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA
ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 FUNDED BY SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and

WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of our City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, the City must adopt by resolution a list of projects proposed to receive fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and

WHEREAS, the City, will receive an estimated $571,551in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2024- 25 from SB 1; and

WHEREAS, this is the eighth year in which the City is receiving SB 1 funding and will enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, repairing and replacing aging bridges, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1; and

WHEREAS, the City has presented pavement rehabilitation scenarios at public meetings to ensure public input into our community’s project list; and

WHEREAS, the City used a Pavement Management System to develop the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high -priority and cost -effective projects that also meet the communities priorities for transportation investment; and

WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate 25 lane miles throughout the City this year and similar projects into the future; and

WHEREAS, the 20 23 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the City’s streets and roads are in an “at -lower-risk” condition and this revenue will help us increase the overall quality of our road system and over the next decade will bring our streets and roads into a “good” condition; and

WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure, and using cutting -edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide.

3 Resolution No. 2024-
Page Two

NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, ORDERED AND FOUND by the City Council of the City of Marina, State of California, as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The following list of newly proposed projects will be funded in-part or solely with Fiscal Year 2024-25 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:

Project Title: APR1801 Annual Street Resurfacing, Phase 1 Project Description: Phase 1 – Full Reconstruction & Overlay Project Location: Various Locations (See Exhibit A)
Estimated Project Schedule: Start (04/25)– Completion (08/25) based on the component being funded with RMRA funds
Estimated Project Useful Life: 25yrs

Project Title: APR1801 Annual Street Resurfacing, Phase 2 Project Description: Phase 2 – Microsurfacing
Project Location: Various Locations (See Exhibit A)
Estimated Project Schedule: Start (05/25)– Completion (07/25) based on the component being funded with RMRA funds
Estimated Project Useful Life: 10yrs

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Marina at a regular meeting 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

4 EXHIBIT A
SB 1 PROJECT LIST FOR CTC
Scenario: FY 24/25
St
reets Selected for Treatment
Project Description:

Location:

Usefull Life: Reconstruction, 20 to 25 years; Microsurfacing and Slurry Seal, 5 to 10 years Completion: Project Phase 1: April through August 2025 Project Phase 2: May through July 2025 RoadName BegLocation EndLocation Treatment Useful Life (Yrs) PCI Prior PCI Treated TreatmentCost Cost
BEACH RD R ESERVATION RD 436' W/O MARINA DR 2" OVERLAY 25 42 100 4.7 115,112.40 BELLE DR CARDOZA AVE END 2" OVERLAY 25 40 100 4.7 105,923.90 CALIFORNIA AVE CARMEL AVE RESERVATION RD 2" OVERLAY 25 63 100 4.7 353,740.80 CARMEL AVE SEACREST AVE ZANETTA DR 2" OVERLAY 25 44 100 4.7 188,188.00 CRESCENT ST Patton Parkway Reindollar Ave 2" OVERLAY 25 46 100 4.7 126,251.40 DE FOREST RD Reservation Rd 304 N/O OAK CIR 2" OVERLAY 25 50 100 4.7 308,846.40 DE FOREST RD 304 N/O OAK CIR Beach Rd 2" OVERLAY 25 45 100 4.7 182,247.20 DUNES CT Reservation Rd North City Limit 2" OVERLAY 25 46 100 4.7 445,682.20 EDDY ST CONCORD CT SOUTH CDS 2" OVERLAY 25 46 100 4.7 34,178.40 EXETER PL California Ave END 2" OVERLAY 25 47 100 4.7 64,982.20 FEHRING PL Messinger Dr END 2" OVERLAY 25 45 100 4.7 33,802.40 FITZGERALD CIR Beach Rd END 2" OVERLAY 25 40 100 4.7 100,678.70 FOREST CIR Bayer St END 2" OVERLAY 25 48 100 4.7 69,790.30 GREENBROOK PL Lakewood Dr END 2" OVERLAY 25 46 100 4.7 36,166.50 HILLCREST AVE WEST END 138' W/O OWEN AVE 2" OVERLAY 25 70 100 4.7 137,902.70 HILLCREST AVE VAUGHNAN AVE 120 E/O OTTO DR 2" OVERLAY 25 50 100 4.7 173,204.40 JOHNSON PL Tallmon St END 2" OVERLAY 25 48 100 4.7 32,077.50 KAILUA CR Ninole Dr END 2" OVERLAY 25 45 100 4.7 44,438.50 LAKE DR MESSINGER DR RESERVOIR RD 2" OVERLAY 25 45 100 4.7 206,767.10 LAKEWOOD DR DREW ST CARDOZA AVE 2" OVERLAY 25 43 100 4.7 115,808.00 LAKEWOOD DR CARDOZA AVE ABDY WY 2" OVERLAY 25 44 100 4.7 114,304.00 LAVELL CT Salinas Ave END 2" OVERLAY 25 48 100 4.7 27,847.50 LEWIS PL Barrett Ln END 2" OVERLAY 25 44 100 4.7 139,143.50 LIBERTY CT INDEPENDENCE AVE LIBERTY CT 2" OVERLAY 25 46 100 4.7 33,948.10 LIEVRY WAY Parson Cir END 2" OVERLAY 25 49 100 4.7 102,427.10 MAGYAR PL Messinger Dr END 2" OVERLAY 25 44 100 4.7 54,054.70 MESSINGER DR SHOEMAKER PL LAKE DR (N) 2" OVERLAY 25 41 100 4.7 132,164.00 PENINSULA DR VISTA DEL CAMINO EUCALYPTUS ST 2" OVERLAY 25 41 100 4.7 68,041.90 REDWOOD DR Reindollar Ave Hillcrest Ave 2" OVERLAY 25 47 100 4.7 88,491.60 SILVERWOOD PL Cardoza Ave END 2" OVERLAY 25 45 100 4.7 42,130.80 SUNRISE PL Sunrise Ave END 2" OVERLAY 25 45 100 4.7 83,472.00 TAMARA CT California Ave END 2" OVERLAY 25 50 100 4.7 14,344.40 TWELFTH ST Eleventh St Fourth Ave 2" OVERLAY 25 46 100 4.7 272,191.10 VISTA DEL CAMINO Reservation Rd PENINSULA DR 2" OVERLAY 25 47 100 4.7 177,754.00 WEBER CIR Zanetta Dr END 2" OVERLAY 25 49 100 4.7 44,415.00 WINDSOR CT California Ave END 2" OVERLAY 25 46 100 4.7 65,710.70 HAYES CIR Third Ave Booker St 2" OVERLAY 25 50 100 4.7 171,441.90 KENNEDY CT Reindollar Ave SOUTH END 2" OVERLAY 25 50 100 4.7 124,573.50 NEESON RD INDIA ST W END 2" OVERLAY 25 48 100 4.7 153,690.00 ORA CT Cardoza Ave END 2" OVERLAY 25 50 100 4.7 41,877.00 REINDOLLAR AVE MAX CIR VAUGHN AVE 2" OVERLAY 25 47 100 4.7 199,985.00 PARK CIR De Forest Rd END Full Reconstruction 25 23 100 11.6 164,430.00 INDEPENDENCE AVE Reindollar Ave SOUTH END Full Reconstruction 25 24 100 11.6 314,290.40 EDDY CIR Reindollar Ave NORTH END Full Reconstruction 25 24 100 11.6 92,510.00 FOURTH AVE Imjin Parkway Twelfth St Full Reconstruction 25 10 100 11.6 247,950.00 MILRAY CT Redwood Dr END Full Reconstruction 25 25 100 11.6 60,134.40 REAMS CT Belle Dr END Full Reconstruction 25 24 100 11.6 50,112.00 Project/Phase 1 - Reconstruction & Overlay Total: 5,957,223.60 The Annual Street Resurfacing Projects will be c onstructed in two project phases, to include:
(1) Full Reconstruction or Overlay of Failed Streets, and (2) Microsurfacing Treatment of existing pavement.

Several locations throughout the City have been identified as in need of these improvements. Segments from Abdy Way, Peppertree Circle, and Barrett Lane are being considered to receive the proposed treatments in the annual projects.

Page 1 of 2 ends

5 EXHIBIT A
SB 1 PROJECT LIST FOR CTC
Scenario: FY 24/25
Streets Selected for Treatment
RoadName BegLocation EndLocation Treatment Useful Life (Yrs) PCI Prior PCI Treated TreatmentCost Cost
HILLCREST AVE 120 E/O OTTO DR REDWOOD DR MICROSURFACING 10 68 77 0.5 8,621.00 IMJIN PARKWAY SR 1 SECOND AVE MICROSURFACING 10 84 91 0.5 23,199.00 IMJIN PARKWAY SECOND AVE THIRD AVE MICROSURFACING 10 84 91 0.5 19,950.00 IMJIN PARKWAY THIRD AVE FOURTH AVE MICROSURFACING 10 84 91 0.5 17,895.00 IMJIN PARKWAY FOURTH AVE CALIFORNIA AVE MICROSURFACING 10 84 91 0.5 17,310.00 IMJIN PARKWAY CALIFORNIA AVE ABRAMS DR (W) MICROSURFACING 10 84 91 0.5 20,220.00 IMJIN PARKWAY ABRAMS DR (W) IMJIN RD MICROSURFACING 10 84 91 0.5 15,600.00 IMJIN PARKWAY IMJIN RD ABRAMS DR (W) MICROSURFACING 10 84 91 0.5 14,560.00 IMJIN PARKWAY ABRAMS DR (W) CALIFORNIA AVE MICROSURFACING 10 86 92 0.5 20,220.00 IMJIN PARKWAY THIRD AVE SECOND AVE MICROSURFACING 10 82 90 0.5 19,950.00 IMJIN PARKWAY SECOND AVE SR 1 MICROSURFACING 10 78 86 0.5 18,315.00 IMJIN RD RESERVATION RD UNIVERSITY DR MICROSURFACING 10 62 72 0.5 28,000.00 LAKE DR LAKE CT 270 S/O PALM AVE MICROSURFACING 10 80 87 0.5 12,555.00 PATTON PARKWAY W END CRESCENT AVE MICROSURFACING 10 85 92 0.5 10,080.00 PATTON PARKWAY CRESCENT AVE 1165' W/O CALIFORNIA AVE MICROSURFACING 10 85 92 0.5 19,212.50 PATTON PARKWAY 1165' W/O CALIFORNIA AVE CALIFORNIA AVE MICROSURFACING 10 85 92 0.5 12,815.00 PAUL DAVIS DR Healy Ave Marina Greens Dr MICROSURFACING 10 80 87 0.5 21,182.50 REINDOLLAR AVE SUNSET AVE MAX CIR MICROSURFACING 10 64 74 0.5 23,865.00 RESERVATON RD STATE BEACH LOT DUNES DR MICROSURFACING 10 66 75 0.5 7,857.00 RESERVATON RD BEACH RD SEASIDE CT MICROSURFACING 10 64 74 0.5 42,680.00 RESERVATON RD 630' E/O CRESCENT AVE CALIFORNIA AVE MICROSURFACING 10 65 75 0.5 38,302.00 RESERVATON RD SALINAS AVE CALIFORNIA AVE MICROSURFACING 10 66 75 0.5 50,820.00 RESERVATON RD CALIFORNIA AVE 630' E/O CRESCENT AVE MICROSURFACING 10 69 78 0.5 38,302.00 RESERVATON RD MBEST DR IMJIN PKWY MICROSURFACING 10 66 75 0.5 40,020.00 RESERVATON RD ROBIN DR SEASIDE CT MICROSURFACING 10 85 92 0.5 15,542.00 RESERVATON RD 630' E/O CRESCENT AVE CRESCENT AVE MICROSURFACING 10 82 89 0.5 11,970.00 SECOND AVE GENERAL STILLWELL DR 415 S/O GENERAL STILLWELL DR MICROSURFACING 10 64 74 0.5 4,565.00 THIRD AVE TENTH ST IMJIN PKWY MICROSURFACING 10 68 77 0.5 20,468.00 Project/Phase 2 - Slurry Seal Total: 594,076.00
FY 24/25 Program (Phase 1 & 2) Total: 6,551,299.60

Page 2 of 2 ends

6 May 3, 2023 Item No. 10g(1)

Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Marina City Council of June 4, 2024

CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 2024-, AMENDING

THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) REGARDING
COOPERATIVE ASSISTANCE TO COMPLY WITH SENATE BILL 1383, FOOD

WASTE REDUCTION AND ORGANICS RECYCLING REGULATIONS ,

INCORPORATING CHANGES IN THE ANNUAL COST OF PROGRAM

ACTIVITIES, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE MOU

SUBJECT TO FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ATTORNEY ,

AND AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO MAKE NECESSARY
ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETARY ENTRIES.

REQUEST:

It is requested that the City Council consider adopting Resolution 2024- for the following action:

1. Amending the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding cooperative assistance to comply with Senate Bill 1383, Food Waste Reduction and Organics Recycling Regulations, incorporating changes in the annual cost of program activities; and

2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute the amended MOU (EXHIBIT A) subject to final review and approval by the City Attorney; and

3. Authorizing the Finance Director to make necessary accounting and budgetary entries.

BACKGROUND:

In September 2016, Governor Edmund Brown Jr. set methane emissions reduction targets for California (SB 1383 Lara, Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016) in a statewide effort to reduce emissions of short -lived climate pollutants (SLCP). The targets must reduce organic waste disposa l 50 percent by 2020 and 75 percent by 2025 and rescue for people to eat at least 20 percent of currently disposed surplus food by 2025.

The City of Marina is a Member Agency of ReGen Monterey (ReGen), formerly known as MRWMD Joints Powers Authority , which is responsible for managing solid waste on behalf of the Cities and unincorporated County communities of coastal Monterey County. The City participates on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for SB 1383 led by ReGen and comprised of staff from each member jurisdiction, the three haulers in the ReGen service area, and ReGen staff.

While the regulation places the program implementation responsibility on the member jurisdictions, the TAC has been collectively analyzing who best should implement each element of the regulation between the member jurisdictions, waste haulers, or ReGen. The TAC determined that many of the requirements are best completed using shared resources. As such, an MOU between ReGen and each of its member jurisdictions was created to have ReGen incur the shared costs and bill each member jurisdiction twice annually for reimbursement. The City Council adopted Resolution 2021 -93 on August 17th, 2021 approving the MOU between ReGen and Member Jurisdictions for SB 1383 Shared Costs.

1 In January 2022, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the agency responsible for administering SB 1383, released application guidelines and instructions related to the SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program (OWR1: 2021 -22) as a one -time grant program meant to provide aid in the implementation of regulations adopted by CalRecycle pursuant to Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016 and SB170 Budget Act of 2021. Funding from CalRecyc le was allocated to each jurisdiction based on grant program estimates according to the Department of Finance’s January 2021 population statistics. The City of Marina is eligible for $29,771 in grant funding through this program.

On February 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 2022-20 approving an amendment to the MOU incorporating changes necessary for the regional administration of SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program funding. On June 6, 2023, the City Council approved Resolution 2023- 58 approving an amendment to the MOU with revised Exhibits A and B of the MOU which establish member agency costs for FY 2023-2024.

ANALYSIS:

Each year ReGen staff identifies expected expenses associated with jurisdictional compliance with SB 1383 and compiles those expenses in Exhibit A of the 1383 Shared Costs MOU. Expenses include items such as program administration, public education, monitoring, reporting and edible food recovery capacity building, program administration and outreach. These expenses are then broken down to proportional percentages per population in Exhibit B. The draft budget is first presented to the TAC for review, feedback, and consensus. It then is presented to the ReGen Monterey Board of Directors and Member Agenci es’ Councils and Boards for approval. The amendment to Exhibits A and B of the MOU would supersede exhibits covering previous fiscal years.

On May 24, 2024, the ReGen Board of Directors approved revised Exhibits A and B of the MOU which establish member agency costs for FY 2024-2025.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The estimated annual expense to Marina for FY 20234-2025 will be $59,982 as shown in Exhibit B of the draft MOU (see Attachment), which outlines the estimated annual expenses to each Member Agency of ReGen. These expenses are averaged and weighted on various factors providing an "economy of scale" to each Member Agency depending upon their needs. This includes expenses related to SB 1383 implementation, general shared and monitoring costs for Member Agencies, and franchise agreement management. These effort s, as with past solid waste efforts, are funded through franchise fees collected and remitted to the City.

CONCLUSION:

This request is submitted for City Council consideration and action.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________
Layne Long
City Manager
City of Marina

2 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-58

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA AMENDING

THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) REGARDING COOPERATIVE ASSISTANCE TO COMPLY WITH SENATE BILL 1383, FOOD WASTE REDUCTION

AND ORGANICS RECYCLING REGULATIONS, INCORPORATING CHANGES IN THE

ANNUAL COST OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER

TO EXECUTE THE MOU SUBJECT TO FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE

CITY ATTORNEY, AND AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO MAKE NECESSARY ACCOUNTING AND BUDGETARY ENTRIES.

WHEREAS, in September 2016, Governor Edmund Brown Jr. set methane emissions reduction targets for California (SB 1383 Lara, Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016) in a statewide effort to reduce emissions of short -lived climate pollutants (SLCP). The targets must reduce org anic waste disposal 50 percent by 2020 and 75 percent by 2025 and rescue for people to eat at least 20 percent of currently disposed surplus food by 2025; and

WHEREAS, the City of Marina is a Member Agency of ReGen Monterey (ReGen), formerly known as MRWMD Joints Powers Authority, which is responsible for managing solid waste on behalf of the Cities and unincorporated County communities of coastal Monterey County. The City participates on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for SB 1383 led by ReGen and comprised of staff from each member jurisdiction, the three haulers in the ReGen service area, and ReGen staff; and

WHEREAS, w hile the regulation places the program implementation responsibility on the member jurisdictions, the TAC has been collectively analyzing who best should implement each element of the regulation between the member jurisdictions, waste haulers, or ReGen. The TAC determined that many of the requirements are best completed using shared resources. As such, an MOU between ReGen and each of its member jurisdictions was created to have ReGen incur the shared costs and bill each member jurisdiction twice annually for reimbursement. The City Council adopted Resolution 2021-93 on August 17th, 2021 approving the MOU between ReGen and Member Jurisdictions for SB 1383 Shared Costs; and

WHEREAS, on February 15th, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 2022-20 approving an amendment to the MOU incorporating changes necessary for the regional administration of SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program funding; and

WHEREAS, on June 6, 2023, the City Council approved Resolution 2023 -58 approving an amendment to the MOU with revised Exhibits A and B of the MOU which establish member agency costs for FY 2023-2024; and,

WHEREAS, each year ReGen staff identifies expected expenses associated with jurisdictional compliance with SB 1383 and compiles those expenses in Exhibit A of the 1383 Shared Costs MOU. Expenses include items such as program administration, public education, monitor ing, reporting and edible food recovery capacity building, program administration and outreach. These expenses are then broken down to proportional percentages per population in Exhibit B. The draft budget is first presented to the TAC for review , feedback, and consensus. It then is presented to the ReGen Monterey Board of Directors and Member Agencies’ Councils and Boards for approval. The amendment to Exhibits A and B of the MOU would supersede exhibits covering previous fiscal years; and

WHEREAS, on May 24, 2024, the ReGen Board of Directors approved revised Exhibits A and B of the MOU which establish member agency costs for FY 2024-2025; and 3 Resolution No. 2024-
Page Two

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

1. Amend the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding cooperative assistance to comply with Senate Bill 1383, Food Waste Reduction and Organics Recycling Regulations, incorporating changes in the annual cost of program activities; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the amended MOU (Exhibit A) subject to final review and approval by the City Attorney; and

3. Authorize the Finance Director to make necessary accounting and budgetary entries.

PASSES AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Marina at a regular meeting duly held on the 4th day of June 2023 by the following vote:

AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN, COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Bruce C. Delgado, Mayor

ATTEST:

Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk

4 1

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN THE MONTEREY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND ITS

MEMBER AGENCIES REGARDING ASSISTANCE WITH COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 1383
This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is made and entered into as of the date of the signatures set forth below by and between the MONTEREY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (“District”, “MRWMD”), a California Garbage and Refuse Disposal District, and its member agencies including the cities of CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, DEL REY OAKS, MARINA, MONTEREY, PACIFIC GROVE, SAND CITY, and SEASIDE; THE PEBBLE BEACH COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT; and THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY (“Member Agencies”). Collectively these entities shall be known herein as “Parties” or individually as a “Party.”
Recitals
A. The State of California has passed legislation, known as Senate Bill 1383, California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutants regulation. The regulation will have significant impact on each Member Agency, with the goal of reducing organic material being landfilled by 75% by 2025, compared to a 2014 basis. The legislation mandates that Member Agencies undertake certain activities around the handling of organic waste materials collected within their jurisdictions. The regulation also requires 20% recovery of edible food by 2025 to direct it to a beneficial use and thus prevent it from entering the waste stream. Regulations take effect, and local program implementation will begin, on January 1, 2022.

B. The Member Agencies have determined that it is in their best interest to coordinate their activities related to this legislation. This coordination is being facilitated by the District’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of staff from each Member Agency, the three Haulers in the District service area (Haulers), Salinas Valley Recycles (SVR) and MRWMD.

C. The Member Agencies have further determined that the District has the expertise and resources necessary to implement some of these activities on the Member Agencies’ behalf and have now requested that the District incur costs to provide these activities.

D. The Member Agencies have agreed to reimburse the District for proportionate shares of certain designated annual costs incurred by the District for these activities.

E. The form and content of this MOU have been presented to the TAC, and the TAC has recommended it for approval by the Parties
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by the District and the Member Agencies, and of the promises contained in this MOU, the Parties agree as

EXHIBIT A
5 2
follows:

Section 1. Recitals: The recitals set forth above are incorporated into this MOU.

Section 2. Purpose: The purpose of this MOU is to provide a structure for the Member Agencies to reimburse the District for SB 1383 related activities it performs on behalf of the Member Agencies.

Section 3. Voluntary: This MOU is voluntarily entered into by the Parties for the purpose of facilitating the implementation of SB 1383.

Section 4. Term: This MOU shall become effective on the last day of its execution by a Party and shall remain in effect until terminated by the Parties.

Section 5. Scope of Work, Costs & Cost Sharing: The scope of work, and associated costs, are set out in Exhibit A, entitled Detailed Activities and Costs, attached hereto and incorporated herein. Allocation of such costs to the Member Agencies is set out in Exhibit B, entitled Member Agencies’ Annual Proportionate Shares and Costs, attached hereto and incorporated herein. Exhibit C outlines estimated individual Member Agencies’ allocations related to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program (OWR1: 2021-22), attached hereto and incorporated herein. Exhibit D defines the estimated annual procurement requirements of organic material and estimated cost per ton of compost for each Member Agency, attached hereto and incorporated herein.

No later than March 1 of each year, and at such other times as directed by the Parties, the TAC shall meet to consider and, if deemed necessary, modify Exhibits A, B, C, and/or D subject to direction from the governing bodies of each Member Agency to its TAC representative.

Section 6. The District Agrees:

(a) District staff will manage activities as identified in Exhibit A, C, and D which activities include contracting with third party vendors when reasonably necessary and paying those vendors for contracted costs.

(b) Two times per year, on dates to be determined by the TAC, District will invoice Member Agencies for each Member Agency’s proportionate share of costs as shown in Exhibit B with each invoice to be fifty percent (50%) of the Member Agency’s share of costs.

(c) Upon award of CalRecycle SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program funds, the District will invoice Member Agencies for their full allocation of grant funds as shown in Exhibit C. Four times during the grant term, aligned with dates identified by CalRecycle grant Terms & Conditions, the District shall report to Member Agencies a summary of actual grant expenditures and progress toward grant tasks to date.
6 3

(d) District will maintain an accounting of activities and expenses and provide reconciliation of payments annually. Material differences between estimated costs and actual incurred costs will result in either: 1) an adjustment made to the final annual payment for each Member Agency, or 2) such cost difference shall be incorporated into the subsequent year cost allocation.

(e) In year one only, in recognition of expected continuation of improved recycling revenues for the District from recyclable material sales, the District will off-set $140,000 of the costs identified in Exhibit A. This off-set is reflected in the cost allocations set out in Exhibit B for FY 2021-22.

Section 7. The Member Agencies Agree:

(a) To reimburse the District for all expenses incurred by the District under this MOU in accordance with each Member Agency’s proportionate share as shown on Exhibit B, C, and D.

(b) To make a full-faith effort to cooperate with one another and with the District to achieve the purposes of this MOU by providing information, reviewing information in a timely manner, and informing their respective administration and governing bodies.

Section 8. Termination. Any Party may terminate its participation in this MOU upon giving written notice to the District no later than April 1 of any calendar year during the term of this MOU. Within ten days following a Party’s termination date, such party shall pay District all charges then due and payable and shall pay when determined any additional charges that shall later come due under the MOU, subject to the limits set out in Exhibits A, B, C, and D.

Section 9. General Provisions.

(a) This MOU is binding and for the benefit of the respective successors, heirs, and assigns of each Party and the District; provided however, no Party may assign its respective rights or obligations under this MOU without the prior written consent of the District.

(b) This MOU is governed by, interpreted under, and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

(c) If any provision of this MOU is determined by any court to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable to any extent, then the remainder of this MOU will not be affected, and this MOU will be construed as if the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this MOU.

(d) Waiver by the District or any Party to this MOU of any term, condition, or covenant of this MOU will not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. 7 4
Waiver by the District or any Party of any breach of the provisions of this MOU will not constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this MOU.

(e) This MOU may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which is an original but all of which taken together will constitute one and the same instrument, provided, however, that such counterparts have been delivered to all parties to this MOU.

(f) All parties acknowledge they have been represented, or have had the opportunity to be represented, by counsel in the preparation and negotiation of this MOU. Accordingly, this MOU will be construed according to its fair language. Any ambiguities will be resolved in a collaborative manner by the District and the Parties and must be rectified by amending this MOU.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the District and the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date of their respective signatures.

MONTEREY REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

By: ________________________ DATE: _______________

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________

8 5

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

By: ________________________ DATE: _______________

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________

9 6

CITY OF DEL REY OAKS

By: ________________________ DATE: _______________

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________
10 7

CITY OF MARINA

By: ________________________ DATE: _______________

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________

11 8

CITY OF MONTEREY

By: ________________________ DATE: _______________

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________

12 9

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

By: ________________________ DATE: _______________

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________
13 10

SAND CITY

By: ________________________ DATE: _______________

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________
14 11

CITY OF SEASIDE

By: ________________________ DATE: _______________

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________
15 12

PEBBLE BEACH COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

By: ________________________ DATE: _______________

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________

16 13

COUNTY OF MONTEREY

By: ________________________ DATE: _______________

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________

17 14

EXHIBIT A

DETAILED ACTIVITIES & COSTS
FY 2024-2025

Scope of Work
The activities related to the implementation of SB 1383 may include contracting and policy development; public education; materials purchasing and distribution; reporting; contamination monitoring; edible food waste recovery; enforcement; procurement; organics processing; rate setting; cost monitoring; and any other related activities the Parties choose to address.

The District will take the lead producing public education campaigns in concert with the already- provided Hauler and/or Member Agency resources. The Member Agencies will be responsible for production and mailing fees associated with outreach. The District will also contract with a vendor to administer contamination monitoring in the form of curbside lid flipping. The District will also provide CalRecycle reporting services to the Member Agencies. In addition, funds will be allocated to food recovery organizations for procurement of refrigerated holding facilities or transport vehicles to support edible food recovery efforts.

Costs

18 15

EXHIBIT A

DETAILED ACTIVITIES & COSTS
FY 2024-2025 (CONTINUED)

19 16

EXHIBIT B

MEMBER AGENCIES’ ANNUAL PROPORTIONATE SHARES & COSTS*
FY 2024-2025

*Member Agencies’ proportionate costs subject to adjustment annually in accordance with any change in scope and total costs. Costs “with minimums” will be utilized.

20 17

EXHIBIT C

MEMBER AGENCIES’ ESTIMATED ALLOCATION OF CALRECYCLE LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM FUNDING (OWR1: 2021-22)**

The Member Agencies of Carmel, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Sand City, Seaside, Pacific Grove, and the Pebble Beach Community Services District (PBCSD) join the Local Assistance Grant Program as a regional collaborative project for the implementation of regulation requirements associated with SB 1383, in coordination with other jurisdictions of the Monterey County region to maximize project impact and cost-effectiveness across the countywide area.

This regional grant-funded project will be coordinated through the two local waste management governmental agencies within Monterey County, Monterey Regional Waste Management (MRWMD), and Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority (SVSWA).

The Member Agencies, along with each of the MRWMD and SVSWA member agencies are applying individually to this grant program using a unified regional project design, budget and implementation approach. All participating jurisdictions’ individual grant funding will be pooled together and expended in a cooperative manner by their agencies’ respective waste districts, MRWMD and SVSWA. The County of Monterey is applying separately and will manage its budget and project implementation independently, in coordination with broader regional planning efforts.

Based on current regional needs and findings to date related to SB 1383 in Monterey County, the following four major components will comprise the principal focus areas of program expenditures under the proposed regional project approach:

1) Grant Management, Tracking & Reporting
2) Agency Procurement Support
3) Edible Food Recovery Implementation and Capacity Building 4) Organics & Edible Food Recovery Education, Outreach and Technical Assistance

Each element will be informed by regional coordination through the established MRWMD and SVSWA Technical Advisory Committee forums, Capacity Planning Assessments and related studies completed or in process throughout the region, and new data and information obtained through program implementation trials, stakeholder feedback and best practices as identified.

All expenditures will be incurred jointly, facilitated through each respective waste agency, and tracked and reported by each jurisdiction, based on the percentage of grant funds received by each agency compared to the full funding received collectively by all participating member agencies. CalRecycle, based on per capita calculations, using the Department of Finance’s January 2021 population statistics, estimates jurisdictions’ proportionate grant allocations. A summary of individual and collective agency grant allocations is presented below as Table 1. 21 18
Table 1. Thirteen Agency Collaborative Approach Budget Summary

** Working in coordination with the designated CalRecycle grant manager or other agency representatives as appropriate, the region may adjust these proposed expenditure areas, amounts, or priorities, consistent with grant expenditure eligibility requirements, as needed during the course of the grant term based on the needs of the region.

Agencies Estimated
Funding
% of District
Subtotal
% of Region
Total
Waste
District
Carmel-by-the-Sea $20,000 9% 4% MRWMD
Del Rey Oaks $20,000 9% 4% MRWMD
Marina $29,771 14% 6% MRWMD
Monterey $38,247 18% 7% MRWMD
Pacific Grove $21,398 10% 4% MRWMD
Sand City $20,000 9% 4% MRWMD
Seaside $43,151 20% 8% MRWMD
Pebble Beach Community
Services District
$20,000 9% 4% MRWMD
Subtotal (MRWMD): $212,566 100% 41%

Gonzales $20,000 6% 4% SVSWA
Greenfield $25,157 8% 5% SVSWA
King City $20,665 7% 4% SVSWA
Salinas $211,143 68% 40% SVSWA
Soledad $33,095 11% 6% SVSWA
Subtotal (SVSWA): $310,060 100% 59%
TOTAL (13 Agency Regional
Approach):

$522,626

100%

22 19

EXHIBIT D
MEMBER AGENCIES’ ESTIMATED PROCURMENT REQUIRMENTS

OF ORGANIC MATERIAL

The list below indicates the annual recovered organic waste product procurement targets for each jurisdiction (city, county, or city and county) that will be in effect from January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2026 per CalRecycle.

23 May 30, 2024 Item No. 10g(2)

Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Marina City Council of June 4, 2024

CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 20 24-, CALLING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2024, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN CITY OFFICERS FROM COUNCIL DISTRICTS 2 AND 3 AND REQUESTING THAT THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY

AGREE TO CONSOLIDATION OF SAID ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE

GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE, AND REQUESTING THE

COUNTY TO RENDER ANY AND ALL SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH SAID CONSOLIDATED ELECTION; AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO

APPROPRIATE FUNDS AND THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN

AGREEMENT, SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM ATTACHED HERETO, FOR THE

PROVISION OF ELECTION SERVICES WITH MONTEREY COUNTY, SUBJECT TO FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY CITY ATTORNEY.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Consider adopting Resolution No. 20 24-, calling for a general municipal election in the City of Marina on Tuesday, November 5, 20 24, for the election of certain city officers; and

2. Requesting the Count of Monterey agree to the consolidation of the election with the statewide general election and requesting the County Elections Department to render any and all services required to conduct the election; and

3. Authorizing the Finance Director to appropriate funds and the City Manager to execute a service agreement for the provision of election services between the City of Marina and Monterey County Elections Department/Registrar of Voters subject to final review and approval by City Attorney.

BACKGROUND:

The terms of Councilmember Kathy Biala and appointed Councilmember Jenny McAdams will expire as of November 2024. On December 17, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2019- 04 amending Chapter 2.06 of the Marina Municipal Code entitled “Municipal Elections” to add Section 2.06.020 establishing a by -district electoral system for four City Council members, with the office of Mayor to continue to be separately elected. The November 5, 2024, general municipal election will be the second election held under the by -district electoral system for Council Districts 2 and 3.

ANALYSIS:

Pursuant to Elections Code (EC) Section 10002, the City may, by resolution, request the Board of Supervisors of the County to permit the County Elections Official to render specified services to the city or district relating to the conduct of an election.

Pursuant to EC §§12101 the first day for the City Council to call for an election and for the City Clerk to publish notice of the election, is July 3, 2024. 1 Pursuant to EC Section, 10403 the last day for the City Council to file with the Elections Department a resolution requesting consolidation of an election for candidates or measures is August 9, 2024.

Pursuant to Elections Code Section 10400, whenever two or more elections, including bond elections, of any legislative or congressional district, public district, city, county, or other political subdivision are called to be held on the same day, in the same territory, or in territory that is in part the same, they may be consolidated upon the order of the governing body or bodies or officer or officers calling the elections.

Consistent with past practice, when the City’s election is consolidated and the County be requested to render specified services in connection with said consolidated election, the County requires a contract for any and all services. The form of a contract for the November 5, 2024 General Municipal Election is attached as EXHIBIT A.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Should the City Council approve this request, adequate funding is included in the F Y 2023-24 and FY 2 4-25 Budgets, and will be charged to General Fund, City Administration, Elections, Account No. 1 00.120.000.00-6370-170. The County Elections Department has estimated the cost to the City for the consolidation of the November 5, 2024 election to be between $35,000 and $45,000.

CONCLUSION:

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

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________
Anita Sharp
Deputy City Clerk
City of Marina

REVIEWED/CONCUR:

_____________________________
Layne Long
City Manager
City of Marina

SOURCE OF FUNDING:

Should the City Council approve this request, adequate funding is included in the FY 20 23- 24 and FY 202 4-2025 Budgets and will be charged to General Fund, City Administration, Elections, Account No. 100.120.000.00-6370-170.

2 Resolution No. 2024-__

RESOLUTION ORDERING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION IN THE CITY OF

MARINA, REQUESTING THE COUNTY ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT TO CONDUCT THE

ELECTION, AND REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION OF THE ELECTION

City of Marina

WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002, the governing body of any city or district may by resolution request the Board of Supervisors of the county to permit the county elections official to render specified services to the city or district relating to the conduct of an election; and

WHEREAS, the resolution of the governing body of the city or district shall specify the services requested; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002, the city or district shall reimburse the county in full for the services performed upon presentation of a bill to the city or district; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10400, whenever two or more elections, including bond elections, of any legislative or congressional district, public district, city, county or other political subdivision are called to be held on the same day, in the same territory, or in territory that is in part the same, they may be consolidated upon the order of the governing body or bodies or officer or officers calling the elections; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10400, such election for cities and special districts may be either completely or partially consolidated; and

WHEREAS, the provisions of Section 2.06.010 of the Marina Municipal Code provide that the City of Marina’s General Municipal Election shall be held on the same day as the Statewide General Election on the first Tuesday following the first Monday of November in every even -numbered year and the City Council may submit to the voters at the election such questions and or propositions as may be timely submitted; and

WHEREAS, on December 17, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2019 -04 amending Chapter 2.06 of the Marina Municipal Code entitled “Municipal Elections” to add Section 2.06.020 establishing a by-district electoral system for four City Council members, with the office of Mayor to continue to be separately elected; and

WHEREAS, the November 5, 2024, general municipal election will be the second election held under a by-district electoral system for Council Districts 2 and 3; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 10403, whenever an election called by a district, city or other political subdivision for the submission of any question, proposition, or office to be filled is to be consolidated with a statewide election, and the question, proposition, or office to be filled is to appear upon the same ballot as that provided for that statewide election, the district, city or other political subdivision shall, at least 88 days prior to the date of the election, file with the board of supervisors, and a copy with the elections official, a resolution of its governing board requesting the consolidation, and setting forth the exact form of any question, proposition, or office to be voted upon at the election, as it is to appear on the ballot. Upon such request, the Board of Supervisors may order the consolidation; and
3 Resolution No. 2024-
Page Two

WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Section 13307 , whenever an election called by a district, city, or other
political subdivision has offices to be filled, it is required to fix and determine the number of words that a candidate may submit on the candidate’s statement to be either 200 or 400 words and to determine if the candidate and or the political subdivision will pay the cost of the statement; and

WHEREAS, Elections Code Section 15651 requires the city or district to determine the means and manner in which a tie vote is to be resolved in the event that two or more persons receive an equal number of votes and the highest number of votes (“tie votes”) for an office to be voted upon; and

WHEREAS, the resolution requesting the consolidation shall be adopted and filed at the same time as the adoption of the ordinance, resolution, or order calling the election; and

WHEREAS, various district, county, state and other political subdivision elections may be or have been called to be held on November 5, 2024.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the governing body of the City of Marina hereby orders an election be called and consolidated with any and all elections also called to be held on November 5, 2024, insofar as said elections are to be held in the same territory or in territory that is in part the same as the territory of the City of Marina, and the City of Marina requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey to order such consolidation under Elections Code Section 10401 and 10403.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that said governing body hereby requests the Board of Supervisors to permit the Monterey County Elections Department to provide any and all services necessary for conducting the election and agrees to pay for said services, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Monterey County Elections Department conduct the election for the purpose of electing two Members to this Governing Board on the November 5, 2024, ballot:

SEATS OPEN OFFICE TERM

Kathy Biala Councilmember- District 2 Full Term of Four Years Jennifer McAdams Councilmember- District 3 Full Term of Four Years

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that pursuant to Election Code Section 13307 the City of Marina has resolved that all costs of the Candidate’s statement be paid by the Candidate and that no candidate may submit a statement of over 200 words.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that pursuant to Elections Code Section 15651(a), a tie vote shall be resolved by drawing lots.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that tie votes shall be determined by the City Council acting as the Election Board.

4 Resolution No. 2024-
Page Two

BE IT FU RTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Deputy City Clerk is hereby designated as the Elections Officials and is directed to submit forthwith a certified copy of this resolution to the Board of Supervisors, to the Registrar of Voters and to the County Clerk of the County of Monterey.

The Deputy City Clerk shall certify as to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized, instructed, and directed to coordinate with the Registrar of Voters of the County of Monterey to ensure that the election is conducted in conformance with the law, and is authorized to perform any and all steps deemed necessary or advisable to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution.

BE IT FU RTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Finance Director is authorized and directed to appropriate the necessary funds to pay for the cost of the election and the City Manager is authorized to execute an agreement for the provision of election services between the City of Marina and Monterey County, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Marina on this 4th day of June 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTENTIONS: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

SIGNED: __________________________
Bruce C. Delgado, Mayor

ATTEST:

Anita Shepherd-Sharp, Deputy City Clerk

5 EXHIBIT A
6 EXHIBIT A
7 EXHIBIT A
8 Agenda Item: 10l(1)
City Council Meeting of
June 4, 2024 ORDINANCE NO. 2024-06

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING CODE) OF THE MARINA MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT PROGRAM 7.1 OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2024 the California Department of Housing and Community Development (State HCD) certified the Sixth Cycle Marina Housing Element; and WHEREAS, City of Marina is obligated by the programs of the Housing Element to implement several policies and ordinance modifications in 2024 to remain compliant with the City’s Housing Element, and/or the Housing Element law; and
WHEREAS, certain households, because of their special characteristics and needs, may require special accommodations or may have difficulty finding housing due to special needs. Special needs groups include seniors, persons with disabilities (including those with developmental disabilities), large households, homeless persons and persons at -risk of homelessness, and farmworkers; and
WHEREAS, Program 7.1 of the Housing Element directs the City to adopt amendments to the Title 17 (Zoning Code) to reduce the barriers to housing for special needs housing groups;

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Findings.

The City Council finds and determines the recitals set forth above to be true and correct and by this reference, incorporates the same herein as findings.

Section 2. Title 17, Zoning, of the Marina City Code is hereby amended to read as follows.

Amended or inserted items will be underlined and in red.

17.04.292 Emergency shelter
“Emergency shelter” means housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay. This definition shall also include interim housing options such as low barrier navigation centers and bridge housing, and respite and recuperative housing.

17.06.020R-1-Permitted uses.

Uses permitted in the R-1 districts shall be as follows:

C. Small residential care homes, including small residential care homes that do not require licensing by the State or County;
1 17.06.030 R-1-Conditional uses.

Uses permitted, subject to first securing a use permit in each case or in the Coastal Zone, a coastal permit, in the R-1 districts shall be as follows:

C. Large residential care homes. or the elderly;. . Approval shall be pursuant to Section

17.58.040 (Use Permit).

17.08.020 R2-Permitted uses.

Uses permitted in the R-2 districts shall be as follows:

C. Small residential care homes , including small r esidential care homes that do not require licensing by the State or County.

17.08.030 R2-Conditional uses.

Uses permitted, subject to first securing a use permit in each case, in the R -2 districts shall be as follows:

A. Large residential care homes , retirement homes, and extended care medical facilities including convalescent facilities and oth er skilled nursing facilities. Approval shall be pursuant to Section 17.58.040 (Use Permit).

17.10.020 R3 Permitted uses.

Uses permitted in the R-3 districts shall be the following:

C. Small residential care homes , including small r esidential care homes t hat do not require licensing by the State or County;

17.10.030 R3-Conditional uses.

Uses permitted, subject to first securing a use permit in each case, in the R-3 districts shall be the following:

A. Rooming and boarding houses;
B. Extended care medical facilities including convalescent facilities and other skilled nursing facilities;
C. Day care centers and large residential care homes or facilities. Approval shall be pursuant to Section 17.58.040 (Use Permit).

D. Public and quasi -public uses and building s, including churches, firehouses, parks and playgrounds, community or recreational centers, schools (public and parochial) or schools accredited to the state school system, and public utility buildings and uses exclusive of corporate, storage or repair yards;
2 E. Condominium and/or planned unit development projects subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.66. (Ord. 2020-07 § 2, 2020; Ord. 2006-03 § 1 (Exh. A), 2006; Zoning Ordinance dated 7/94, 1994)

17.12.020 R4-Permitted uses.

Uses permitted in the R-4 districts shall be as follows:

D. Small residential care homes, including small residential care homes that do not require licensing by the State or County;
K. Single-room occupancy housing as defined in 17.04.612 and pursuant to 17.42.140

17.12.030 R4-Conditional uses.

Uses permitted, subject to first securing a use permit in each case, in the R-4 districts shall be as follows:

A. A. Single-room occupancy housing;
G. Large residential care homes or facilities. Approval shall be pursuant to Section 17.58.040 (Use Permit).

17.16.020 CR-Permitted uses.

Uses permitted in the C-R districts shall be as follows:

E. Small residential care homes, including small residential care homes that do not require licensing by the State or County;
K. Single-room occupancy housing as defined in 17.04.612 and pursuant to 17.42.140.

17.16.030-CR-Conditional uses.

Uses permitted, subject to first securing a use permit in each case, in the C-R districts shall be as follows:

A. Single-room occupancy housing, hotels, and motels;
J. Large residential care homes or facilities. Approval shall be pursuant to Section 17.58.040 (Use Permit).

17.18.020 C-1-Permitted uses.

Uses permitted in the C-1 districts shall be as follows:

F. Supportive housing pursuant to Section 17.04.698. (Ord. 2022-07 § 3 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 2020-07 § 2, 2020; Ord. 2006-03 § 1 (Exh. A), 2006)

3 G. Transitional housing as defined in Section 17.04.711;

17.18.030 C1-Conditional uses.

Uses permitted, subject to first securing a use permit in each case, in the C-1 districts shall be as follows:

J. Large residential care homes or facilities. Approval shall be pursuant to Section 17.58.040 (Use Permit).

17.20.020 C-2-Permitted uses.

Uses permitted in the C-2 districts shall be as follows:

C. Supportive housing as defined in Section 17.04.698. (Ord. 2022-07 § 3 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 2020-07 § 2, 2020; Ord. 2002-09 § 1, 2002; Zoning Ordinance dated 7/94, 1994) D. Transitional housing as defined in Section 17.04.711;

17.20.030 C2-Conditional uses.

Uses permitted, subject to first securing a use permit in each case, in the C-2 districts shall be as follows:

J. Large residential care homes or facilities. Approval shall be pursuant to Section 17.58.040 (Use Permit).

17.22.030-PC-Permitted uses.

Uses permitted in the PC district, subject to first securing a zoning permit in each case, shall be as follows:

E. Transitional housing as defined in Section 17.04.711;

17.38.020-MHR-Permitted uses.

Uses permitted in the MHR district shall be as follows:

E. Transitional Housing as defined in Section 17.04.711.

F. Small residential care homes, including small residential care homes that do not require licensing by the State or County.

G. Supportive housing as defined in Section 17.04.698 and subject to the following review timelines per California Government Code Section 65653(b): The city shall notify the developer whether the application is complete within thirty days of receipt of an application to develop supportive housing in accordance with this section. The local government shall complete its review of the application within sixty days after the application is complete for a project with fifty or fewer units, or within one hundred twenty days after the application is complete for a project with more than fifty units;
4 17.38.021 MHR Conditional Uses
J. Large residential care homes or facilities. Approval shall be pursuant to Section 17.58.040 (Use Permit).

17.45.040 Reasonable Accommodation Findings. The review authority shall approve the request for a reasonable accommodation if, based upon all of the evidence presented, the following findings can be made:

D.

1. Whether granting the accommodation would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood.

2. Whether granting the accommodation would result in a substantial increase in traffic or insufficient parking.

1. Whether granting the accommodation would substantially undermine any express purpose of either the city’s general plan or an applicable specific plan.

17.58.040 Use Permit Action by appropriate authority.

A. In order to grant any use permit, the findings of the appropriate authority shall be that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city; and in the Coastal Zone the use is consistent with all applicable local coastal land use plan recommendations and requirements.

C. Residential care facilities and single room occupancy uses shall be considered a residential use of property, and, except as otherwise set forth in this chapter, shall be subject only to those restrictions and standards that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zoning district.

Section 3. California Environmental Act (CEQA).

The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061(b)(3) as the adoption of the ordinance will have no reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Because the proposed action merely updates the Municipal Code to clarify that certain housing types are allowed in certain residential zones, subject to a use permit and project -specific environmental review as necessary, there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. No further environmental review is necessary.

Section 4. Severability.

It is the intent of the City Council of the City to supplement applicable state and federal law and not to duplicate or contradict such law and this ordinance shall be construed consistently with that intention. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of 5 the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases of this ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase independently, even if any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases were declared invalid or unenforceable.

Section 4. Effective Date.

This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days following its passage and adoption, as certified by the City Clerk.

This ordinance was introduced and read on the 21st day of May 2024 and was finally adopted on the 4th day of June 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

_______________________________
Bruce Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:

_______________________________
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk

6 EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS
Consistent with the General Plan

1) General Plan Policy 5.4.6- Zoning Ordinance Update 5.4 -A major revision of the City’s existing zoning code is required to implement the General Plan. The initial step should be to thoroughly review and critique the existing code and identify its deficiencies. Changes are required to implement Housing Element policies and programs.

Evidence: By adopting the revisions to the zoning ordinance as required by Program 7.1 of the Housing Element, the City will be implementing General Plan Policy

5.4.6 which directs city staff to review the Municipal Code for consistency with Housing Element Law.

2) General Plan Policy 5.7-Preparation and adoption of the following ordinances should be undertaken to address the General Plan objectives of matching housing to the needs of local employees and providing housing to meet the needs of households of all economic levels:

Evidence: By reducing the housing constraints for special housing needs groups per Program 7.1 of the Housing Element, the City will be implementing General Plan Policy

5.7. 1765241.1
7 Agenda Item: 10m(1)
City Council Meeting of
June 4, 2024
1 5/24/24
2 3
4 5
6 7
Applicant: Jaime Schrabeck
Date:

May 24, 2024
Section B - QUESTIONS

INTERVIEW EVALUATION FORM

PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION

1. Why did you apply for this commission?
Saw the email from the city, wants to be more involved. Likes communication, bringing people together. Has not been in a voluntary position in a few years, misses it. Marketing, outreach. Wants to do as much as she can to make it better.

2. What do you see as your role of a Public Works Commission member ? Get information, make recommendations for the council. Vet ideas. Collaborate with the Chamber of Commerce. Asks if there will be an introduction and training.

3. What is your perception of the City's future and how can you facilitate it? The city is growing, and -as the only city on the peninsula- is embracing the growth. We are making ourselves more appealing. Very diverse and dynamic community. Would like to get to know people who have lived here forever. "Don't leave anyone behind."

4. Do you have ideas for improvement to services offered or to enhance the overall appearance of Marina?
Not familiar with many parts of Marina, wants to walk there.

Where are the bike racks (that bikes can be chained to)? Everything requires maintenance. Choose good quality materials.

The City of Salinas keeps a list of blighted properties, esp. commercial, but also residential.

See how we can get money/resources for that, maybe grants. Commercial buildings that had been sitting empty were converted to housing.

5. Why are you the best choice for this position?
She is not sure that she is the best choice but wants to make an investment in the community. There will be a new PW Director; find out what the role of the commission is, make changes. Is it okay to do outreach? She works 3 days/week, has time, and can make time, wants to volunteer.

Comments:

Jaime and her husband attended the GPU workshop in the Community Center. There was no follow- up from the city.

Is interested in being an alternate for See Monterey and for the TAMC Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee.

Interviewed by: Liesbeth Visscher �
8 5/24/25
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 May 31, 2024 Item No. 11a

Honorable Mayor and Members Regular Meeting of the City Council on of the Marina City Council June 4, 2024

CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF CDP 23 -0004 AND DENYING

THE APPEAL S BASED ON CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, REQUIRED

FINDINGS, AND CEQA EXEMPTION IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
SECTION 21080.25(b).

RECOMMENDATION
It is re commended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2024 - upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of CDP 23-0004 and denying the appeals based on conditions of approval, required findings, and CEQA exemption 21080.25(b).

BACKGROUND
This item was continued from the Council’s regular meeting on May 21, 2024. The complete staff report packet from the May 21 , 2024, Council meeting date is attached following this staff report as EXHIBIT A. Additionally, the May 21, 2024 report packet and meeting video are available for review on the City’s Agenda Center website. 1 Per Marina Municipal Code (MMC) Sec. 17.40.270, the City Council shall render its decision on the appeal of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) within sixty (60) days of receipt of the appeal. In this case, the appeal(s) was filed on April 16, 2024, and thus requires a decision of the City Council on or before June 15 th. Resolution No. 2024- (EXHIBIT B) remains unchanged from its original form.

Staff refers Council to its May 21, 2024 , staff report concerning this agenda item. Additionally, included as EXHIBIT C is a letter from MST that addresses four questions that were raised by the Council at its May 21st meeting, including:

1) Timing of the issuance of the City’s CDP
2) SURF! Project CEQA Determinations
3) May 17 Letter from Coastal Commission staff to CPUC/CTC 4) Bus-on-Shoulder Alternative

CORRESPONDENCE
All correspondence received after the publication of the May 21 st Council packet up until the time of the meeting is included as EXHIBIT D to this staff report , including letters received on May 21st by MST/TAMC and the Rail Division of the California Department of Transportation.

FISCAL IMPACT
Application fees have covered staff processing of the original permit. On June 15, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021 -66 which waives the fee for CDP appeals ensuring that local administrative remedies are exhausted before an appellant can take an appeal to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) which is the final appeal authority . Therefore, no fees were collected to cover the staff costs associated with this appeal.

1 https://www.cityofmarina.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_05212024 -534 1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff recommends that the City Council (1) find that the Council has reviewed the Notices of Exemption filed by MST on July 1 2, 2021 , and March 13, 2023, including the reasons MST provided for adopting the exemptions; and (2) find that in the Council’s independent judgment, the project qualifies as exempt from CEQA per Section 21080.25(b) of the Public Resources Code .

The City will file a Notice of Exemption with the Monterey County Clerk’s Office.

CONCLUSION
Staff continues to recommend that the Council adopt Resolution 2024-__ as presented, denying the appeals and uphold ing the Planning Commission’s April 11, 2024, approval based on findings, conditions of approval, and an exemption from CEQA per Section 21080.25(b) of the Public Resources Code. The Resolution has not changed from its original form presented in the Council packet on May 21, 2024.

Prepared by:

______________________
Alyson Hunter, AICP
Planning Services Manager
City of Marina

Reviewed/Concur:

______________________
Guido F. Persicone, AICP
Director, CDD
City of Marina

Layne Long
City Manager
City of Marina

2 May 14, 2024 Item No. 11d
Honorable Mayor and Members Regular Meeting of the City Council on of the Marina City Council May 21, 2024
CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF CDP 23 -0004 AND DENYING

THE APPEAL S BASED ON CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, REQUIRED

FINDINGS, AND CEQA EXEMPTION IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
SECTION 21080.25(b).

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended tha t the City Council a dopt Resolution No. 2024-, upholdi ng the Planning Commission’s approval of CDP 23-0004 and denying the appea ls based on c onditions of approval,
required findings, and CEQ
A exemption 21080.2
5(b).

BACKGROUND:

The project, in its entirety, consists of approximately 6 line ar miles of roadway surface dedicated for express busway service (bus rapid transit
) between Marina and Sand City. The Marina portion of the route for the SURF! busway project would begin at Mont
erey-Salinas Transit’s (MST) Marina
Transit Exchange a t Reservation Road and De Fore st Road (northern terminus), and end at the proposed 5th St. Tra
nsit Center (southern termi
nus in Marina). Given the length of the facility and its alignment, the project would be located in the cities of Marina and Sand City, running parallel to Highway 1 next to Fort Ord Dunes State Park. The busway includes dedicated e xpress busway lanes, platforms, a new station at 5th S
treet on the former Fort O
rd (outside the Coastal zone) , and related
infrastructure including the extension of the Be
ach Range Rd. path to the ne w P alm Ave. station.

The project will use 100 perce nt zero-emission, near-zero emission, low oxide or nitrogen engines, compressed natural gas fuel, fuel cell, or hybrid powe
rtrain buses. The completed project is e xpected
to open in 2027 and will relieve congesti on and support more freque nt public transit service s fo r people traveling within the corridor and beyond.

On April 11, 2024, the Planning Commission unanimously a pproved both a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and Tre
e Removal Permit (TRP) as necess ary for the multi-jurisdic tion Project.

Within the
10-day appeal period, the CDP was appealed separate ly by both Mason Clark (owner/operator of the
handcar company currently using the Transportation Agency of Montere y County (TAMC) railroad tracks), and Michael Solerno, representing Keep Ford Ord Wild (KFOW).

The documents included with the appeal(s) are included herein as EXHIBITS A1 and A2 to the staff report. Issues raised in the appeal(s) include, generally:
a) The project is not in compliance with the Coastal Act b) The project is not in compliance with the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) c) The project will not improve coastal access
d) The project is not in compliance with Proposition 116 e) The Planning Commission erred in finding the Project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

EXHIBIT A
3 Each appeal is described more specifically below.

LOCATION:

The Marina portion of the SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project (project) would be located between MST’s existing Marina Transit Exchange at Reservation Road and De Forest Road (northern terminus) and the existing Hwy 1 overpass at the Del Monte Blvd southbound onramp.

The project also includes the development of the 5 th St. Transit Center (southern terminus in Marina). This segment is in the middle of the Line 20 bus route that currently connects Salinas with Seaside and Monterey. The City’s LCP jurisdiction over the Project is limited to 0.37 acres within the TAMC right -of-way (ROW) near the Hwy 1 overpass . The 5th St. Transit Center property is outside the Coastal zone and proposed development and tree removal there is not subject to the CDP being challenged in the appeals.

ANALYSIS:

The project is located in an urbanized area within an existing transportation corridor that is assumed for continued transportation use in local land use and zoning documents. The majority of the alignment of the new “off -road” busway would be within the TAMC Monterey Branch Line rail corridor ROW, an approximately 100-foot wide corridor generally located between Beach Range Road and the Monterey Peninsula Recreation Trail on the ocean side of Highway 1 , which has been used for transportation purposes (rail) since the late 1800s . Other portions of the project will be on MST’s property, specifically the proposed 5th St. Transit Center which is located on land provided to MST through the former Fort Ord closure and specifically identified as a multi -modal center. Public roadways would be used for the SURF! line at both ends of the route.

The larger project includes the removal of 92 trees within the TAMC ROW and at the 5th St. Transit Center property. Only two (2) trees are proposed for removal within the City’s Coastal zone and, therefore, subject to the appeals. Coastal Development Permit (CDP) findings are included in the draft Council Reso. 2024-__ as are conditions of approval and a description of and link to the CEQA document.

Coastal Development Permit
A small portion of the total project site, 0.37 acres, is located within the City’s Coastal Development Permit (CDP) jurisdiction. All development in this location is subject to the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP includes regulations for land uses, development standards, coastal access, and addressing potential impacts to special status species and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA). Public transportation rights -of-ways have neither land use designations nor zoning ascribed to them as their only uses are for transportation.

The California Coastal Act defines ESHA as “ any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities .” (PRC § 30107.5). The biological report1 (Report) prepared for the project (DD&A, May 2021) identified three (3) areas within the entire project site (including the portion along the west side of Hwy 1 within the California Coastal Commission’s (CCC) retained CDP jurisdiction) that could be considered ESHA under this definition: Dune scrub, habitat for Smith’s blue butterfly (i.e., buckwheat), and areas supporting rare plants. The biological report did not identify any of these within the City’s 0.37 -acre CDP jurisdiction. The report notes that only 0.1 acres of this type of habitat occurs within the entire project area and it is near the southern boundary of Fort Ord Dunes SP. The Report further concludes that there is no area supporting rare plants within the small portion of retained City CDP jurisdiction. 1 https://mst.org/wp-content/media/Appendix-07-Final-Biological-Resources-Report.pdf

EXHIBIT A
4 Furthermore, the project seeks to create improved coastal access by providing non -motorized connections to existing coastal paths and trails. Coastal access is an important part of the City’s LCP and the Coastal Act. Lastly, the subject area is not included on the “Natural Habitats” map in the Land Use Plan portion of the LCP.

For these reasons, staff finds the project consistent with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) and recommends that the City Council deny the appeals and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval based on findings, conditions of approval, and the CEQA determination provided.

The Planning Commission Reso. 2024-09 is included herein as EXHIBIT B to the staff report.

Remainder of Project within City’s Coastal Zone Is Subject to Exclusive Coastal Commission Jurisdiction:

The southerly portion of the busway that continues south toward Sand City is partiall y within City limits west of the Highway 1 cor
ridor but falls within the Coastal Commission’s retained CDP jurisdiction; the City has no permitting authority in this area. A map prepared by the Coastal Commission showing this area is included in PC Reso. 2024-09 (EXHIBIT B).

Clark Appeal
Mason Clark, owner/operator of Handcar Tours, appeals the Planning Commission’s issuance of the CDP on grounds that the Project conflicts with the following policies in the City’s LCP:

2. To provide beach access and recreational oppo rtunities consistent with public safety and with the protection of the rights of the general public and of private property owners.

6. To provide for a level of recreation use w hich is consistent w ith the abil ity to operate, maintain, police and protect the beach and dune environment.

13. To give priority to visitor-serving commercial and recreational uses in order to fully develop the unique Coastal-oriented recreational activities of Marina and still protect the natural resource.

14. To reinforce and support Coastal recreational and visitor -serving activities in the inland area, where appropriate, to the extent the support activities would complement, not destroy, the Coastal resource
Appellant contends that by replacing handcar tours with a portion of the SURF! busway within Marina’s city limits, the City will limit coastal access. Appellant claims that under MST’s project design, an existing recreational trail connection point (which is not within the City’s LCP jurisdiction) would be moved slightly to the north in order to preserve coastal access. Appellant claims that this will increase the length of this particular pedestrian/bicycle coastal access by approximately 1/3 mile (less than 2000 ft) and would require pedestrian/bicycle users to share part of this coastal access with occasional maintenance trucks. Appellant also contends that the Handcar Tours is a recreational use and therefore cannot be replaced by the SURF! busway, which appellant claims is not a recreational use.

EXHIBIT A
5 Staff Response (addressed further under “Analysis”): Per the LCP, the policies Appellant identifies are simply “statements of intent” and are not binding upon the City. (LCP at 2-1). Rather, the LCP explains that “[i]implementation of these policies will sometimes mean achieving a balance among the policies which best effectuates the City’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan .” Id. Importantly, other policies in the LCP support implementation of the SURF! busway. For example:

35. To encourage continued and improved service by mass transit within the Coastal Zone.

36. To provide and promote the role of Marina as the physical and visual gateway to the Monterey Peninsula

39. To encourage development which keeps energy consumption to the lowest level possible. (LCP at 2 -3) (emphasis added). By maintaining coastal access for pedestrians/bicyclists while also implementing the SURF! busway – which provides a more climate -friendly, mass transit alternative to commuters in the region – the Planning Commission properly exercised its policy judgment to strike a balance among the LCP’s various policies. Furthermore, the portion of the SURF! project within the City’s CDP jurisdiction will improve existing coastal access by formalizing the existing “social trails” along Beach Range Rd. and Marina Dr. to the new Palm Ave. transit stop (all within the TAMC ROW), and by improving pedestrian crossings at Reindollar Ave. Appellant simply disagrees with the Planning Commission’s policy choice.

Moreover, although not directly relevant to the appeal, it is important to note that Appellant Clark’s business, Museum of Handcar Technology (“Museum”), currently subleases an approximately 3.5 - mile segment of the railway from TAMC, under TAMC’s lease from the City. The existing lease expires on October 31, 2024. Both the primary lease between the City and TAMC and the sublease between the City and Museum expressly acknowledge that “ Museum understands and agrees that LESSOR has future plans for the Property, such as the SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project, or other transportation uses. Thus, Museum agrees to vacate the Property during the TERM of the SUBLEASE or any renewal or extension of the SUBLEASE, without liability to the CITY, upon termination of the SUBLEASE by the CITY.”2
For these reasons, as for the reasons further explained below, staff recommends the Council deny the appeal.

Keep Fort Ord Wild (KFOW) Appeal
Appellant appeals the Planning Commission’s issuance of the CDP on the following grounds:
• Portions of MST’s larger project, which are outside of the City’s LCP jurisdiction (and in some cases, outside of the City’s municipal boundary), contain Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA). Under the Coastal Act, only uses dependent on their proposed location in ESHA may be allowed within ESHA. Pub. Res. Code sec. 30240(a). • Under Proposition 116, which was approved by California voters in 1990 as a funding tool for certain public mass transit projects, the Project is not eligible for MST’s proposed funding. Appellant claims that Proposition 116 limits this funding to “rail” projects, and therefore the Project would not qualify because it would remove existing railway and would make future railway use impossible.
2 TAMC/City Lease agreement executed 11/04/22 and City/Museum Sublease agreement executed 11/09/22

EXHIBIT A
6 • The Planning Commission erred in finding the Project exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.25(b), specifically because in Appellant’s view, the Coastal Commission must find that the exemption applies before the City can make such finding.
• The Project will negatively impact bicycle traffic and coastal access because it will require re-routing existing bike trails such that cyclists will have to share the road with vehicles.

Staff Response (addressed further under “Analysis”): City’s review of the CDP is limited to evaluating CDP’s consistency with specific findings set forth in Marina’s LCP, General Plan, and other relevant planning documents. MMC sec. 17.40.200(E)(3). Valid grounds for appealing a CDP are limited to claims that the proposed development:
a. Fails to provide adequate physical access or public or private commercial use or interferes with such uses.
b. Fails to protect public views from any public road or from a recreation area to and along the coast.
c. Is not compatible with the established physical scale of the area. d. May significantly alter existing landforms.
e. Does not comply with shoreline erosion and geologic setback requirements.

MMC sec. 17.40.090(F).

Only Appellant’s claim that the Project would negatively impact coastal access, by causing bicyclists to share portions of existing bike routes with vehicles, remotely relates to a valid ground for appeal.

Although Appellant does not identify any particular LCP goal or policy relevant to this ground for appeal, as explained above, LCP policies are “statements of intent” and are not binding upon the City. LCP at 2 -1. Rather, “[i] implementation of these policies will sometimes mean achieving a balance among the policies which best effectuates the City’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan.” Id.

Other policies in the LCP support implementation of the SURF! busway. LCP at 2 -3 (Policies 35, 36, 39). By maintaining coastal access for pedestrians/bicyclists while also implementing the SURF! busway – which provides a more climate -friendly, mass transit alternative to commuters in the region – the Planning Commission properly exercised its policy judgment to strike a balance among the LCP’s various policies. Furthermore, the portion of the SURF! project within the City’s CDP jurisdiction will improve existing coastal access by formalizing the existing “social trails” along Beach Range Rd. and Marina Dr. to the new Palm Ave. transit stop (all within the TAMC ROW), and by improving pedestrian crossings at Reindollar Ave. Appellant simply disagrees with the Planning Commission’s policy choice.

Appellants’ remaining grounds for appeal do not relate to any permissible ground for appeal under the municipal code. The claim that portions of the Project site outside of the City’s CDP jurisdiction (and/or City’s municipal boundaries) may unlawfully interfere with ESHA is unrelated to the CDP being appealed, and is beyond the City’s purview here. The claim that the Project’s funding does not comply with Proposition 116 is likewise irrelevant to the CDP permit at issue; the City has no role in the funding of the SURF! project because the , and thus the funding’s consistency with Proposition 116 is outside of the City’s purview as well. Appellant’s claim that the Coastal Commission must find that the Project qualifies for the statutory exemption for certain mass transit projects (PRC 21080.25(b)) before the City can make such determination has no basis in the law, nor does Appellant cite to any. As explained below, the Planning Commission reviewed MST’s grounds for finding the overall Project eligible for the statutory exemption when MST approved the Project. The Commission then exercised its independent judgment to find that the CDP (which is necessary for the overall project) qualifies for the exemption for the same reasons the overall Project does. For

EXHIBIT A
7 these reasons, and for the reasons further explained below, staff recommends the Council deny the appeal.

CEQA Process
On June 14, 2021, MST filed a Notice of Determination of MST’s adoption of a MND for the Project. As part of that process, MST consulted with the City as a “responsible agency” under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines, § 15096). MST determined that, based on the results of the Initial Study and supporting documentation, all potential environmental effects resulting from the project are either less than significant, or can be avoided or mitigated to a less than significant level , and that there is no substantial evidence that the project as mitigated would have a significant effect on the environment. As such, an Environmental Impact Report is not required . On July 11, 2021, MST found the Project exempt from CEQA under the statutory exemption in S enate Bill 288 (2021) , which exempts certain types of transit projects, including bus rapid transit projects, from CEQA, and filed a Notice of Exemption.

Pursuant to the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) , potential impacts to special status plant and animal species within Environmental Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) are addressed through a proactive program of avoidance, monitoring, control of invasive species, pre - construction surveys, restoration with performance standards, and Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) compliance. Mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, a requirement that during construction, a qualified biologist educate the construction crew on the special -status species and sensitive habitats that are known or may be present; specific mitigation that will be incorporated into the construction effort and procedures i f a special-status species is encountered ; and the protections afforded by USFWS and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. As a Project with federally protected species and federal funding, the Project and mitigation program must also be reviewed by the Federal Transit Administration and US Fish and Wildlife Service in a formal consultation process before necessary permits for construction can be secured.

On March 13, 2023, MST filed a second Notice of Exemption from CEQA under Public Resources Code section 21080.25, as amended by SB 922 (2022). The statutory exemption applies to , among other transportation related activities, bus rapid transit projects “for which a lead agency has filed a notice of exemption under this section before January 1, 2023.” Pub. Resources Code § 21080.25(i)(1).

Because the project is projected to cost under $100 million to build, the requirements in s ection 21080.25(d) for a racial equity analysis and business case do not apply. Instead, under subdivision (e), MST must hold three community public meetings and respond to public comments regarding the applicability of the SB 922 CEQA Exemption. MST held three public community planning meetings to hear and respond to public comments solely related to the SB 922 exemption for the Project , including at the Marina Library on February 13, 2023. On January 17, 2023, these public meetings were noticed, including publication on MST’s website, on MST’s social media accounts, and emailed to interested parties. The March 13, 2023 , Notice of Exemption was not challenged within the 35-day statute of limitations under CEQA.

Tree Removal Permit (TRP) Approval Remains in Effect
The TRP for tree removal is explicitly not included in the appeal s and, therefore, remains in effect.

For information on the review of the TRP by the Tree Committee 3 and the Planning Commission 4, these staff reports can be found on the Agenda Center website. 3 https://www.cityofmarina.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02262024 -509

EXHIBIT A
8 CORRESPONDENCE
All correspondence received relating to the Planning Commission meeting, and the subject appeal s which were received at the time of this writing are included herein as EXHIBIT C.

FISCAL IMPACT
Application fees have covered staff processing of the original permit. On June 15, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021 -66 which waives the fee for CDP appeals ensuring that local administrative remedies are exhausted before an appellant can take an appeal to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) which is the final appeal authority . Therefore, no fees were collected to cover the staff costs associated with this appeal.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff recommends that the City Council (1) find that the Council has reviewed the Notices of Exemption filed by MST on July 1 2, 2021 , and March 13, 2023, including the reasons MST provided for adopting the exemptions; and (2) find that in the Council’s independent judgment, the project qualifies as exempt from CEQA per Section 21080.25(b) of the Public Resources Code . The City will file a Notice of Exemption with the Monterey County Clerk’s Office.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the Council adopt Resolution 2024 -, as presented, denying the appeals and upholding the Planning Commission’s April 11, 2024, approval based on findings, conditions of approval, and an exemption from CEQA per Section 21080.25(b) of the Public Resources Code.

Prepared by:
______________________
Alyson Hunter, AICP
Planning Services Manager
City of Marina
Reviewed by:
______________________ ______________________
Guido F. Persicone, AICP Layne Long
Director, CDD City Manager
City of Marina City of Marina
4 https://cityofmarina.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/1365?fileID=7626

EXHIBIT A
9 EXHIBIT A
10 EXHIBIT A
11 EXHIBIT A
12 EXHIBIT A
13 EXHIBIT A
14 EXHIBIT A
15 EXHIBIT A
16 1

April 18, 2024
To: City of Marina
From: Keep Fort Ord Wild
RE: Appeal of City of Marina PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2024-09 dated April 11, 2024
With this correspondence Keep Fort Ord Wild (KFOW) appeals the action of the City of Marina PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2024-09 dated April 11, 2024 Note: KFOW appeals the entire resolution by the Planning Commission as the language of the resolution combines a Coastal Development Permit and Tree Removal Permit into one action.

Since they cannot be separated, KFOW appeals the resolution and therefore the Coastal Development Permit.

The City of Marina Planning Commission relied on numerous inaccurate statements by MST representatives and documents put forward by the project applicant. These inaccurate statements have been perpetrated by the project applicant over multiple years giving the Planning Commission and the public the impression the SURF project can move forward when, if fact, there are multiple reasons why it is impossible for the SURF project to be constructed.

The overarching barrier to construction of the SURF project is that vast portions of the project are proposed in an ESHA which makes proceeding with construction in the Coastal Zone impossible.

KFOW joins in the reasons and issues raised in all other appeals and reincorporates them as if fully set forth herein, and raises the following issues and concerns in this appeal of the commission actions to approve the permits and the claims and documents in the environmental review under CEQA, the LCP and the Coastal Act. (KFOW reserves the right to submit additional material not included here to the City before the expiration of the appeal period.)

EXHIBIT A
17 2

Proposed Action by the Marina Planning Commission was Premature, SURF Project is Impossible Under the Coastal Act

The proposed action by the planning commission was premature. Only a very small portion of the SURF project is proposed within Marina’s Local Coastal Plan. However, much more of the project (4.4 miles) is in the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. The Coastal Act makes construction of SURF project impossible because vast portions of the project are proposed in an ESHA where land and habitat cannot be disturbed, filled, or graded.

The California Coastal Commission has not approved the SURF project. The SURF project is not scheduled for a hearing in front of the California Coastal Commission. The California Coastal Commission has asked MST for major revisions to the project and to present less impactful alternatives. MST has not provided such alternatives and instead continues to seek approval for the version of the project that would disturb unprecedented areas of ESHA and Coastal Dune Habitat. For further reference, we attach multiple letters from the California Coastal Commission to MST highlighting the fundamental problems with the SURF project and its construction in an ESHA:

The California Coastal Commission informed MST of these problems in 2021 (before MST approved the project). Important excerpts as follows:
“Coastal Act Section 30240 provides for the protection of ESHA, including sensitive dune habitats such as those found at the former Ford Ord and within the TAMC right-of-way: Section 30240 (a) environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.”
“The currently proposed project is located in dune ESHA and is not resource dependent and is not approvable under Coastal Act Section 30240 or under the ESHA policies of the various LCPs that would apply to the project in the areas located outside of the Commission retained permitting jurisdiction…”

EXHIBIT A
18 3

Project is Impossible Under Proposition 116
The Monterey Branch Line was purchased by TAMC with Proposition 116 funds that set guidelines as to how the line is to be used. Proposition 116 was a State Proposition approved by voters specifically for expansion of rail service. Ultimately, the line can only be used for rail because rail bonds were used to purchase the line. The line cannot be converted to a busway and the tracks cannot be destroyed or covered.

Inspection of the SURF design plans confirm two miles of tracks will be covered or destroyed.

This is critical information and means SURF and a future TAMC rail project cannot co-exist as MST claims. MST representatives continued to intentionally downplay the length of track that would need to be removed for SURF up to and at the 4-11-24 Planning Commission meeting.

SURF makes a future rail project impossible as it destroys the rail line which is not allowed under Proposition 116. MST still claims a rail project is a long-term vision for the corridor.

However, it is now clear the two projects are incompatible, and MST intends to destroy the rail infrastructure along a significant portion of the Monterey Branch Line.

Planning Commission Relied on a CEQA Exemption That Does Not Apply The Planning Commission relied on a CEQA exemption that does not apply. The Planning Commission relied on a prior CEQA exemption for MST’s project that has not has not been fully approved by the California Coastal Commission. Unless and until the entire project is fully approved, the Planning Commission and the City cannot rely on the exemption claimed by MST.

Inaccurate Claims re: Improved Coastal Access and Recreation

MST and TAMC public officials suggest the MST SURF busway will improve local bike paths and coastal access. This is not an accurate on-the-ground reality. The MST SURF busway as proposed will result in negative and dangerous impacts to local bicycle traffic and coastal access during and after construction. The current bike paths have been thoughtfully designed to safely move bike traffic. The after-the-fact insertion of the MST SURF Busway sacrifices safe and easy bike travel.

By design, the busway fractures and re-routes existing bike trails (Beach Range Road, Monterey Bay Recreation Trail, 5th Street Bike Path). At the same time, it introduces awkward and dangerous crossings where cyclists will have to negotiate with two-way bus traffic. In Winter months cyclists will be subject to blinding headlights along with noise and vibration from buses only a few feet away. This is not an improvement from current conditions.

EXHIBIT A
19 4

Currently, cyclists can travel unimpeded using Beach Range Road and/or Monterey Bay Recreation Trail interchangeably from Palm Avenue in Marina to Playa Avenue in Sand City.

Cyclists do not need to stop or negotiate traffic for this entire distance. These routes are safe and extremely popular with bike commuters and recreational users.

The MST SURF Busway also introduces an awkward crossing at the 5th street bridge and will dig-up and re-route a bike path TAMC recently built that connects safely and easily to the new VA clinic. The MST SURF busway proposal calls for squeezing in a bus lane and a bike path where there currently barely room for a bike path.

Request:

The SURF project would be a detriment to the citizens of Marina damaging coastal ESHA, recreation and coastal access. For all the reasons above, attached and more the Marina City Council should vote to vacate the approval of PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2024- 09 dated April 11, 2024, and not grant a Coastal Development Permit for the SURF project.

Sincerely yours,
Michael Salerno
Spokesman, Keep Fort Ord Wild.

EXHIBIT A
20 May 3, 2023
Mr. Carl Sedoryk
General Manager/CEO
Monterey-Salinas Transit
19 Upper Ragsdale Drive, Suite 200
Monterey, CA 93940

Subject: Coastal Development Permit (CDP) Application Number 3 -23-0288 (MST SURF! Busway)
Dear Mr. Sedoryk:

We received the above-referenced CDP application that you submitted on April 3, 2023.

The proposed project includes the construction of a segment of dedicated busway measuring 2.5 miles long and 30 feet wide located seaward of Highway 1 in the TAMC Monterey Branch Line rail corridor right-of-way, in Monterey County. We would first like to reiterate that Coastal Commission staff is highly supportive of MST’s objectives related to improving public transit access for under-resourced communities and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. We also believe that bus rapid transit has an important role to play in decarbonizing California’s transportation sector, providing for effective multi-modal transportation options, and improving public access to the coast; we commend MST for their commitment to advancing these goals.

We have reviewed the materials that you have submitted to date and are in need of additional information to adequately analyze the proposed project for Coastal Act conformance. Towards this end, we are unable to file this application until the following is submitted:

1. Demonstration of Need: Thank you for describing how the project intends to serve under-resourced communities and for providing the traffic study and corresponding estimates of ridership, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and GHG emission reductions. For us to best understand and evaluate the public need for and benefits of the project in a CDP and Coastal Act context, we are in need of additional supporting documentation. Such documentation should include but not be limited to the rationale behind the estimates of ridership used in the traffic study, and the associated reductions in VMT and congestion. Please provide supporting evidence and a descriptive breakdown of the projected 10-minute travel time for buses using the proposed busway. Please also provide an analysis that compares the proposed project to current travel time for existing bus services, and for cars traveling along the same route during both low and high levels of congestion. Please describe and provide supporting evidence for the current level and timing of congestion along this segment of Highway 1, as well as projected future congestion on Highway 1 with and without the project.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CAFB87E-BC87-4E83-8D47-194F4FE3A6D6

EXHIBIT A
21 2. Alternatives An
alysis: Thank you for providing an alternatives analysis for the no project alternative, the bus on shoulder alternative, the Recreational Trail replacement alternative, the single lane busway alternative, the railroad track replacement alternative, and the brief discussions of a Highway 1 auxiliary lane, an HOV lane, a hybrid of different alternatives, and the use of existing surface streets. However, given the large scope of the proposed project and the expected adverse impacts to coastal resources, a more thorough qualitative and quantitative alternatives analysis that explores all possible options to avoid such impacts is necessary for the Commission to evaluate the project. Alternatives should be on even footing with the proposed project, including a consistent use of zero emission buses across alternatives unless there are feasibility constraints for zero emission buses for project alternatives that do not exist for the proposed project. Specifically:
a. Please describe and show on a site map how each alternative will impact ESHA and the duration of those impacts, including the area of ESHA that will be directly covered by new development. For each alternative, please describe how ESHA impacts would be mitigated.
b. Please provide estimates for bus ridership, VMT, and Highway 1 congestion impacts for each alternative, along with supporting evidence for those estimates.
c. Please clarify why the single lane busway alternative includes an 11-foot breakdown shoulder along the length of the busway. Please also provide an updated single lane alternative that minimizes the width of the busway as much as possible over as much of the proposed alignment as possible. d. Please add an inland alignment alternative that includes the construction of a new busway or other improvements to bus infrastructure outside of the coastal zone. On this alternative, please evaluate the feasibility of an alignment that utilizes existing surface streets, or a combination of existing streets and new dedicated busway, and other public transit enhancements such as street light priority signalization, bus-on-median, dedicated stops/platforms, etc. (e.g., service similar to the recently completed Van Ness Avenue BRT in San Francisco). Such analysis should consider how such an alignment could offer service in close proximity to job/housing centers, including at CSUMB, the VA hospital, and planned development on former Fort Ord property, and how this alignment would compare with the proposed project in terms of ridership.
e. Please add a bus-on-median alternative that takes advantage of the wide median through this section of Highway 1, including whether new dedicated on- and off-ramps in the median could be constructed to provide for easy access to a median-located busway. This alternative should also DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CAFB87E-BC87-4E83-8D47-194F4FE3A6D6

EXHIBIT A
22 compare the relati
ve value of the habitats present in the median as
compared with the proposed project.
f. Thank you for providing information on the feasibility associated with a bus-on-shoulder alternative. While the application materials specified that CHP and Caltrans are not supportive of this approach, we would note that a bus-on-shoulder project is currently being constructed on Highway 1 in Santa Cruz County. Please explain why the bus on shoulder is feasible and supportable on this other section of Highway 1, but not at this location.
g. Please more thoroughly evaluate hybrid approaches to improving bus service in this area. One hybrid option that is worth consideration is a Highway 1 bus-on-shoulder or bus-on-median from the northern start of the proposed busway at Del Monte Boulevard to Imjin Parkway, then the use of 1
st or 2nd Avenues, until re-entry onto Highway 1 at Lightfighter Drive and a continuation of bus-on-shoulder or bus-on-median down to Fremont Boulevard.

3. Other Permit Approvals: The proposed project is a 2.5-mile segment of a larger 6-mile long project, the remainder of which falls within the Local Coastal Program (LCP) jurisdiction of the cities of Marina and Sand City, as well as portions outside the coastal zone in those cities as well as the City of Seaside. As a standalone project, this 2.5-mile long segment would not constitute a viable busway or meet any of the overall project goals, meaning that for any project benefits to be realized the other segments and elements of the busway must also gain the necessary CDPs and other approvals from local governments. This presents unique analytical and procedural challenges, as there are no guarantees that the other segments of the project will receive the requisite approvals from the local governments. Relatedly, an additional complicating factor to our analysis is that many of the application materials do not differentiate between the 2.5-mile segment within the Coastal Commission’s original jurisdiction (and thus the area subject to this CDP application), and the project as a whole. For example, the alternatives analysis does not differentiate between ESHA impacts for the whole 6-mile project and this 2.5-mile segment for any of the alternatives evaluated.

As such, the project requested in this CDP application poses some difficult evaluation questions, including how this component will relate to other project components that fall within other jurisdictions.
a. Please describe and quantify which parts of the project fall within each LCP jurisdiction, including the amount of dune habitat disturbance and proposed mitigation (see below) in each jurisdiction.
b. Please provide information regarding the permitting status and intended timeline of the portions of the project that are subject to local government approvals, including information regarding the local CDP permitting DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CAFB87E-BC87-4E83-8D47-194F4FE3A6D6

EXHIBIT A
23 process, as wel
l as all other required local approvals/permits (e.g., CEQA authorizations, other local discretionary permits, building/grading permits, etc.). We would also like to know, at a minimum, the preliminary receptiveness from each local government on the project in their jurisdiction, including whether there have been any controversies or questions raised, alternative routes and configurations requested for evaluation, etc. Please provide an overview of the CDPs and other permits needed for the project as whole, including what outreach has been done to date to garner public participation, and any significant comments made by members of the public and local decisionmakers.
c. Please also provide verification of all other necessary permits, permissions or approvals applied for or granted by other public agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California State Parks, Caltrans, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or evidence that no such approvals are necessary from these agencies.

Once we have received this information, we may have more questions about the project’s substantive and procedural issues and can discuss them with you at that time.

4. Impacts to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA): The 2.5-mile segment of busway requested in this CDP application is sited entirely within ESHA as defined by the Coastal Act, and there are ESHA impacts for sections of the project within the LCP jurisdictions of Marina and Sand City. a. Please describe the method used to calculate ESHA impacts and show on a site plan all areas of expected ESHA impacts. Please differentiate between short-term temporary, long-term temporary, and permanent impacts as defined in the attached memo from Coastal Commission Senior Ecologist Dr. Lauren Garske-Garcia. While the memo was not written for this project, it describes the Commission’s general approach for ESHA mitigation. Please also indicate the total acreage of ESHA that will be covered by new development, as well as the potential off-site/indirect impacts associated with lighting, noise, and other operations on dune habitat.
b. Please provide a mitigation plan for all impacts to ESHA that documents where and how identified ESHA impacts are to be mitigated. The most recent Coastal Commission combined staff report regarding construction in dune ESHA in this area (A-3-MRA-19-0034 and 9-20-0603, Cal-Am Desalination, available on the Commission’s November 17, 2002 archived agenda at:
https://www.coastal.ca.gov/meetings/agenda/#/2022/11)
provides a helpful reference for the nature of mitigation that the Commission has recently required. Please note that the Commission has adopted a ‘no net loss’ policy for this area of dune habitat, requiring dune habitat creation at a 1:1 ratio for all dune habitat covered by permanent DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CAFB87E-BC87-4E83-8D47-194F4FE3A6D6

EXHIBIT A
24 development (see Spe
cial Condition 8.c). Regarding mitigation ratios, Dr.

Garske-Garcia’s memo provides helpful guidance on the variability of ratios depending on the type of restoration activities performed. Of particular note, the minimum mitigation ratio for short-term temporary ESHA impacts is 1:1, for long term impacts it is 1.5:1, and for permanent impacts it is 3:1 (which includes the 1:1 dune habitat creation described above, with a remainder of 2:1 for all other permanent impacts).

Depending on the type of mitigation employed, these ratios may also be doubled or tripled.

5. Public Access During Construction: Please describe, and show on a site plan, the existing public access at and adjacent to the site, including as related to the Monterey Peninsula Recreational Trail and Fort Ord Dunes State Park, as well as how this will be maintained and/or closed during construction activities. If public access will be closed during construction, please describe why it will be necessary to close public access and the estimated duration of the closure(s).

6. Public Access After Construction: Please describe, and show on a site plan, the proposed post-construction public access at the site, including the nature and location of any changes or additions to bicycle and pedestrian access to and along Fort Ord Dunes State Park and the Monterey Peninsula Recreational Trail.

Please include a detailed description of all bicycle and pedestrian crossings on the busway and how safety will be maintained at these crossings. Please also indicate any relocation of any bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, any locations where there is no separation between the busway shoulder and the Recreational Trail, and any locations where there is less than 10 feet between the Recreational Trail and the Busway shoulder.

7. Construction Plans: Please provide complete details of the proposed construction, including: all heavy machinery proposed to be used and at which phases they are required, the construction staging area, the time and duration of construction and all of the proposed best management practices that would be employed to protect water quality and ESHA during construction.

8. Drainage Plan: The proposed project will lead to significant impervious coverage over coastal sand dunes which are highly susceptible to erosion. Please provide a drainage plan that clearly identifies all measures that will be taken to collect and direct site drainage. Please also describe and show on a site plan where drainage will be directed, including the location and type of any infiltration infrastructure, and indicate how erosion will be prevented during heavy rains.

9. Mapping: The proposed project covers a large area, and the maps provided either do not show adequate detail or are so zoomed in as to lack the overall context of the project. Please provide a highly detailed map overlaid onto satellite imagery, or shapefiles of the proposed project, that show in detail the locations of all proposed elements of the project including the busway, any modifications to the existing public access trails, and the location of proposed retaining walls.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CAFB87E-BC87-4E83-8D47-194F4FE3A6D6

EXHIBIT A
25 10. Retaining Walls
: The proposed project includes a total of 5,920 linear feet of retaining walls. Please indicate the length of retaining walls proposed in this CDP application, excluding all retaining walls outside of the original permitting jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. Please also provide visual simulations showing a typical section of the proposed retaining wall as seen from traveling north and south on both Highway 1 and the Monterey Peninsula Recreational Trail.

11. Fencing: Under the ‘Construction Impacts’ section of the CDP application package, the final bullet point mentions fencing but no additional information regarding proposed fencing is provided. Please describe the location, height, and type of any permanent fencing proposed for installation. Please also describe any signage or other measures intended to keep pedestrians and bicyclists off the Busway.

12. Parking: Please provide additional details on the parking at the 5 th Street station,
including as related to cost, availability to the general public (i.e., will it be available for just bus riders or the general public, including users of the Recreational Trail and State Park?), and hours of operation.

13. Zero Emission Vehicles: Please clarify the status of proposed usage of zero emission vehicles on the busway. Will zero emission vehicles be exclusively used on day one of the operation of the busway? If the busway is only a section of a much longer route that buses will take between Salinas and Monterey, will MST have an adequate number of zero emission buses to run the entirety of that route without requiring passengers to disembark from fossil fuel power vehicles and transfer to zero emission vehicles before traveling on the busway?

14. Other Vehicles: Please clarify if any other vehicles, including emergency services or vehicles used for special events (shooting a movie, etc.), will ever be permitted on the busway aside from those necessary for maintenance.

15. Future Rail Service: Please further describe the impacts the project will have on the existing railroad tracks, including where and how much track will be removed and any impacts to the structural integrity of the tracks caused by grading and retaining walls adjacent to the tracks. Please also describe the future compatibility of the busway and rail service if funding were secured to restore rail service along the corridor; would the busway and rail service be able to provide service simultaneously given the currently proposed configuration of the busway? Would future rail service require the termination of bus service? Overall, how would the construction of the proposed busway impact the feasibility of future rail service? Please describe and provide any relevant documentation regarding any commitments or legal restrictions relating to the future use of rail in the TAMC corridor and the preservation of the railroad tracks, if any such commitments or restrictions exist.

16. Public Outreach: please provide a comprehensive summary of the public outreach that has been conducted relating to the project, including the DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CAFB87E-BC87-4E83-8D47-194F4FE3A6D6

EXHIBIT A
26 communities t
hat were engaged, the extent of public participation, and when outreach activities occurred.

17. Public Access Signage: Please clarify the type and nature of signage to be installed at the 5th Street station for “social equity reasons” (described on page 28 of the supporting materials and required attachments document submitted with the CDP application).

18. Appendix B (Local Agency Review Form): Please have a member of Monterey County planning staff complete and sign Appendix B and return the completed form to our office.

19. Appendix C (Mailing List) and Envelopes for Noticing: Please submit a revised mailing list (Appendix C) that includes the addresses for all property owners and occupants for each property located within 100 feet (excluding roads) of the property lines of the entire project site, including areas outside the Coastal Commission’s original jurisdiction. In addition to the 100-foot addressees, please also supplement the mailing list with addressees organized by and corresponding to: (a) all other parties known to be interested in the proposed development (e.g., persons expressing interest at local hearings, advisory committee meetings, during CEQA review, etc.); (b) the Monterey County Department of Housing and Community Development; and (c) all contacts from consultations with other applicable regulatory agencies (e.g., State Parks, CDFW, ACOE, USFWS, NMFS, RWQCB, etc.). Please provide stamped envelopes for each person or agency on the mailing list. The envelopes must be #10 envelope: no window, no return address, square flap, NOT self-seal with forever stamps (not 1
st class). Finally, to the extent that multiple hearings are noticed for this matter, you will need to submit new sets of stamped envelopes for each subsequent hearing after the first. Please also provide written evidence that you will submit such additional envelopes, if necessary, upon request in the future.

20. Appendix D (Declaration of Posting) and Posting Notice: Please fill out the enclosed “Notice of Pending Permit” forms and post and maintain the notices where they will be conspicuously visible to the public including, at a minimum, at the northern end of Beach Range Road before it passes under Highway 1, the northern end of the Recreational Trail before it passes under Highway 1, the intersection of Beach Range Road and 8
th Street, the intersection of the
Recreational Trail and the path that runs under Highway 1 by 5th Street, the intersection of 1st Street and Beach Range Road, and the southernmost end of Beach Range Road where it intersects the Recreational Trail. All notices: (a) must be weatherproofed (e.g., laminated or otherwise covered in plastic) in the event of inclement weather; such weatherproofing must not make the notices difficult to read; and (b) must be posted at a readable height (i.e., three to five feet or so) against a solid background at least as large as the notice (e.g., an 8½" x 11" piece of plywood attached to a stake). Once the notices are posted, please submit a graphic showing all notice locations (in site plan view), and please submit photographs of such notices keyed to the site plan. All of the notices must DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CAFB87E-BC87-4E83-8D47-194F4FE3A6D6

EXHIBIT A
27 remain posted as
described until the Commission makes a decision on the
proposed project. Any notices that become unreadable or are missing (for whatever reason) must be immediately replaced. When the site has been posted, please complete Appendix D (Declaration of Posting) and return this completed form to our office. Please note that additional posting may be necessary when this item gets closer to being scheduled for a hearing in front of the Commission.

Please provide written evidence that you will commit to such posting when and as directed in the future.

We will hold the application for six months from today’s date (i.e., until November 3, 2023) pending receipt of these materials. After all of the above-listed materials have been received, the package will again be reviewed and will be filed if it contains materials sufficient for a thorough and complete review. Please note that there may be additional materials necessary for filing purposes depending upon the nature of the information provided pursuant to the above-listed materials. If all of the above-listed materials are not received within six months, CDP Application 3-23-0288 will be considered withdrawn and will be returned to you. This submittal deadline may be extended for good cause if such request is made prior to November 3, 2023. I look forward to working with you on this project. Please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or (831) 427-4863 if you have any questions regarding the above information requests.

Sincerely,
Breylen Ammen
Coastal Planner
Central Coast District Office

Cc: Todd Muck, Michelle Overmeyer, Lisa Rheinheimer, Tad Stearn, Peter Meyerhofer Enclosure
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CAFB87E-BC87-4E83-8D47-194F4FE3A6D6

EXHIBIT A
28 STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT
725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300
SANTA CRUZ , CA 95060
PHONE: (831) 427 -4863
FAX: (831) 427 -4877
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GO V

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL May 10, 2021

Michelle Overmeyer
Director of Planning & Innovation
Monterey-Salinas Transit
19 Upper Ragsdale Drive, Suite 200
Monterey, CA 93940

Re: Monterey-Salinas Transit Busway Project

Dear Ms. Overmeyer:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) Busway Project in north Monterey County. Please provide these comments to the MST Board Members prior to today’s meeting on the project and please include these comments in the administrative record for the project.

The Coastal Commission has worked diligently over many years to develop strategies to maximize public transit opportunities and to reduce carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, including to help counter the effects of global climate change and the resulting impacts from sea level rise. Thus, at a broad level, we are generally supportive of projects that can help increase our overall resiliency through development of public transit projects such as this. At the same time, however, such support only extends as far as such development can be achieved in a manner that is consistent with the California Coastal Act and with the applicable Local Coastal Programs (LCPs). It is within this context that we provide the following comments.

Outreach
We understand that MST has undertaken some outreach to the public and relevant stakeholders to solicit public comment for the proposed transit project, including via today’s meeting. However, from our discussions with the public and other stakeholders it appears that there is limited understanding of the proposed project, and thus it appears that potential interested parties may not have been thoroughly engaged, especially in light of COVID-19 and the associated difficulty for the public to ask questions and receive answers on the proposal in a meaningful way. We strongly recommend that the MST Board not take action on the project today and instead recommend that MST staff redouble its efforts to reach out to affected communities by scheduling multiple/repeat informational and educational webinars, including at a minimum presentations through regular City Council and Board of Supervisor virtual meetings (and in-person meetings as soon as possible) for all jurisdictions affected by the project going forward. We also strongly believe that the process should be extended to allow more time to discuss and evaluate project alternatives with affected cities and entities that address regional public transportation needs in a manner that protects

EXHIBIT A
29 MST Busway Project Comments
2 coastal resources and is approvable under the Coastal Act and applicable LCPs. See more discussion in the “ESHA” section below.

Jurisdiction
A significant portion of the project lies within the Transportation Agency of Monterey County’s (TAMC’s) right-of-way on the former Fort Ord military base seaward of Highway 1. The entire area west of the highway is within the Commission’s retained permitting jurisdiction and a coastal development permit (CDP) from the Commission will be required for any development within this area. The standard of review will be the Coastal Act. Also, as we understand it, other elements of the project fall within the purview of adjacent local governments (e.g., Marina, Sand City, Seaside, and Monterey County) and separate CDPs for those project elements will be required from those respective jurisdictions. The certified LCPs will be the standard of review in those locations. In certain limited cases where a project has split CDP jurisdiction, the Commission has the ability to process a consolidated CDP as opposed to separate CDPs (and potential appeals), provided the applicant, the local government, and the Commission’s Executive Director all agree to such processing and when public comment and participation will not be substantially impaired. While consolidation is a potential vehicle to process the CDP, we believe it is too early in the process to determine whether it is appropriate to do so, including because there are substantive coastal resource issues that first need to be addressed prior to a determination of how the permitting process should be undertaken, all as described in more detail below.

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESHA)/ Project Alternatives The IS/MND notes that the majority of the alignment (roughly five miles) of the busway project would be within TAMC’s Monterey Branch Line rail corridor right-of-way, an approximately 100-foot- wide corridor located between the Fort Ord Dunes State Park recreational trail (i.e., Beach Range Road) and the Caltrans right-of-way recreation trail, both of which are located seaward of Highway 1. More specifically, the alignment would be located mainly in the sand dunes area seaward of the TAMC rail corridor right-of-way and would deviate from this general alignment only when necessary to avoid bridge under-crossings and other similar obstacles. The IS/MND describes the TAMC rail corridor as heavily disturbed but also wide enough to support native and non-native plant communities. The IS/MND acknowledges that sensitive habitats exist in this area of the coastal zone, which includes the underlying sand dunes within the TAMC right-of- way, and focuses on providing mitigation for project-specific impacts to known rare and/or sensitive plant and animal species. The IS/MND only evaluates the busway on the Monterey Branch Line rail corridor right-of-way alternative.1

1 MST in conjunction with TAMC and other stakeholders, prepared a Bus-on-Shoulder/Branch Line Feasibility Study in 2018 to respond to growing traffic congestion and delays on State Route 1 in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. The study evaluated several project alternatives. Determination of feasibility was based primarily on annual ridership, time savings, total capital cost, and reduction in vehicle miles traveled. Environmental impacts were scored as either significant, possibly significant, or not significant.

There was no quantification of impacts in terms of habitat loss or disturbance, no discussion of necessary mitigations or costs associated with mitigations, and these costs did not enter into the feasibility equation.

EXHIBIT A
30 MST Busway Project Comments
3 Coastal Act Section 30240 provides for the protection of ESHA, including sensitive dune habitats such as those found at the former Ford Ord and within the TAMC right-of-way:

Section 30240 (a) environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.

The protections afforded by Coastal Act Section 30240 extend to both natural and degraded dunes, i.e., whether the dunes are covered in native dune plant species, ice plant, or base rock, including because of the inherent ability for degraded dunes to be restored. As noted in past correspondence to MST staff regarding this project, only resource-dependent uses that do not significantly disrupt ESHA are allowable in ESHA.

The project description contained in the IS/MND identifies roughly five linear miles of two-lane roadway surface, drainage improvements, retaining walls, fencing, utility connections, traffic and safety controls, and operation of motorized bus service all within sand dune ESHA. The project would include roughly 22 acres of new impervious surface and approximately 23 acres of grubbing and grading, much of this in dune ESHA. A transportation infrastructure project like this is not an allowed use in ESHA and therefore is inconsistent with the Coastal Act and applicable LCPs. Additionally, based on the project description the proposed development will introduce additional traffic, noise, light, and general disturbance within and adjacent to sand dune ESHA, thereby also resulting in significant disruption of ESHA habitat values.

The currently proposed project is located in dune ESHA and is not resource dependent and is not approvable under Coastal Act Section 30240 or under the ESHA policies of the various LCPs that would apply to the project in the areas located outside of the Commission retained permitting jurisdiction. Furthermore, the project will include the construction and staging of equipment and materials, and it is not clear whether these activities will occur within the dunes; if so, those activities also have the potential to cause significant disruptions to adjacent habitat areas, inconsistent with Coastal Act Section 30240 and related LCP ESHA policies. Given the sensitive dune resources involved and the need to ensure that ESHA habitat values are appropriately protected, we recommend that MST prepare a comprehensive evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives, including options that avoid impacts to dune ESHA, whether degraded or not, that the proposed new two-lane bus thoroughfare would present.2 The analysis must quantify the impact for each alternative in terms of permanent and temporary habitat loss / disturbance, along with identification and recommendation of corresponding mitigation proposed for each alternative. This level of analysis will be needed for Commission staff and City and County staffs to fully evaluate any project for

2 At a minimum, the range of alternatives should include: 1) establishing bus service within the existing highway right-of-way via widening or use of an existing lane; 2) establishing an HOV lane in the right- hand lane of Highway 1; 3) commuter rail on the existing rail alignment; 4) utilizing surface city streets to accommodate bus rapid transit.

EXHIBIT A
31 MST Busway Project Comments
4 Coastal Act and LCP consistency, and our Commission will expect this analysis to be present in the staff report for any project.

Public Access and Recreation
Coastal Act Section 30240(b) requires that development sited adjacent to parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would substantially degrade those areas. Based on the project description contained in the IS/MND, the proposed busway transit project would include roughly five linear miles of two-lane roadway surface, drainage improvements, retaining walls, fencing, utility connections, traffic and safety controls, and operation of motorized bus service immediately adjacent to an important park and recreation area, i.e. Fort Ord Dunes State Park, where it is clear the effect will be a significant degradation of the park experience, inconsistent with Coastal Act Section 30240(b). The proposed development will introduce additional traffic, noise, light, and general disturbance well beyond the physical development location and much closer to important park recreational amenities (e.g., the portion of the recreation trail located on Fort Ord State Park property) than the current commotion originating from Highway 1 in this area. The busway would be visible from the same public recreation trail and the Commission-approved Fort Ord Dunes State Park campground. Please also see the letter from the California Department of Parks and Recreation (dated April 11, 2021), in which State Parks’ staff describes a myriad of impacts to Fort Ord Dunes State Park from the project. In short, the proposed project will result in significant coastal access and recreation impacts, including to Fort Ord Dunes State Park and the adjacent recreation trail, and thus the proposed project is inconsistent with Coastal Act Section 30240(b) and cannot be approved.

Public Views
The Coastal Act protects public views “as a resource of public importance,” where development is required to be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding area. The IS/MND suggests that although the views of coastal Fort Ord could be considered scenic, these same vistas are not significantly affected or compromised by the project.

Visual renditions from Highway 1 provided with the IS/MND are clear in that buses traveling within the rail right-of-way will be visible during both day and night, and will be especially noticeable during the night due to bus lighting. As proposed, the sweeping unobstructed views of the highly scenic Fort Ord coast would now include additional permanent facilities that would be visible during day and ongoing bus travel that would visible day and night, significantly degrading said views. These impacts are certain to occur no matter whether an alternative is chosen within the Caltrans or TAMC right-of- way. However, views from the Fort Ord recreational trail would more likely be significantly impacted by the busway development in the TAMC right-of-way, which would be in some instances merely feet away from the trail. Likewise, views from the campground would suffer from a similar increase in visual detractions. Accordingly, we strongly recommend that MST adopt an alternative that avoids and/or minimizes the amount of new paving and infrastructure needed to initiate service, and realigns the bus service in closer proximity to the existing highway right-of-way, i.e. away from the Fort Ord recreation trail and the Commission-approved Fort Ord State Park campground.

EXHIBIT A
32 MST Busway Project Comments
5 In conclusion, although we are supportive of strategies to maximize public transit opportunities and to reduce carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, the current proposal cannot be found consistent with the Coastal Act or with the applicable LCPs.

We strongly suggest that MST take a pause on this project to develop a public process to evaluate alternatives that will not result in the range of significant coastal resource impacts described herein. We are available for consultation as you proceed forward.

Regards,

Mike Watson
Coastal Planner
California Coastal Commission

EXHIBIT A
33 EXHIBIT A
34 EXHIBIT A
35 EXHIBIT A
36 EXHIBIT A
37 EXHIBIT A
38 EXHIBIT A
39 EXHIBIT A
40 EXHIBIT A
41 EXHIBIT A
42 EXHIBIT A
43 EXHIBIT A
44 EXHIBIT A
45 EXHIBIT A
46 EXHIBIT A
47 EXHIBIT A
48 EXHIBIT A
49 EXHIBIT A
50 EXHIBIT A
51 EXHIBIT A
52 EXHIBIT A
53 EXHIBIT A
54 EXHIBIT A
55 EXHIBIT A
56 EXHIBIT A
57 EXHIBIT A
58 EXHIBIT A
59 EXHIBIT A
60 EXHIBIT A
61 EXHIBIT A
62 EXHIBIT A
63 EXHIBIT A
64 EXHIBIT A
65 EXHIBIT A
66 EXHIBIT A
67 EXHIBIT A
68 EXHIBIT A
69 EXHIBIT A
70 EXHIBIT A
71 EXHIBIT A
72 EXHIBIT A
73 EXHIBIT A
74 EXHIBIT A
75 EXHIBIT A
76 EXHIBIT A
77 EXHIBIT A
78 EXHIBIT A
79 EXHIBIT A
80 EXHIBIT A
81 EXHIBIT A
82 From: [email protected]
To: Greg Simmons; Alyson Hunter; Nick Mcilroy; Guido Persicone Cc: [email protected]
Subject: MST Tree Remove Application Continuance
Date: Thursday, January 11, 2024 9:52:06 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Tree Committee Members and Planning Staff,
I’m writing as a member of the public in the matter of the tree removal application for the SuRF! project in Marina. I applaud the Tree Committee’s decision to continue discussion on the matter since there was a lot of new information presented that was not in the agenda packet. It takes time to digest such weighty material and with the lives of so many trees at stake.

In the 5th Station design, MST took all of the area for parking and for bus turnabouts and (as a result) proposes to remove approx. eighty trees. In their presentation comments, they stated that they have discussed with State Parks about using some of the parking for overflow from the Fort Ord Dunes State Park.

Clearly this indicates over-design for the SuRF! project and suggests an opportunity to either preserve some of the existing trees or to incorporate trees into the design.

In the design drawing that were presented, it appeared that there were few (if any) trees in the plan. I am reminded of the Joni Mitchell song “Big Yellow Taxi” and it’s iconic lyric “paved paradise, put up a parking lot.”
I encourage, during the time until the next Tree Committee meeting, that Staff, the Tree Committee, and the Applicant work together to modify the 5th St. Station design to incorporate trees into the design. As the chair noted, our native trees can provide a striking architectural and esthetic component to a design. I think we’ll all note that in parking lots, cars will often gravitate towards trees due to the shade that they provide. If the existing trees cannot be incorporated, perhaps native trees can be part of the landscape features. This station is near the dunes that define our city.

To emphasize my point of parking over-design, I went down to the Marina Transit Center this morning during what is purported to be the height of the commute at 8:30am. There were two cars in the lot. One of the cars was waiting for a passenger from Monterey (I asked). The other was empty. While I was there, the #20 arrived , I couldn’t see the number of people on the bus, but no passengers boarded, and one disembarked. MST is an under-utilized transit system in Marina and (IMHO) SurF! is not going to change that much. Last year, MST discontinued the lines in my neighborhood (upper Rheindollar). It may increase ridership from Salinas to Monterey and from CSUMB to Monterey, but not substantially (IMHO). My point is, there is room in that station design to accommodate trees.

I sincerely hope that the Tree Committee can be successful in accomplishing this.

While I can’t participate as a committee member, I am happy to assist in any way that I can as a community member.

Sincerely,
Jeffrey Markham
Parking Lot at ~8:35

EXHIBIT A
83 Transit Center Gates .. my car is fore

EXHIBIT A
84 EXHIBIT A
85 1
Alyson Hunter
From: Todd Clark <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 4:53 PM
To: Alyson Hunter
Subject: SURF Bus Project comment
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I am writing to object to Coastal Development permit for the SURF Bus Rapid Transit line, identified as CDP 24-0004. The proposed development is not compliant with the Marina Local Coastal Plan because it disturbs land within a protected ESHA and full mitigation is not feasible.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email.

Sincerely,
Todd Clark
17926 Maplehurst Pl
Canyon Country, CA 91387
(661) 600-7590

EXHIBIT A
86 April 1, 2024
Marina Planning Commission
211 Hillcrest Avenue
Marina, CA 93933
Re: MST Tree Removal Permit and Coastal Development Permit for the SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project
Dear Marina Planning Commissioners,
On April 11, 2024, the Marina Planning Commission will consider approving a Tree Removal Permit and Coastal Development Permit for the SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project (SURF! Project). Since early 2020, MST and the Transportation Agency for Monterey County have worked purposefully to plan the SURF! Project to bring meaningful, real, and immediate benefits to our communities while minimizing impacts. We have planned the SURF! Project to bring these community and environmental benefits:
✓ Connecting communities. Creating opportunity. Being kind to our planet. ✓ Upgraded traffic signals for better traffic flow along Reservation and Del Monte. ✓ One mile of new and safer multiuse trail connections to Fort Ord Dunes State Park.
✓ Safer access for people with mobility limitations including at Del Monte and Reindollar.
✓ More travel time options and more frequent transit service for riders. ✓ Better, more reliable transit without getting stuck in Highway 1 traffic. ✓ Quiet, modern, and zero-emissions buses.
✓ Fewer vehicle trips on area roadways.
✓ Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by over 1,900 annual acres of forest in carbon sequestration.
✓ Over $27M in local economic impact in Marina as a result of the SURF! project.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6D6AB993-E65A-46F8-81CB-0BD4F269A108

EXHIBIT A
87 More information about the SURF! Project can be found at: https://mst.org/about- mst/planning-development/surf/ At the top of the page, a short video simulation provides a thorough visual explanation of the Project.

Because of the extensive benefits of and public interest in the SURF! Project, MST’s public outreach efforts have been comprehensive and extensive. MST staff have attended over 140 public meetings, site visits, or outreach events. We have connected with over 4,300 attendees and gained support from influential leaders, community organizations, and individuals. The following list includes elected leaders, governmental organizations, community groups, and individuals who have provided MST with support for the Project in the form of backing for grant requests, support for a Coastal Development Permit, or awarded significant grant funds to the SURF! Project:
• Federal Transit Administration
• Congressman Jimmy Panetta
• US Senator Alex Padilla
• Former US Senator Dianne Feinstein
• California State Transportation Agency
• California Speaker Robert Rivas
• Assemblymember Dawn Addis
• Former Assemblymember Mark Stone
• California Senators John Laird and Scott Weiner
• Retired Senator Bill Monning
• California State Parks
• California State University Monterey Bay
• California Transportation Commission
• Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
• Monterey County Supervisor Wendy Root Askew
• Transportation Agency for Monterey County
• California Department of Transportation
• Monterey Bay Air Resources District
• LandWatch Monterey County
• Blue Zones
• Monterey Firefighters Association
• Marina and Monterey Peninsula Chambers of Commerce
• Monterey County Hospitality Association
• Fort Ord Regional Trail and Greenway
• The Cities of Marina, Sand City, Salinas, Monterey
• Monterey Bay Aquarium
• ITN Monterey County
• CHISPA
• Monterey Peninsula Unified School District
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6D6AB993-E65A-46F8-81CB-0BD4F269A108

EXHIBIT A
88 • United Veteran’s Council of Monterey County
• MST Mobility Advisory Committee
• 40+ individual members of the community
MST urges the Marina Planning Commission to consider this overwhelming community support for the SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project and approve a Tree Removal Permit and Coastal Development Permit. The SURF! Project in conjunction with the City of Marina’s downtown plans will bring vibrancy to the community while reducing bus emissions and promoting active transportation.

If you have any questions about this letter or the SURF! Project, please contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Carl Sedoryk
General Manager/CEO

Online Enclosure: Binder with SURF Letters of Support.pdf DocuSign Envelope ID: 6D6AB993-E65A-46F8-81CB-0BD4F269A108

EXHIBIT A
89 EXHIBIT A
90 EXHIBIT A
91 EXHIBIT A
92 EXHIBIT A
93 EXHIBIT A
94 EXHIBIT A
95 EXHIBIT A
96 April 8, 2023

City of Marina
Planning Commission
Marina, CA

RE: SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project

Dear Commissioners,

The SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project will provide an alternative transportation route along the heavily congested Highway 1. One of the most exciting aspects of this project is the opportunity to reduce transportation greenhouse gases and create a route that is more efficient outside of normal, congested travel lanes.

Thank you for your consideration of this transformative transportation project.

Sincerely,

Hans Uslar
City Manager

EXHIBIT A
97 1
Chair and Members of the Marina Planning Commission - Meeting of April 11th, 2024 Submitted by: Stephen Kennedy
Public Comments: ITEM No. 8A
At what cost to the environment and to the taxpayers is MST SURF Project going to be, for the sole purpose of saving 14 minutes of travel time for com- muters?
Such lack of creative route planning by MST could have resolved this travel time, by utilizing parallel roadways to Hwy One… during highly congested time peri- ods.

Lack of calculations for carbon sequestration when using such things as cement (Portland) for road building, which many people do not know or under- stand, but it is the third highest production of CO2 emissions, due to the process of heating of the components to 2,700 degrees F in a kiln, or even oil base materi- als have not been calculated by MST.

Additionally, the absence of any mention of microplastics coming off tires of the electrified SURF buses is very convenient, but totally wrong, when MST is promoting the environmental positives in their reports.

Not acknowledging the possible retrofitting for earthquake of the Hwy One un- derpass, which buses will travel; the on-going maintenance of moving tons of sand where MST plans to put a Roundabout is a true disservice to not only all the local taxpayers who are required by formula to participate in the annual costs of MST, but to MST’s Board Members who are not made aware of all these additional costs and potential problems.

The below is what was submitted previously and request to be part of the PUBLIC RECORD along with the above COMMENTS:

April 9, 2021 (Public Comments Re: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) MST’s Surf! Busway & Bus Rapid Transit Project:

MST Latest Proposal for Paving the Coast!
The February 2011 Alternatives Analysis for the Monterey Peninsula Fixed- Guideway Study - Volume 2: Locally Preferred Alternative as commissioned by the

EXHIBIT A
98 2
Transportation Agency for Monterey County provides the proper concept and analysis for obtaining what is needed in this environmental sensitive area:

Agriculture and tourism are the two largest generators of jobs on the Peninsula, and together contribute a significant proportion of total economic development in Mon- terey County. Both of these land uses are highly dependent on a sound environmental foundation. The Area offers everything from a world-recognized produce market whose farms feed a large part of the country, to a haven for the fragile Monterey Bay aquatic sanctuary. The need to sustain the viability of these enterprises through sound environ- mental practices is both obvious and practical. 1
The Monterey Salinas Transportation Agency (MST) is now proposing with engi- neering drawings being prepared at this time (with taxpayer dollars) to provide an alter- native paved roadway on a segment off Scenic Highway 1, that will allow faster com- mute times for riders utilizing MST. Instead of looking at alternative means for the ef- fective transporting of individuals via a bus system, MST has proposed to build addi- tional roadways in a bio sensitive area and in an area that has been considered a scenic corridor since the early 60’s.

The redevelopment of Fort Ord provided a system of roadways that includes new express roadways such as General Jim Moore which runs from CSUMB to Canyon Del Rey running parallel to the Highway 1 Scenic Highway. General Moore 2 Blvd is considered an express roadway and MST minimally utilizes. It is considered the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) Alternatives Analysis for the Monterey 1 Peninsula Fixed Guideway Corridor Study, Volume 2: Locally Preferred Alternative, February 2011
See Google map screenshot of General Moore Avenue showing an expensive four lane road2 - way running parallel to Scenic Hwy 1.

EXHIBIT A
99 3
fastest way to reach Seaside less than a 10 minute drive 6 miles and could easily be used as an alternative to Line 19 services, particularly as a substitute route as an ex- press line between Bunker Hill/Yorktown and Del Monte Center. 3 The statements made by MST is that it needs an alternative and paving an ad- ditional roadway in a very sensitive area, where such may even be in conflict with walk- ers/bike riders with crossovers for large buses and a narrow under Scenic Highway 1 existing underpass is the only solution. The Monterey Peninsula Recreational Trail (also known as the Monterey Coastal Trail) extends approximately 18 miles between Castro- ville and Pacific Grove is a Class 1 Bikeway. The incompatibility of having large buses that may or may not carry any bus riders is very concerning. Interference with riders and walkers when buses are traveling at a much higher speed, even if separated is dis- concerting at the least and can be unnecessarily dangerous particularly with cross flow intersections (even if controlled - bike riders many times will attempt to beat or may ig- nore such cross over points). The small underpass (under Scenic Highway 1) is also incomparable with walkers and bikers attempting to share such.

Fully utilizing General Moore Blvd and adding express lines for weekends and weekdays is the best solution for those needing to reach such places as the Del Monte Shopping Center and in a timely manner with a simple route change from General Moore to Hwy 68 (West) to Highway 1, which bypasses Highway 1 blockage, that oc- curs north of the Hwy 68 Highway 1 interchange.

So putting in non-polluting buses on a new roadway bypassing those who may be stuck in tourist related or even workforce Scenic Highway 1 slow down, will result in Note: This could be a non-stop express line that could easily travel from Bunker Hill & York3 - town via General Jim Moore to Canyon Del Rey and to the Monterey-Salinas Hwy connecting into Hwy 1 north to the Del Monte Center.

EXHIBIT A
100
4 a higher level of ridership? This is very much conjecture and regarding tourists who 4 normally stay in accommodations in the southern area (Seaside/Monterey/Pacific Grove areas, very few would take the Surf bus system.
5 Chapter 6 of the Fixed-Guideway Study provides a Financial Plan and Table 6-3 points out that the taxpayers have already spent $17,659,275.00 in the “Advance Right-Of-Way Acquisition Phase” and the “Planning And Conceptual Design Phase”.

The taxpayer funding was from Proposition 116 (Clean Air and Transportation Im- provement Act of 1990):

Findings and Declarations:
(Section) 99601. The people of California find and declare all of the following:
(a) Rail transportation results in cleaner air, less energy use, more transportation opportunities for those who cannot drive, and less crowding on already overcrowd- ed streets and highways.
(b) For these reasons, it is appropriate to use state general obligation bonds to finance rail infrastructure.
(c) This part will result in implementation of part of an overall transportation plan which will provide cleaner air and better transportation options for all Californians. 6 Even in the Alternatives Analysis - Volume 2: Locally Preferred Alternative it plainly states, “The long-proposed Highway 1 widening projects may never gain ap- proval from an environmental impact status, regardless of funding.” So why would the 7 Ridership becomes a multiple of same individuals actually using a bus system. Metrics can 4 be very misleading (intentionally or not) when the system counts those getting on and also those getting off, as well as when changing bus lines…the single passenger becomes a multi- ple number. It does not reflect the true number, but is rather exploded based on the term “rid- ership”. If we counted number of passengers (riders) in a vehicle we would include getting in/ out of the vehicle and if we stop at a store and back on - it multiplies.

Draft Transportation Impact for the MST Surf! Kimley-Horn & Assoc. Dec. 20205 Part 11.5. Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Act of 1990 Chapter 1. General Provi6 - sions (Citation Added Proposition 116) Underlined for emphasis.

Op cit., Alternatives Analysis pp. 7

EXHIBIT A
101
5 Coastal Commission or even a properly drawn up EIR provide any type of reasoning for approval of the current MST proposal for a frontage road build out running beside this Scenic Highway?
8 Even in the OverView of the Surf! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project, it states:
“Surf! will utilize the Monterey Branch Line rail alignment, which linked the Peninsula with San Francisco from 1880 to 1971. The Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) purchased the unused line in 2003 to preserve it as a transportation corridor, and light rail is the long term vision for the corridor if the cost becomes feasible in the future.”
I am very concern that the removal of the existing rails including the current rail bed (rocks and railroad ties) will not only be a wasteful expense but one of major dis- posal issues (including new TWW disposal rules). Particularly, when such could be re- worked and utilized for a new light rail system.

Again, if the MST Board feels that this is a current solution in reducing pollution, they really should study what type of negative carbon offset occurs with the use of paving material such as asphalt or utilizing cement or even a recycled mix. This is 9 sensitive land that with any type of construction will result in violations of the Environ- mental Protection Act. It is also not necessary with the current layout of roadways, such as General Jim Moore Blvd., which could be utilized with little cost and create the same efficiency in mobility for those riders of MST.

Violation of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, which is under the 8 jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission and their applicable policies, including pro- tecting and where feasible restoring coastal resources.

Appendix 11, pp 13 Const GreenHouse Gas Emissions Table 11-2 - does not discuss the use 9 of Portland cement in retaining walls or actual roadway material, which has a very high rate of carbon emissions when producing. Is this Environmental Clearance deficient?

EXHIBIT A
102
6 The Surf! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project, includes a statement relating to Maintenance - downplaying greatly issues associated with roadway maintenance.

Statement made: “Due to occasional blowing sand from nearby sand dunes, particular- ly in the southern portion of the busway, regular sweeping and sand removal may be required”. Maybe required?? For heaven sakes! Current maintenance by the park sys- tem and other jurisdictions, including CalTrans in this area requires an expensive on- going maintenance system relating to not only to Highway 1, but also the Class 1 bikeway (Monterey Coastal Trail). The proposed roundabout which may not be consid- ered part of this study, but has been previously reference and is well documented is located with a sand dune that is 100 feet high close to the bus roundabout proposal.

I can see why they did not include this in this study, due to the amount of re- quired engineering including very high retaining walls, which in my opinion would fail with blowing sand filling up behind such and finally falling over the engineered walls.

With Climate Change and a more robust climate, I am dismayed how cavalier this study would make such a statement regarding “blowing sand”. 10 I am also very concern that MST’s current proposal will result in delaying or can- celing the work and jeopardizing monies put into TAMC’s Monterey Peninsula Fixed- Guideway Study. This project/study has utilized monies from the taxpayers in the sums of over $17.6 million dollars to acquire land (Proposition 116 for Rail purpose only:
$9,238,475 and (SB 620 for the sum of $2,961,000) and it maybe a violation of the guidelines, where such would have to be paid back with interest, if the Fixed Guideway project is not fulfilled timely or not at all. Again, Proposition 116 is dedicated to rail Appendix 3, Page 3-2 Chapter 3.6.4 Maintenance and Security 10

EXHIBIT A
103
7 projects, not additional or dedicated bus lanes. I believe the acquisition costs for the Right of Ways would be subject to repayment.
11 Have the policy makers (MST Board of Directors) and others taken their eyes off the target regarding the utilization of the existing rail systems in Monterey for a better tomorrow or even today? The previous preferred use ( February 2011) Alternatives Analysis for the Monterey Peninsula Fixed-Guideway Study - Volume 2: Locally Pre- ferred Alternative and the subsequent purchasing of rail right of ways was what the public and the policy makers decided was the right thing to do. Funding was provided and accomplished. Federal language for the expansion of light-rail by providing funds to utilize such is clear.

MST and Monterey can do the right thing. Utilizing existing roadways (General Moore) in a more efficient manner will provide better customer service for passengers and will also save the taxpayer of local cities who are subsidizing MST operations and maintenance each and every year.

The Federal and State of California Coastal Act is also what the public wanted and still wants regarding the protection of our coastal lands. Is MST so narrow in focus that they are now using taxpayer funds and grants to undermine the spirit of both the California Coastal Act and also the Scenic Highway Act? 7 Refer to Table 6-3 Monterey Peninsula Fixed Guideway Capital Cost Financial Plan - tasks 11 and amounts spent (Column 7)

EXHIBIT A
104

EXHIBIT A
105

EXHIBIT A
106

EXHIBIT A
107

EXHIBIT A
108

EXHIBIT A
109

EXHIBIT A
110

EXHIBIT A
111

EXHIBIT A
112

EXHIBIT A
113

EXHIBIT A
114

EXHIBIT A
115

EXHIBIT A
116

EXHIBIT A
117

EXHIBIT A
118

EXHIBIT A
119

EXHIBIT A
120

EXHIBIT A
121

EXHIBIT A
122

EXHIBIT A
123

EXHIBIT A
124

EXHIBIT A
125

EXHIBIT A
126
From: Tanja Roos
To: Marina
Cc: Alyson Hunter
Subject: Public Comment - Item#8A
Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 12:02:14 PM
Attachments: image001.png
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable members of the City of Marina Planning Commission – I am unable to attend the meeting tonight but wanted to offer my support for item 8A on your agenda. Blue Zones Project Monterey County has been supporting our partners at MST and TAMC through grant letters of support, community outreach and advocacy, as the SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project has taken shape. As a next step, BZPMC fully supports your approval of the Monterey Salinas Transit Coastal Development and Tree Removal Permit, tonight.

Access to efficient and well-designed public transit options is critical to supporting a more active, healthy and integrated community. We believe the SURF! project supports the entire region by providing improved public transportation options for the residents of our county needing access to jobs, schools, colleges, and the University, healthcare services, and recreation. In addition to supporting residents, employers benefit from more reliable public transportation to get workers to jobs on time and at a lower cost. Transportation costs are often a burdensome expense, preventing workers from accessing jobs. Once complete, the project will result in a reduction of GHG, promote healthy lifestyles, and contribute to upward economic prosperity for our neighbors and friends.

For these benefits, it is important for this project move quickly through the permit approval process.

Starting service as soon as possible will benefit our communities, business, our environment and our economic prosperity. Thank you for your support in approving Item #8A this evening.

Best,
Tanja Roos, MNA (she/her
) | Director of Community Programs & Policy
Blue Zones Project Monterey County – Peninsula Cities
451 Washington Street, Monterey, California 93940
W : 831.512.1197 | [email protected]
Blue Zones Project®
We aspire to improve the well-being of everyone, everywhere, community-by-community montereycounty.bluezonesproject.com | Follow us on Facebook | Instagram | Eventbrite

EXHIBIT A
127
1017 L Street, Suite 765
Sacramento CA 95814
(916) 557-1667
www.calrailnews.org
[email protected]
TRAC
Train Riders
Association
of California
Officers
Michael D. Setty
President
Napa County
David Schonbrunn
Vice President
Marin County
Gordon Osmundson
Treasurer
Alameda County
Bejamin Etgen
Secretary
Sacramento County
Board Members
Art Brown
Orange County
Derek Casady
San Diego County
Walllace Cook
Los Angeles County
John Deeter
Sacramento County
Ronald Jones
Fresno County
William F. McGeehan III
Contra Contra County
TRAC, active since 1984, is dedicated to a vision of fast, frequent, convenient and clean passenger rail service for California.

We promote these European-style transportation options through increased public awareness and legislative action.

Caltrain

ALTAMONT COMMUTER EXPRESS
AC E
Amtrak California
Amtrak CaliforniaAmtrak California
S U RFLINE RAmtrak
Amtrak California
Glenn Woodson, Chair April 10, 2024
City of Marina Planning Commission
City of Marina
211 Hillcrest Ave
Marina, CA 93933

By email to [email protected]

Re: Item 8A, MST Permits

Dear Chair Woodson and Commissioners:

The Train Riders Association of California was an original sponsor of Proposition 116, which enabled the purchase of the railroad right-of-way which the Surf! Bus Rapid Transit project proposes to build on. We were instrumental in writing the text of the measure, and are writing today to insist on conformance with the intent of Prop. 116. We will demonstrate using oOicial documents that busways cannot legally make use of rail rights-of-way purchased with Proposition 116 grants:

The language of Proposition 116 does not authorize the allocation of bond funds for busways. To the contrary, the number one item was "(1) Rights-of-way for rail purposes." (PUC Section 99613(a), emphasis added.)

The July 18, 1991 California Transportation Commission Resolution #G-91-19 amending the Proposition 116 Guidelines included the following:

6. The Commission will only accept grant applications for rail projects as defined or identified in the CATIA [Prop. 116](see policy 43).

43. Rail project means (CATIA Section 99602 (j)) 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 the Alameda-San Pedro branch rail line grade separation projects.

There are no provisions in the Proposition that provide for busways other than the reference to "exclusive public mass transit guideways." The May 27, 1987 Opinion 87-101 of Attorney General John Van de Kamp distinguishes between that clumsy phrase and the federal use of the term "fixed guideway," which includes the use by buses: "we conclude that the phrase "exclusive public mass transit guideways" as used by the Legislature in defining transit capital improvement projects eligible for funding from the transportation fund does not include exclusive bus-carpool transitways."

EXHIBIT A
128
TRAC April 10, 2024 2
Given the legalities laid out above, TRAC believes your Commission does not have jurisdiction to approve or recommend approval of the MST's permits.

We appear here today not to throw a roadblock up for a public transit project, but instead wish to encourage all the parties to move forward with a cost-effective rail project connecting Monterey to Pajaro, Castroville, Santa Cruz and San Francisco. We believe it can be accomplished at a cost similar to the busway. Please contact us for further information.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ DAVID SCHONBRUNN

Vice-President,
Train Riders Association of California

EXHIBIT A
129

April 10, 2024

To Public Comment Item #8A
The SURF? Busway and Bus Rapid Transit project

My name is Reyna B. Gross, Program Manager for Outreach and Benefits Checkup for seniors in Monterey County with Alliance on Aging. I am writing this support letter for MST and it’s new exciting project that is called SURF Busway & Bus Rapid. I am writing to you in letting you the importance of getting to a place on time and with caution due to our senior 60 plus years and older. We have a big population in which we provide bus passes to our seniors who are 60+ each month and depend on their transportation options.

I see and hear seniors who ride the bus on a regular basis and listen on the importance of their transportation needs. To doctor’s visits, grocery shopping, or fun day opportunities they have for themselves. This new project is a promising way to get to their destination sooner and earlier.

I gave me support for this opportunity to our Monterey County community for all ages and especially seniors who I work with every day.

Thank you,

EXHIBIT A
130
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEALS OF CDP 23-0004 (MST’S SURF! BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT) AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APRIL 11, 2024, APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS, CONDITIONS OF

APPROVAL, AND THE FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA PER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080.25(b).

WHEREAS, SURF! Bus Rapid Transit project, in its entirety, consists of approximately 6 linear miles of roadway surface dedicated for express busway service (bus rapid transit) between Marina and Sand City. The Marina portion of the route for the SURF! busway project would begin at Monterey-Salinas Transit’s (MST)’s Marina Transit Exchange at Reservation Road and De Forest Road (northern terminus), and end at the proposed 5th St. Transit Center Contra Costa Street in Sand City (southern terminus in Marina);

WHEREAS, the project would be located in the cities of Marina and Sand City, running parallel to Highway 1 next to Fort Ord Dunes State Park. The busway includes dedicated express busway lanes, platforms, a new station at 5th Street on the former Fort Ord (outside the Coastal zone), and related infrastructure including the extension of the Beach Range Rd. path to the new Palm Ave. station;

WHEREAS, t he project will use 100 percent zero -emission, near -zero emission, low oxide or nitrogen engines, compressed natural gas fuel, fuel cell, or hybrid powertrain buses. The completed project is expected to open in 2027 and will relieve congestion and support more frequent public transit services for people traveling within the corridor and beyond;

WHEREAS, the Transportation Agency of Monterey (TAMC) right-of-way (ROW), within which a portion of the proposed bus rapid transit (BRT) project is proposed to occur, has been utilized for transportation uses since the 1880s. The Monterey Branch Line, where the SURF! BRT project is to be developed, was purchased by TAMC in 2003 expressly for public transportation and transit uses;

WHEREAS, TAMC recognizes the SURF! project as the intended user of this portion of the Monterey Branch Line until such time as it develops a rail project within the corridor. TAMC supports the SURF! project and, as property owner, is signatory on the City of Marina permit application;

WHEREAS, Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST), the applicant and developer of the SURF! project, owns the property known as the 5th St. Transit Station (APN 031-221-005), located at 1st Ave. and 5th St. within the former Fort Ord area, east of Highway 1. This property was conveyed to MST as part of the original Fort Ord closure with the express intent of developing a new multimodal mobility hub. The Station will include a safe drop-off and pick-up area, public parking with EV charging, and bicycle and mobility amenities including a bicycle repair station;

WHEREAS, on April 11, 2024, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and a Tree Removal Permit (TRP) as necessary for the multi - jurisdiction Project;

WHEREAS, on April 18, 2024, within the City’s 10-day appeal period, the City of Marina received two (2) appeals of the Planning Commission’s action to approve the CDP : one from Robert Solerno, on behalf of Keep Fort Ord Wild (KFOW) , and one from Mason Clark, the owner/operator of the handcar commercial use that currently occupies a portion of the subject TAMC ROW. Issues raised in the appeal(s) include, generally:

EXHIBIT A
131
Resolution No. 2024-
Page Two

a) The project is not in compliance with the Coastal Act b) The project is not in compliance with the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) c) The project will not improve coastal access
d) The project is not in compliance with Proposition 116 e) The Planning Commission erred in finding the Project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Each appeal is described more specifically in the accompanying staff report, which also attaches the appeals in their entirety as exhibits;

WHEREAS, the 5 th St. Transit Station is outside of the Coastal Zone and not subject to the requirements of the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP). Seventy -six (76) of the total 92 trees authorized for removal under Tree Removal permit (TP 23-004) are located on this property. The Tree Removal Permit has not been appealed and remains in effect;

WHEREAS, sixteen (16) trees are authorized for removal within the TAMC ROW between Palm Ave. and the Highway 1 overcrossing to the south. Two (2) of those trees are located within the

0.37 acre portion of the TAMC ROW within the Coastal Zone and are subjec t to this appeal. The other 14 are not;

WHEREAS, both of the appeals expressly do not appeal the TRP approved by the Planning Commission on April 11, 2024, and thus the TRP is final and remains in effect notwithstanding the Council’s action on the appeals;

WHEREAS, the biological report 1 prepared for the project analyzed the entirety of the project, both within and outside the City of Marina and the multi -jurisdictional Coastal Zone boundary and, based on findings for Segment 2 which includes the 0.37 acre portion of the TAMC ROW within the City’s Coastal Development Permit (CDP) jurisdiction, found that the subject appeal area (0.37 acres) does not contain the three (3) vegetation types that can be considered sensitive or Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) in the City’s LCP . These three (3) habitat areas are: dune scrub, habitat for the Smith’s blue butterfly (i.e., buckwheat) and areas supporting rare plants;

WHEREAS, the City’s CDP jurisdiction over the Project is limited due to the Coastal Commission’s retention of CDP jurisdiction within City limits, specifically, within the area to the south of the Highway 1 overpass at Del Monte and west of the Highway 1 ROW;

WHEREAS, contrary to the Appellants’ claims that the SURF! BRT Project would negatively impact coastal access, the portion of the SURF! project within the City’s CDP jurisdiction will improve existing coastal access by formalizing the existing “social trails” along Beach Range Rd. and Marina Dr. to the new Palm Ave. transit stop (all within the TAMC ROW), and by improving pedestrian crossings at Reindollar Ave.;

1 Final Biological Resources Report, May 2021. Prepared by Denise Duffy & Assoc. (DD&A) for the MST SURF! BRT Project on file with the City of Marina Community Development Dept.

EXHIBIT A
132
Resolution No. 2024-
Page Three

WHEREAS, the City’s LCP policies are “statements of intent” and are not binding upon the City.

LCP at 2-1. Rather, “[i]implementation of these policies will sometimes mean achieving a balance among the policies which best effectuates the City’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan.” Id. Although certain policies prioritize maintaining coastal access for recreational uses, other policies in the LCP support implementation of the SURF! busway, for example: Policy 35 (“To encourage continued and improved service by mass transit within the Coastal Zone. ”); Policy 36 (“ To provide and promote the role of Marina as the physical and visual gateway to the Monterey Peninsula .”); and Policy 39 (“ To encourage development which keeps energy consumption to the lowest level possible.”);

WHEREAS, by improving coastal access for pedestrians/bicyclists while also implementing the SURF! busway – which provides a more climate -friendly, mass transit alternative to commuters in the region – the Planning Commission properly exercised its policy judgment to strike a balance among the LCP’s various policies;

WHEREAS, Appellant KFOW claims that the Project is not eligible for MST’s proposed funding pursuant to Proposition 116 – because this 1990 voter initiative allegedly limits this funding to “rail” projects, which do not include the SURF! BRT Project – yet the Project’s funding source is irrelevant to the CDP permit at issue; City has no role in the funding of the project because the SURF! project is solely grant funded; and thus the funding’s consistency wi th Proposition 116 is outside of the City’s purview;

WHEREAS, for informational purposes, a full outline of the funding sources and construction timelines is available on the MST website at: https://mst.org/about-mst/planning- development/surf;

WHEREAS, Appellant KFOW alleges that portions of MST’s larger project, which are outside of the City’s LCP jurisdiction (and in some cases, outside of the City’s municipal boundary), contain Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA). Under the Coastal Act, only uses dependent on their proposed location in ESHA may be allowed within ESHA. Pub. Res. Code sec. 30240(a).

However, the claim that portions of the Project site outside of the City’s CDP jurisdiction (and/or City’s municipal boundaries) may unlawfully interfere with ESHA is unrelated to the CDP being appealed, and is beyond the City’s purview here;

WHEREAS, Appellant KFOW alleges that the Planning Commission erred in finding the Project exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.25(b), specifically because in Appellant’s view, the Coastal Commission must find that the exemption applies before the City can make such finding. However, Appellant’s claim that the Coastal Commission must find that the Project qualifies for the statutory exemption for certain mass transit projects (PRC 21080.25(b)) before the City can make such determination has no basis in the law, nor does Appellant cite to any. The Planning Commission reviewed MST’s grounds for finding the overall Project eligible for the statutory exemption when MST approved the Project. The Commission then exercised its independent judgment to find that the CDP (which is necessary for the overall project) qualifies for the exemption for the same reasons the overall Project does;

WHEREAS, TAMC, through a sublease with the City, currently leases an approximately 3.5 mile segment of the railroad tracks to the Museum of Handcar Technology (“Museum”), which is also one of the parties to this appeal (Mason Clark). The existing lease expires on October 31, 2024.

Both the primary lease between the City and TAMC and the sublease between the City and Museum expressly acknowledge that “ Museum understands and agrees that LESSOR has future plans for the Property, such as the SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project, or other

EXHIBIT A
133
Resolution No. 2024-
Page Four

transportation uses. Thus, Museum agrees to vacate the Property during the TERM of the SUBLEASE or any renewal or extension of the SUBLEASE, without liability to the CITY, upon termination of the SUBLEASE by the CITY.”2

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission’s approval of the Coastal Development Permit is subject to findings (Exhibit A) and conditions of approval (Exhibit B1) as provided herein;

WHEREAS, although not applicable or relevant to the subject appeal of the Coastal Development Permit, for ease in City staff’s review for compliance with conditions of approval upon Project implementation, the TRP conditions are also provided herein as Exhibit B2; and

WHEREAS, Staff recommends that the City Council (1) find that the Council has reviewed the Notices of Exemption filed by MST on July 12, 2021, and March 13, 2023, including the reasons MST provided for adopting the exemptions; and (2) find that in the Council’s independent judgment, the project qualifies as exempt from CEQA per Section 21080.25(b) of the Public Resources Code. The City will file a Notice of Exemption with the Monterey County Clerk’s Office.

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

1. Find that the foregoing recitals, and the accompanying staff report, are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth fully herein.

2. Deny the appeal by Mason Clark (Exhibit C1), and deny the appeal by Robert Solerno on behalf of KFOW (Exhibit C2), based on such findings, and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, including:

a. Making the findings set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto; b. Adopting the Resolution to approve CDP 23-0004 subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto; and
c. Finding that in the Council’s independent judgment, the project qualifies as exempt from CEQA per Section 21080.25(b) of the Public Resources Code.

3. Direct staff to submit the City’s Notice of Final Action to the California Coastal Commission.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Marina at a regular meeting duly held on the 21st day of May 2024, by the following vote:

AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN, COUNCIL MEMBER:

Bruce Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:

_____________________________
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk

2 TAMC/City Lease agreement executed 11/04/22 and City/Museum Sublease agreement executed 11/09/22

EXHIBIT A
134
Exhibit A

Findings

Coastal Development Permit § 17.40.200.E.3
The finding is in standard font with Staff’s response following in italics.

In considering an application for a coastal development permit the planning commission shall consider and give due regard to the Marina general plan and local coastal land use and implementation plans.

The planning commission shall determine whether or not the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use applied for will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be consistent with the general plan and local coastal land use and implementation plans, based upon the following findings that the project will:
a. Not impair major view corridors towards the sea from Highway 1 parallel to the sea, including the planning guidelines listed in the LCLUP;
The 0.37-acre portion of the project that lies within the City’s jurisdiction of the Coastal zone will be developed with a paved bus rapid transit busway consisting of two (2) twelve-foot paved traffic lanes within the TAMC right -of-way (ROW). The busway i tself will be at existing grade with minimal vertical disruption to views to the west at this point. A portion of the subject location is under an existing freeway overpass and a portion is just north between the Del Monte Blvd. ROW to the east and the Beach Range Rd. extension (trail) to the west. The TAMC ROW travels through and adjacent to the Caltrans Highway 1 ROW.
b. Be subject to approval of the site and architectural design review board, including the planning guidelines listed in the LCLUP;
No development that is subject to design review is proposed at this time; Design Review Board review is not required.
c. Guarantee that appropriate legal action is taken to insure vertical and lateral coastal access or fees paid in lieu thereof as required in the LCLUP and coastal zoning ordinance access components.

Required improvements shall be completed, or a bond adequate to guarantee their completion shall be posted with the city, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy; The project will not negatively affect public access to the coast. The 0.37-acre portion of the project that is located in the City’s CDP jurisdiction that will be developed with the busway will continue to provide access to existing beach trails. d. Be adequately set back from the shoreline to withstand erosion to the extent that the reasonable economic life of the use would be guaranteed without need for shoreline protection structures; The proposed busway is more than 2,500 feet from the shoreline and not subject to coastal erosion.
e. Protect least disturbed dune habitat areas, primary habitat areas and provide protection measures for secondary habitat areas consistent with the LCLUP and coastal zoning ordinance; According to the LCLUP, the property is outside areas mapped as having sensitive natural habitats. Furthermore, the biological report prepared for the project did not identify any special status species within this area, although two (2) trees are to be removed. The site is an

EXHIBIT A
135
existing transportation ROW (TAMC, state highway, local road, Monterey Bay Rec. Trail) and is developed with out -of-service railroad tracks and paved trails. Given the existing transportation network in this area, this portion of the project site is highly disturbed. The LUP includes a policy (#35) stating mass transit within the Coastal zone shall be continued and improved.
f. Be consistent with beach parking standards, as established in the LCLUP access component; There is no vehicular access (other than the BRT bus) provided at the subject location. g. Included feasible mitigating measures which substantially reduce significant impacts of the project as prescribed in any applicable EIR;
The mitigation measures identified by and certified in MST’s adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), part of the MST Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), are in full force and effect over activities within the City’s permit jurisdiction where they apply.

As noted in “e” above, there were no sensitive species observed in the preparation of the project biological report for the 0.37 -acre portion of the project in the City’s Coastal zone jurisdiction and this location is not included in t he LCP’s sensitive habitats maps. The other development and tree removal is outside the Coastal zone and not subject to these findings. h. Not interfere with public access along the beach;
There is no beach access at this location.
i. Comply with the access, shoreline structure and habitat protection standards included in the local coastal land use and implementation plans;
Direct shoreline access, shoreline structure, and habitat protection standards are not applicable to this project or site.
j. Comply with the housing element and housing recommendations of the local coastal land use and implementation plans;
The project is a transportation project to be developed in a transportation corridor and on a ± 4.5 acre property owned by MST and required to be used as a multi-modal transportation hub. No housing is proposed.
k. In the case of demolition of a residential structure, except to abate a nuisance, not detrimentally alter the character or housing mix of the neighborhood. The structure shall be moved, if capable of providing comparable housing opportunities at another location. The demolition and replacement structure shall comply with applicable local coastal land use plan policies; No demolition is proposed other than preparing the site for a busway. l. In the case of new surf zone or beach sand mining operations, comply with all standards regarding such operations specified in the LCLUP including standards for significant adverse impacts on shoreline erosion, either individually or cumulatively.

No mining operations are proposed.

EXHIBIT A
136
LCP Land Use Plan consistency
The City’s LUP includes 42 “policies of intent” which are very broad in nature and seek to communicate all the City’s aspirations for development in the Coastal zone . These include policies that prioritize coastal access and recreation opportunities (#2) and policies that encourage continued and improved service by mass transit within the Coastal Zone (#35) and encourage development which keeps energy consumption to the lowest level possible (#39). It is the City’s job to balance these sometimes opposing goals.

The LUP has policies for the protection of rare and endangered species and their habitat (p. 3 -1), wetlands (p. 3-2), and ponds (p. 3 -3). None of the characteristics of these features are present on or immediately adjacent to the 0.37 acre portion of the project within the Coastal zone.

Furthermore, this segment of the TAMC ROW is surrounded on all sides by either paved or vertical State Highway 1 ROW and overpass structures, the Del Monte Blvd. ROW, the Monterey Peninsula Recreation Trail (Rec Trail) ROW and Beach Range Rd., a narrow paved road within the TAMC ROW which Monterey One Water (M1W) utilizes to access its lift station from time to time.

In terms of public access to the coast, the LUP discusses the three (3) existing coastal access points (Reservation Rd., Dunes Dr., and Lake Ct.) and does not discuss trail access from Del Monte since the establishment of the trails from Beach Range Rd. an d the Rec Trail were established with the State Parks property (former Fort Ord) and post -LCP certification. The establishment of a transit use within an existing transportation corridor that does not contain either ESHA or other habitat or species of critical concern is consistent with the overarching policies in the LUP.

EXHIBIT A
137
Exhibit B1
Conditions of Approval for the Coastal Development Permit (CDP)

1. Effective Date, Expiration, and Extensions. This approval shall become effective immediately, except when an appeal period applies pursuant to MMC Section 17.70 in which case actions shall become effective ten (10) days after the approval date provided that no appeal is filed. Approval shall expire two (2) years from the Approval date, or from the date of the final decision in the event of an appeal, unless within such period a complete building permit application has been filed with the Community Development Department, or the authorized activities have commenced in the case of a permit not involving construction. Upon written request and payment of appropriate fees submitted no later than the expiration date of this Approval, the Community Development Director or designee may grant a one-year extension of this date, with additional extensions subject to approval by the approving body (Planning Commission). Expiration of any necessary building permit or other construction-related permit for this project may invalidate this Approval if said Approval has also expired . If litigation is filed challenging this Approval or its implementation, then the time period stated above for obtaining necessary permits for construction and/or commencement of authorized activities is automatically extended for the duration of the litigation.

2. Compliance with Other Requirements. The owner, applicant, and operator shall comply with all other applicable federal, state, regional, and local laws, codes, requirements, regulations, and guidelines. Compliance with other applicable requirements may require changes to the approved use and/or plans. These changes shall be processed in accordance with the procedures contained in Condition #4.

3. Modifications. Any modification to the approved project, site plan, conditions of approval, or use requires consistency review and approval by Planning Staff. Major revisions may require review and approval by the original approving body or a new independent permit.

4. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. The owner, applicant, and operator shall be responsible for compliance with all Conditions of Approval. The City reserves the right at any time during construction to require certification by a licensed professional at the applicant’s expense that the as-built project conforms to all applicable requirements. Violation of any term, project description, or Condition of Approval is unlawful and prohibited. In the case of noncompliance with the requirements of a Use Permit, MMC Section 17.58.060 allows for the revocation of said permit. The City reserves the right to initiate civil and/or criminal enforcement and/or abatement proceedings where violations are present, consistent with Chapter 1.08 of the Marina Municipal Code.

5. Mitigation Measures BIO 1 – BIO 6. The owner, applicant, and operator shall be responsible for compliance with the Construction Best Management Practices, Construction -Phase Monitoring, Non-Native/Invasive Species Controls, Pre -Construction Surveys for Protected Avian Species, Pre-Construction Surveys for Monterey Dusky -Footed Woodrat , and Pre- Construction Surveys for Townsend’s Big -eared Bat as described in the Biological Report 3 and MMRP.

6. Timing of Tree Removal.

Per Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1.4 from MST’s adopted MND:

3 https://mst.org/wp-content/media/Appendix-07-Final-Biological-Resources-Report.pdf

EXHIBIT A
138
Construction activities that may directly (e.g., vegetation removal) or indirectly (e.g., noise/ground disturbance) affect protected nesting avian species will be timed to avoid the breeding and nesting season. Specifically, vegetation and/or tree removal can be scheduled after September 16 and before January 31. Alternatively, a qualified biologist will be retained by the project applicant to conduct pre -construction surveys for nesting raptors and other protected avian species within 500 feet of proposed construction activities if construction occurs between February 1 and September 15. Pre -construction surveys will be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (February through April) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May through August). Because some bird species nest early in spring and others nest later in summer, surveys for nesting birds may be required to continue during construction to address new arrivals, and because some species breed multiple times in a season. The necessity and timing of these continued surveys will be determined by the qualified biologist based on review of the final cons truction plans and in coordination with the CDFW [California Department of Fish and Wildlife], as needed.

If raptors or other protected avian species nests are identified during the pre -construction surveys, the qualified biologist will notify the project applicant and an appropriate no disturbance buffer will be imposed within which no construction activities or disturbance should take place (generally 500 feet in all directions for raptors; other avian species may have species-specific requirements) until the young of the year have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival, as determined by a qualified biologist.

Per MM BIO-1.5:

Not more than thirty (30) days prior to the start of construction of Segments 1 -4 and the 5th Street Station (including vegetation removal), a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of suitable habitat within the work site to locate existing Monterey d usky-footed woodrat nests.

All Monterey dusky-footed woodrat nests shall be mapped and flagged for avoidance. Graphics depicting all Monterey dusky -footed woodrat nests shall be provided to the construction contractor. Any Monterey dusky-footed woodrat nests that cannot be avoided shall be relocated according to the following procedures:

• Each active nest shall be disturbed by the qualified biologist to the degree that the woodrats leave the nest and seek refuge elsewhere.

• Nests shall be dismantled during the non-breeding season (between October 1 and December 31), if possible.

• If a litter of young is found or suspected, nest material shall be replaced and the nest left alone for 2 -3 weeks, after this time the nest will be rechecked to verify that young are capable of independent survival before proceeding with nest dismantling.

Per MM BIO-1.6:

To avoid and reduce impacts to Townsend’s big-eared bat, if the project construction is planned during the reproductive season (May 1 through September 15), MST will retain a qualified bat specialist or wildlife biologist to conduct site surveys to characterize bat utilization within and adjacent to the project site and potential species present (techniques utilized to be determined by the biologist) prior to construction. Based on the results of these initial surveys, one or more of the following will occur:

• If it is determined that bats are not present within or adjacent to the site, no additional mitigation is required.

EXHIBIT A
139

• If it is determined that bats are utilizing the trees or abandoned buildings within or adjacent to the site and may be impacted by the proposed project, pre-construction surveys will be conducted within 50 feet of construction limits no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction. If, according to the bat specialist, no bats or bat signs are observed in the course of the pre -construction surveys, construction may proceed. If bats and/or bat signs are observed during the pre-construction

7. Display of Tree Removal Permit. Prior to and during the removal of any tree approved for removal, a copy of the tree removal permit shall be displayed on site. If no tree removal permit is displayed, the City will issue a stop work order and commence the City’s administrative fine process.

8. Tree Protection. Per MM BIO-1.1 from MST’s adopted MND:

a. Tree and vegetation not planned for removal or trimming shall be protected prior to and during construction to the maximum extent possible through the use of exclusionary fencing, such as hay bales for herbaceous and shrubby vegetation and protective wood barriers for trees. Only certified weed-free straw shall be used to avoid the introduction of non-native, invasive species. A biological monitor shall supervise the installation of protective fencing and monitor at least once per week until construction is complete to ensure that the protective fencing remains intact.

b. Per MM BIO-4.12:

i. Temporary construction fencing shall be placed at approximately 10 feet from the trunk of native trees intended to be retained. Grading, vegetation removal, and other ground disturbing activities shall not commence until the project arborist has inspected and approved the protective fencing installed by the contractor. No equipment or materials, including soil, shall be stored within the established environmental exclusion zone. Prior to grading within 25 feet of retained trees, the project arborist shall be consulted to determine whether pruning is necessary to protect limbs from grading equipment.

ii. To avoid soil compaction from damaging the roots, heavy equipment shall not be allowed to drive over the root area. If deemed necessary and approved by the forester, equipment may drive across one side of the tree. To reduce soil compaction, wood chips sha ll be spread 6 -12 inches deep to disperse the weight of equipment and plywood sheets shall be placed over the wood chips for added protection. iii. Roots exposed by excavation must be pruned and recovered as quickly as possible to promote callusing, closure, and healthy regrowth.

iv. Retained trees shall be watered periodically in accordance with species need to promote tree health. Transplanted trees and their intended planting areas shall be pre- watered. Post planting watering shall be done as needed to assure establishment.

As determined necessary by the project arborist, retained trees shall be watered periodically to promote tree health.

9. Additional Mitigation Measures. In addition to the measures stated herein, the City of Marina relies upon all other mitigation measures included in the MMRP and certified by MST as they apply to the portions of the project subject to the City’s discretionary permit review; i.e., tree

EXHIBIT A
140
removal within the TAMC ROW, new transit development within the 0.37 ac portion of the TAMC ROW in the City’s CDP jurisdiction, and site development at the 5th St. Transit Center.

10. Replacement Trees. Upon completion of the grading and infrastructure development for the Phase in which trees were removed, new trees shall be planted at a 2:1 ratio. The replacement tree species and sizes shall be a mix of native coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia), Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa ), Ray Hartman Wild Lilac ( Ceanothus X ‘Ray Hartman’ ), Majestic beauty fruitless olive ( Olea Europaea ‘Majestic Beauty’ ), with Coffeeberry (Frangula califonica ), Coast silktassel ( Garrya elliptica ), and Toyon ( Heteromeles arbutifolia) interspersed to supplement the Ceanothus at the discretion of the landscape architect. The tree sizes shall follow the Appendix C of Resolution 24-01. Alternatively, MST may provide the City with “in lieu” fees per MMC Section 17.62.060.D.2. Any combinat ion of these two (2) replacement methods is acceptable.

11. Tree and Landscaping Maintenance. The trees and landscaping installed under this permit shall be maintained for the life of the project using the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) best management practices (BMPs).

12. Site Restoration Plan. The ground surface shall be restored in the vicinity of the tree removals.

Restoration shall include but not be limited to the removal of tree stumps and filling of any holes left by the removal.

13. Coastal Development Permit. The two trees proposed for removal within the coastal zone (nos. 1073 and 1074) are subject to additional review and a coastal development permit (CDP) from the City of Marina. These trees shall not be removed until the CDP has been issued and all appeal periods have passed. Removal of any trees within the coastal zone shall be consistent with the required Conditions of Approval attached to the CDP.

14. Encroachment Permit(s). Prior to the commencement of any work within the City’s public ROW, an encroachment permit from the Public Works Dept. shall be obtained.

15. Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological , Tribal Cultural Resources , Paleontological Resources or Human Remains . Any inadvertent discovery while removing trees and/or restoring the site post -removal shall be mitigated in accordance to MM CR -2 in the adopted MMRP.

16. Indemnification. To the extent allowable by law, the owner, applicant, and operator agree to hold the City harmless from costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City in connection with the City’s defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any state or federal court challenging the City’s actions with respect to the project. The owner, applicant, and operator understand and acknowledge that the City is under no obligation to defend any legal actions cha llenging the City’s actions with respect to the project.

17. Violation of Code. Any person who does any work or uses, occupies or maintains any building or structure, or causes the same to be done, or does any grading, contrary to or in violation of this title or of any of the uniform codes adopted by this title is guilty of an infraction pursuant to MMC 15.04.060.

18. Construction Noise. Unless otherwise authorized, construction activities shall be conducted in compliance with MMC Section 15.04.055 and all non -emergency construction or repair work shall be limited to the following schedule:

EXHIBIT A
141
a. Monday through Saturday: 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
b. Sunday and holidays: 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. (For the purposes of this section, “holidays” shall include New Year’s Day, July 4th, Thanksgiving and Christmas) c. During daylight savings time, the hours of construction may be extended to 8 p.m.

No construction, tools, or equipment shall produce a decibel level of more than sixty (60) decibels for twenty-five (25) percent of an hour at any receiving property line.

19. Operational Noise. Noise levels from the project site after completion of the project (i.e., during project operation) shall comply with the performance standards of Chapter 9.24 of the Marina Municipal Code. If noise levels exceed these standards, the activity causing the noise shall be abated until appropriate noise reduction measures have been installed and compliance verified by the City.

20. Site Maintenance. The site shall be kept in a blight- and nuisance-free condition, and healthy and well-kept landscaping shall be continuously maintained. Any existing blight or nuisance shall be abated within 60 days of permit approval.

21. Lighting. Exterior lighting fixtures shall be adequately shielded to a point below the light bulb and reflector to prevent unnecessary glare onto adjacent properties. After installation, the Community Development Director or designee shall retain the right to require reduction in the intensity of illumination or change of light color if said illumination creates any undue public nuisance.

22. Waste Receptacles. No storage of trash, recycling, or food waste receptacles shall be permitted within the public right-of-way. Receptacles shall be stored on site and screened from public view. The owner, applicant, and operator shall ensure that the requirements of Chapter

8.04 of the Marina Municipal Code pertaining to recycling and solid waste disposal are met.

23. Graffiti. All graffiti on facilities must be removed at the sole expense of the permittee within 48 hours after notification from the City.

EXHIBIT A
142
Exhibit B2

Conditions of Approval for the (non-Coastal) Tree Removal Permit (TRP) - Note that the first three (3) are TRP-specific; the following are general COAs included in both COA Exhibits (B1 and B2)

1. 5th St. Station – MM BIO-10: Special-Status Plant Surveys and HMP Compliance A qualified biologist shall be retained to conduct surveys for Monterey spineflower and Yadon’s piperia within the 5th Street Station. The surveys shall be conducted during the appropriate identification period(s) to determine presence or absence, accordin g to USFWS, CDFW, and CNPS protocol. The biologist shall prepare a report that provides the results of the survey, and, if found the number and locations of individuals/populations identified.

• If no Monterey spineflower or Yadon’s piperia are found, no further mitigation is necessary.

• If Monterey spineflower or Yadon’s piperia are found, salvage efforts for these species will be evaluated by a qualified biologist in coordination with the MST prior to construction to further reduce impacts per the requirements of the HMP and 2017 Programmatic BO. Where salvage is determined feasible and proposed, seed collection should occur from plants within the development site and/or topsoil should be salvaged within occupied areas to be disturbed. Seeds should be collected during the appropriate time of year for each species as determined by the qualified biologist. The collected seeds and topsoil should be used to revegetate temporarily disturbed construction areas and reseeding and restoration efforts on - or off -site, as determined appropriate by the qualified biologist and MST.

2. Sewer Easement. Prior to removing any trees within the 5th Street station area, the applicant shall provide Community Development Department staff with written documentation from Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) certifying trees near the existing MCWD sewer easement are cleared for removal.

3. Site and Architectural Design Permit. The applicant shall obtain a Design Review permit prior to any vertical development at the 5th St. Transit Center or platform improvements at the Palm Ave. transit stop if required by MMC 17.56.010. Depending on the future scope of transit-related development, a Design Review permit may not be required.

4. Effective Date, Expiration, and Extensions. This approval shall become effective immediately, except when an appeal period applies pursuant to MMC Section 17.70 in which case actions shall become effective ten (10) days after the approval date provided that no appeal is filed. Approval shall expire two (2) years from the Approval date, or from the date of the final decision in the event of an appeal, unless within such period a complete building permit application has been filed with the Community Developme nt Department, or the authorized activities have commenced in the case of a permit not involving construction. Upon written request and payment of appropriate fees submitted no later than the expiration date of this Approval, the Community Development Director or designee may grant a one-year extension of this date, with additional extensions subject to approval by the approving body (Planning Commission). Expiration of any necessary building permit or other construction-related permit for this project may invalidate this Approval if said Approval has also expired. If litigation is filed challenging this Approval or its implementation, then the time period stated above for obtaining necessary permits for construction and/or commencement of authorized activities is automatically extended for the duration of the litigation.

EXHIBIT A
143

5. Compliance with Other Requirements. The owner, applicant, and operator shall comply with all other applicable federal, state, regional, and local laws, codes, requirements, regulations, and guidelines. Compliance with other applicable requirements may require changes to the approved use and/or plans. These changes shall be processed in accordance with the procedures contained in Condition #4.

6. Modifications. Any modification to the approved project, site plan, conditions of approval, or use requires consistency review and approval by Planning Staff. Major revisions may require review and approval by the original approving body or a new independent permit.

7. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. The owner, applicant, and operator shall be responsible for compliance with all Conditions of Approval. The City reserves the right at any time during construction to require certification by a licensed professional at the applicant’s expense that the as-built project conforms to all applicable requirements. Violation of any term, project description, or Condition of Approval is unlawful and prohibited. In the case of noncompliance with the requirements of a Use Permit, MMC Section 17.58.060 allows for the revocation of said permit. The City reserves the right to initiate civil and/or criminal enforcement and/or abatement proceedings where violations are present, consistent with Chapter 1.08 of the Marina Municipal Code.

8. Mitigation Measures BIO 1 – BIO 6. The owner, applicant, and operator shall be responsible for compliance with the Construction Best Management Practices, Construction -Phase Monitoring, Non-Native/Invasive Species Controls, Pre -Construction Surveys for Protected Avian Species, Pre-Construction Surveys for Monterey Dusky -Footed Woodrat , and Pre- Construction Surveys for Townsend’s Big -eared Bat as described in the Biological Report 4 and MMRP.

9. Timing of Tree Removal.

Per Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1.4 from MST’s adopted MND:

Construction activities that may directly (e.g., vegetation removal) or indirectly (e.g., noise/ground disturbance) affect protected nesting avian species will be timed to avoid the breeding and nesting season. Specifically, vegetation and/or tree removal can be scheduled after September 16 and before January 31. Alternatively, a qualified biologist will be retained by the project applicant to conduct pre -construction surveys for nesting raptors and other protected avian species within 500 feet of proposed construction activities if construction occurs between February 1 and September 15. Pre -construction surveys will be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (February through April) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May through August). Because some bird species nest early in spring and others nest later in summer, surveys for nesting birds may be required to continue during construction to address new arrivals, and because some species breed multiple times in a season. The necessity and timing of these continued surveys will be determined by the qualified biologist based on review of the final cons truction plans and in coordination with the CDFW [California Department of Fish and Wildlife], as needed.

If raptors or other protected avian species nests are identified during the pre -construction surveys, the qualified biologist will notify the project applicant and an appropriate no disturbance buffer will be imposed within which no construction activities or disturbance

4 https://mst.org/wp-content/media/Appendix-07-Final-Biological-Resources-Report.pdf

EXHIBIT A
144
should take place (generally 500 feet in all directions for raptors; other avian species may have species-specific requirements) until the young of the year have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival, as determined by a qualified biologist.

Per MM BIO-1.5:

Not more than thirty (30) days prior to the start of construction of Segments 1 -4 and the 5th Street Station (including vegetation removal), a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of suitable habitat within the work site to locate existing Monterey d usky-footed woodrat nests.

All Monterey dusky-footed woodrat nests shall be mapped and flagged for avoidance. Graphics depicting all Monterey dusky -footed woodrat nests shall be provided to the construction contractor. Any Monterey dusky-footed woodrat nests that cannot be avoided shall be relocated according to the following procedures:

• Each active nest shall be disturbed by the qualified biologist to the degree that the woodrats leave the nest and seek refuge elsewhere.

• Nests shall be dismantled during the non -breeding season (between October 1 and December 31), if possible.

• If a litter of young is found or suspected, nest material shall be replaced and the nest left alone for 2 -3 weeks, after this time the nest will be rechecked to verify that young are capable of independent survival before proceeding with nest dismantling.

Per MM BIO-1.6:

To avoid and reduce impacts to Townsend’s big-eared bat, if the project construction is planned during the reproductive season (May 1 through September 15), MST will retain a qualified bat specialist or wildlife biologist to conduct site surveys to characterize bat utilization within and adjacent to the project site and potential species present (techniques utilized to be determined by the biologist) prior to construction. Based on the results of these initial surveys, one or more of the following will occur:

• If it is determined that bats are not present within or adjacent to the site, no additional mitigation is required.

• If it is determined that bats are utilizing the trees or abandoned buildings within or adjacent to the site and may be impacted by the proposed project, pre-construction surveys will be conducted within 50 feet of construction limits no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction. If, according to the bat specialist, no bats or bat signs are observed in the course of the pre -construction surveys, construction may proceed. If bats and/or bat signs are observed during the pre-construction

10. Display of Tree Removal Permit. Prior to and during the removal of any tree approved for removal, a copy of the tree removal permit shall be displayed on site. If no tree removal permit is displayed, the City will issue a stop work order and commence the City’s administrative fine process.

11. Tree Protection. Per MM BIO-1.1 from MST’s adopted MND:

a. Tree and vegetation not planned for removal or trimming shall be protected prior to and during construction to the maximum extent possible through the use of exclusionary fencing, such as hay bales for herbaceous and shrubby vegetation and protective wood barriers for trees. Only certified weed-free straw shall be used to avoid the introduction of

EXHIBIT A
145
non-native, invasive species. A biological monitor shall supervise the installation of protective fencing and monitor at least once per week until construction is complete to ensure that the protective fencing remains intact.

b. Per MM BIO-4.12:

j. Temporary construction fencing shall be placed at approximately 10 feet from the trunk of native trees intended to be retained. Grading, vegetation removal, and other ground disturbing activities shall not commence until the project arborist has inspected and approved the protective fencing installed by the contractor. No equipment or materials, including soil, shall be stored within the established environmental exclusion zone. Prior to grading within 25 feet of retained trees, the project arborist shall be consulted to determine whether pruning is necessary to protect limbs from grading equipment.

ii. To avoid soil compaction from damaging the roots, heavy equipment shall not be allowed to drive over the root area. If deemed necessary and approved by the forester, equipment may drive across one side of the tree. To reduce soil compaction, wood chips sha ll be spread 6 -12 inches deep to disperse the weight of equipment and plywood sheets shall be placed over the wood chips for added protection. iii. Roots exposed by excavation must be pruned and recovered as quickly as possible to promote callusing, closure, and healthy regrowth.

iv. Retained trees shall be watered periodically in accordance with species need to promote tree health. Transplanted trees and their intended planting areas shall be pre- watered. Post planting watering shall be done as needed to assure establishment.

As determined necessary by the project arborist, retained trees shall be watered periodically to promote tree health.

12. Additional Mitigation Measures. In addition to the measures stated herein, the City of Marina relies upon all other mitigation measures included in the MMRP and certified by MST as they apply to the portions of the project subject to the City’s discretionary permit review; i.e., tree removal within the TAMC ROW, new transit development within the 0.37 ac portion of the TAMC ROW in the City’s CDP jurisdiction, and site development at the 5th St. Transit Center.

13. Replacement Trees. Upon completion of the grading and infrastructure development for the Phase in which trees were removed, new trees shall be planted at a 2:1 ratio. The replacement tree species and sizes shall be a mix of native coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia), Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa ), Ray Hartman Wild Lilac ( Ceanothus X ‘Ray Hartman’ ), Majestic beauty fruitless olive ( Olea Europaea ‘Majestic Beauty’ ), with Coffeeberry (Frangula califonica ), Coast silktassel ( Garrya elliptica ), and Toyo n ( Heteromeles arbutifolia) interspersed to supplement the Ceanothus at the discretion of the landscape architect. The tree sizes shall follow the Appendix C of Resolution 24-01. Alternatively, MST may provide the City with “in lieu” fees per MMC Section 17.62.060.D.2. Any combinat ion of these two (2) replacement methods is acceptable.

14. Tree and Landscaping Maintenance. The trees and landscaping installed under this permit shall be maintained for the life of the project using the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) best management practices (BMPs).

EXHIBIT A
146

15. Site Restoration Plan. The ground surface shall be restored in the vicinity of the tree removals.

Restoration shall include but not be limited to the removal of tree stumps and filling of any holes left by the removal.

16. Coastal Development Permit. The two trees proposed for removal within the coastal zone (nos. 1073 and 1074) are subject to additional review and a coastal development permit (CDP) from the City of Marina. These trees shall not be removed until the CDP has been issued and all appeal periods have passed. Removal of any trees within the coastal zone shall be consistent with the required Conditions of Approval attached to the CDP.

17. Encroachment Permit(s). Prior to the commencement of any work within the City’s public ROW, an encroachment permit from the Public Works Dept. shall be obtained.

18. Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological , Tribal Cultural Resources , Paleontological Resources or Human Remains . Any inadvertent discovery while removing trees and/or restoring the site post -removal shall be mitigated in accordance to MM CR -2 in the adopted MMRP.

19. Indemnification. To the extent allowable by law, the owner, applicant, and operator agree to hold the City harmless from costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City in connection with the City’s defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any state or federal court challenging the City’s actions with respect to the project. The owner, applicant, and operator understand and acknowledge that the City is under no obligation to defend any l egal actions challenging the City’s actions with respect to the project.

20. Violation of Code. Any person who does any work or uses, occupies or maintains any building or structure, or causes the same to be done, or does any grading, contrary to or in violation of this title or of any of the uniform codes adopted by this title is guilty of an infraction pursuant to MMC 15.04.060.

21. Construction Noise. Unless otherwise authorized, construction activities shall be conducted in compliance with MMC Section 15.04.055 and all non -emergency construction or repair work shall be limited to the following schedule:
a. Monday through Saturday: 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
b. Sunday and holidays: 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. (For the purposes of this section, “holidays” shall include New Year’s Day, July 4th, Thanksgiving and Christmas) c. During daylight savings time, the hours of construction may be extended to 8 p.m.

No construction, tools, or equipment shall produce a decibel level of more than sixty (60) decibels for twenty-five (25) percent of an hour at any receiving property line.

22. Operational Noise. Noise levels from the project site after completion of the project (i.e., during project operation) shall comply with the performance standards of Chapter 9.24 of the Marina Municipal Code. If noise levels exceed these standards, the activity causing the noise shall be abated until appropriate noise reduction measures have been installed and compliance verified by the City.

23. Site Maintenance. The site shall be kept in a blight- and nuisance-free condition, and healthy and well-kept landscaping shall be continuously maintained. Any existing blight or nuisance shall be abated within 60 days of permit approval.

EXHIBIT A
147

24. Lighting. Exterior lighting fixtures shall be adequately shielded to a point below the light bulb and reflector to prevent unnecessary glare onto adjacent properties. After installation, the Community Development Director or designee shall retain the right to require reduction in the intensity of illumination or change of light color if said illumination creates any undue public nuisance.

25. Waste Receptacles. No storage of trash, recycling, or food waste receptacles shall be permitted within the public right-of-way. Receptacles shall be stored on site and screened from public view. The owner, applicant, and operator shall ensure that the requirements of Chapter

8.04 of the Marina Municipal Code pertaining to recycling and solid waste disposal are met.

26. Graffiti. All graffiti on facilities must be removed at the sole expense of the permittee within 48 hours after notification from the City.

EXHIBIT A
148
Exhibit C1
Appeal filed by Mason Clark on April 16, 2024

EXHIBIT A
149

EXHIBIT A
150

EXHIBIT A
151

EXHIBIT A
152

EXHIBIT A
153

EXHIBIT A
154

EXHIBIT A
155
Exhibit C2
Appeal filed by Robert Solerno on behalf of Keep Fort Ord Wild (KFOW) on April 16, 2024

EXHIBIT A
156

EXHIBIT A
157
1 April 18, 2024
To: City of Marina
From: Keep Fort Ord Wild
RE: Appeal of City of Marina PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2024-09 dated April 11, 2024
With this correspondence Keep Fort Ord Wild (KFOW) appeals the action of the City of Marina PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2024-09 dated April 11, 2024 Note: KFOW appeals the entire resolution by the Planning Commission as the language of the resolution combines a Coastal Development Permit and Tree Removal Permit into one action.

Since they cannot be separated, KFOW appeals the resolution and therefore the Coastal Development Permit.

The City of Marina Planning Commission relied on numerous inaccurate statements by MST representatives and documents put forward by the project applicant. These inaccurate statements have been perpetrated by the project applicant over multiple years giving the Planning Commission and the public the impression the SURF project can move forward when, if fact, there are multiple reasons why it is impossible for the SURF project to be constructed.

The overarching barrier to construction of the SURF project is that vast portions of the project are proposed in an ESHA which makes proceeding with construction in the Coastal Zone impossible.

KFOW joins in the reasons and issues raised in all other appeals and reincorporates them as if fully set forth herein, and raises the following issues and concerns in this appeal of the commission actions to approve the permits and the claims and documents in the environmental review under CEQA, the LCP and the Coastal Act. (KFOW reserves the right to submit additional material not included here to the City before the expiration of the appeal period.)

EXHIBIT A
158
2 Proposed Action by the Marina Planning Commission was Premature, SURF Project is Impossible Under the Coastal Act

The proposed action by the planning commission was premature. Only a very small portion of the SURF project is proposed within Marina’s Local Coastal Plan. However, much more of the project (4.4 miles) is in the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. The Coastal Act makes construction of SURF project impossible because vast portions of the project are proposed in an ESHA where land and habitat cannot be disturbed, filled, or graded.

The California Coastal Commission has not approved the SURF project. The SURF project is not scheduled for a hearing in front of the California Coastal Commission. The California Coastal Commission has asked MST for major revisions to the project and to present less impactful alternatives. MST has not provided such alternatives and instead continues to seek approval for the version of the project that would disturb unprecedented areas of ESHA and Coastal Dune Habitat. For further reference, we attach multiple letters from the California Coastal Commission to MST highlighting the fundamental problems with the SURF project and its construction in an ESHA:

The California Coastal Commission informed MST of these problems in 2021 (before MST approved the project). Important excerpts as follows:
“Coastal Act Section 30240 provides for the protection of ESHA, including sensitive dune habitats such as those found at the former Ford Ord and within the TAMC right-of-way: Section 30240 (a) environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.”
“The currently proposed project is located in dune ESHA and is not resource dependent and is not approvable under Coastal Act Section 30240 or under the ESHA policies of the various LCPs that would apply to the project in the areas located outside of the Commission retained permitting jurisdiction…”

EXHIBIT A
159
3 Project is Impossible Under Proposition 116
The Monterey Branch Line was purchased by TAMC with Proposition 116 funds that set guidelines as to how the line is to be used. Proposition 116 was a State Proposition approved by voters specifically for expansion of rail service. Ultimately, the line can only be used for rail because rail bonds were used to purchase the line. The line cannot be converted to a busway and the tracks cannot be destroyed or covered.

Inspection of the SURF design plans confirm two miles of tracks will be covered or destroyed.

This is critical information and means SURF and a future TAMC rail project cannot co-exist as MST claims. MST representatives continued to intentionally downplay the length of track that would need to be removed for SURF up to and at the 4-11-24 Planning Commission meeting.

SURF makes a future rail project impossible as it destroys the rail line which is not allowed under Proposition 116. MST still claims a rail project is a long-term vision for the corridor.

However, it is now clear the two projects are incompatible, and MST intends to destroy the rail infrastructure along a significant portion of the Monterey Branch Line.

Planning Commission Relied on a CEQA Exemption That Does Not Apply The Planning Commission relied on a CEQA exemption that does not apply. The Planning Commission relied on a prior CEQA exemption for MST’s project that has not has not been fully approved by the California Coastal Commission. Unless and until the entire project is fully approved, the Planning Commission and the City cannot rely on the exemption claimed by MST.

Inaccurate Claims re: Improved Coastal Access and Recreation

MST and TAMC public officials suggest the MST SURF busway will improve local bike paths and coastal access. This is not an accurate on-the-ground reality. The MST SURF busway as proposed will result in negative and dangerous impacts to local bicycle traffic and coastal access during and after construction. The current bike paths have been thoughtfully designed to safely move bike traffic. The after-the-fact insertion of the MST SURF Busway sacrifices safe and easy bike travel.

By design, the busway fractures and re-routes existing bike trails (Beach Range Road, Monterey Bay Recreation Trail, 5th Street Bike Path). At the same time, it introduces awkward and dangerous crossings where cyclists will have to negotiate with two-way bus traffic. In Winter months cyclists will be subject to blinding headlights along with noise and vibration from buses only a few feet away. This is not an improvement from current conditions.

EXHIBIT A
160
4 Currently, cyclists can travel unimpeded using Beach Range Road and/or Monterey Bay Recreation Trail interchangeably from Palm Avenue in Marina to Playa Avenue in Sand City.

Cyclists do not need to stop or negotiate traffic for this entire distance. These routes are safe and extremely popular with bike commuters and recreational users.

The MST SURF Busway also introduces an awkward crossing at the 5th street bridge and will dig-up and re-route a bike path TAMC recently built that connects safely and easily to the new VA clinic. The MST SURF busway proposal calls for squeezing in a bus lane and a bike path where there currently barely room for a bike path.

Request:

The SURF project would be a detriment to the citizens of Marina damaging coastal ESHA, recreation and coastal access. For all the reasons above, attached and more the Marina City Council should vote to vacate the approval of PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2024- 09 dated April 11, 2024, and not grant a Coastal Development Permit for the SURF project.

Sincerely yours,
Michael Salerno
Spokesman, Keep Fort Ord Wild.

EXHIBIT A
161
May 3, 2023
Mr. Carl Sedoryk
General Manager/CEO
Monterey-Salinas Transit
19 Upper Ragsdale Drive, Suite 200
Monterey, CA 93940

Subject: Coastal Development Permit (CDP) Application Number 3 -23-0288 (MST SURF! Busway)
Dear Mr. Sedoryk:

We received the above-referenced CDP application that you submitted on April 3, 2023.

The proposed project includes the construction of a segment of dedicated busway measuring 2.5 miles long and 30 feet wide located seaward of Highway 1 in the TAMC Monterey Branch Line rail corridor right-of-way, in Monterey County. We would first like to reiterate that Coastal Commission staff is highly supportive of MST’s objectives related to improving public transit access for under-resourced communities and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. We also believe that bus rapid transit has an important role to play in decarbonizing California’s transportation sector, providing for effective multi-modal transportation options, and improving public access to the coast; we commend MST for their commitment to advancing these goals.

We have reviewed the materials that you have submitted to date and are in need of additional information to adequately analyze the proposed project for Coastal Act conformance. Towards this end, we are unable to file this application until the following is submitted:

1. Demonstration of Need: Thank you for describing how the project intends to serve under-resourced communities and for providing the traffic study and corresponding estimates of ridership, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and GHG emission reductions. For us to best understand and evaluate the public need for and benefits of the project in a CDP and Coastal Act context, we are in need of additional supporting documentation. Such documentation should include but not be limited to the rationale behind the estimates of ridership used in the traffic study, and the associated reductions in VMT and congestion. Please provide supporting evidence and a descriptive breakdown of the projected 10-minute travel time for buses using the proposed busway. Please also provide an analysis that compares the proposed project to current travel time for existing bus services, and for cars traveling along the same route during both low and high levels of congestion. Please describe and provide supporting evidence for the current level and timing of congestion along this segment of Highway 1, as well as projected future congestion on Highway 1 with and without the project.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CAFB87E-BC87-4E83-8D47-194F4FE3A6D6

EXHIBIT A
162

2. Alternatives Anal
ysis: Thank you for providing an alternatives analysis for the no project alternative, the bus on shoulder alternative, the Recreational Trail replacement alternative, the single lane busway alternative, the railroad track replacement alternative, and the brief discussions of a Highway 1 auxiliary lane, an HOV lane, a hybrid of different alternatives, and the use of existing surface streets. However, given the large scope of the proposed project and the expected adverse impacts to coastal resources, a more thorough qualitative and quantitative alternatives analysis that explores all possible options to avoid such impacts is necessary for the Commission to evaluate the project. Alternatives should be on even footing with the proposed project, including a consistent use of zero emission buses across alternatives unless there are feasibility constraints for zero emission buses for project alternatives that do not exist for the proposed project. Specifically:
a. Please describe and show on a site map how each alternative will impact ESHA and the duration of those impacts, including the area of ESHA that will be directly covered by new development. For each alternative, please describe how ESHA impacts would be mitigated.
b. Please provide estimates for bus ridership, VMT, and Highway 1 congestion impacts for each alternative, along with supporting evidence for those estimates.
c. Please clarify why the single lane busway alternative includes an 11-foot breakdown shoulder along the length of the busway. Please also provide an updated single lane alternative that minimizes the width of the busway as much as possible over as much of the proposed alignment as possible. d. Please add an inland alignment alternative that includes the construction of a new busway or other improvements to bus infrastructure outside of the coastal zone. On this alternative, please evaluate the feasibility of an alignment that utilizes existing surface streets, or a combination of existing streets and new dedicated busway, and other public transit enhancements such as street light priority signalization, bus-on-median, dedicated stops/platforms, etc. (e.g., service similar to the recently completed Van Ness Avenue BRT in San Francisco). Such analysis should consider how such an alignment could offer service in close proximity to job/housing centers, including at CSUMB, the VA hospital, and planned development on former Fort Ord property, and how this alignment would compare with the proposed project in terms of ridership.
e. Please add a bus-on-median alternative that takes advantage of the wide median through this section of Highway 1, including whether new dedicated on- and off-ramps in the median could be constructed to provide for easy access to a median-located busway. This alternative should also DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CAFB87E-BC87-4E83-8D47-194F4FE3A6D6

EXHIBIT A
163
compare the relative
value of the habitats present in the median as
compared with the proposed project.
f. Thank you for providing information on the feasibility associated with a bus-on-shoulder alternative. While the application materials specified that CHP and Caltrans are not supportive of this approach, we would note that a bus-on-shoulder project is currently being constructed on Highway 1 in Santa Cruz County. Please explain why the bus on shoulder is feasible and supportable on this other section of Highway 1, but not at this location.
g. Please more thoroughly evaluate hybrid approaches to improving bus service in this area. One hybrid option that is worth consideration is a Highway 1 bus-on-shoulder or bus-on-median from the northern start of the proposed busway at Del Monte Boulevard to Imjin Parkway, then the use of 1
st or 2nd Avenues, until re-entry onto Highway 1 at Lightfighter Drive and a continuation of bus-on-shoulder or bus-on-median down to Fremont Boulevard.

3. Other Permit Approvals: The proposed project is a 2.5-mile segment of a larger 6-mile long project, the remainder of which falls within the Local Coastal Program (LCP) jurisdiction of the cities of Marina and Sand City, as well as portions outside the coastal zone in those cities as well as the City of Seaside. As a standalone project, this 2.5-mile long segment would not constitute a viable busway or meet any of the overall project goals, meaning that for any project benefits to be realized the other segments and elements of the busway must also gain the necessary CDPs and other approvals from local governments. This presents unique analytical and procedural challenges, as there are no guarantees that the other segments of the project will receive the requisite approvals from the local governments. Relatedly, an additional complicating factor to our analysis is that many of the application materials do not differentiate between the 2.5-mile segment within the Coastal Commission’s original jurisdiction (and thus the area subject to this CDP application), and the project as a whole. For example, the alternatives analysis does not differentiate between ESHA impacts for the whole 6-mile project and this 2.5-mile segment for any of the alternatives evaluated.

As such, the project requested in this CDP application poses some difficult evaluation questions, including how this component will relate to other project components that fall within other jurisdictions.
a. Please describe and quantify which parts of the project fall within each LCP jurisdiction, including the amount of dune habitat disturbance and proposed mitigation (see below) in each jurisdiction.
b. Please provide information regarding the permitting status and intended timeline of the portions of the project that are subject to local government approvals, including information regarding the local CDP permitting DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CAFB87E-BC87-4E83-8D47-194F4FE3A6D6

EXHIBIT A
164
process, as well
as all other required local approvals/permits (e.g., CEQA authorizations, other local discretionary permits, building/grading permits, etc.). We would also like to know, at a minimum, the preliminary receptiveness from each local government on the project in their jurisdiction, including whether there have been any controversies or questions raised, alternative routes and configurations requested for evaluation, etc. Please provide an overview of the CDPs and other permits needed for the project as whole, including what outreach has been done to date to garner public participation, and any significant comments made by members of the public and local decisionmakers.
c. Please also provide verification of all other necessary permits, permissions or approvals applied for or granted by other public agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California State Parks, Caltrans, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or evidence that no such approvals are necessary from these agencies.

Once we have received this information, we may have more questions about the project’s substantive and procedural issues and can discuss them with you at that time.

4. Impacts to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA): The 2.5-mile segment of busway requested in this CDP application is sited entirely within ESHA as defined by the Coastal Act, and there are ESHA impacts for sections of the project within the LCP jurisdictions of Marina and Sand City. a. Please describe the method used to calculate ESHA impacts and show on a site plan all areas of expected ESHA impacts. Please differentiate between short-term temporary, long-term temporary, and permanent impacts as defined in the attached memo from Coastal Commission Senior Ecologist Dr. Lauren Garske-Garcia. While the memo was not written for this project, it describes the Commission’s general approach for ESHA mitigation. Please also indicate the total acreage of ESHA that will be covered by new development, as well as the potential off-site/indirect impacts associated with lighting, noise, and other operations on dune habitat.
b. Please provide a mitigation plan for all impacts to ESHA that documents where and how identified ESHA impacts are to be mitigated. The most recent Coastal Commission combined staff report regarding construction in dune ESHA in this area (A-3-MRA-19-0034 and 9-20-0603, Cal-Am Desalination, available on the Commission’s November 17, 2002 archived agenda at:
https://www.coastal.ca.gov/meetings/agenda/#/2022/11)
provides a helpful reference for the nature of mitigation that the Commission has recently required. Please note that the Commission has adopted a ‘no net loss’ policy for this area of dune habitat, requiring dune habitat creation at a 1:1 ratio for all dune habitat covered by permanent DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CAFB87E-BC87-4E83-8D47-194F4FE3A6D6

EXHIBIT A
165
development (see Spec
ial Condition 8.c). Regarding mitigation ratios, Dr.

Garske-Garcia’s memo provides helpful guidance on the variability of ratios depending on the type of restoration activities performed. Of particular note, the minimum mitigation ratio for short-term temporary ESHA impacts is 1:1, for long term impacts it is 1.5:1, and for permanent impacts it is 3:1 (which includes the 1:1 dune habitat creation described above, with a remainder of 2:1 for all other permanent impacts).

Depending on the type of mitigation employed, these ratios may also be doubled or tripled.

5. Public Access During Construction: Please describe, and show on a site plan, the existing public access at and adjacent to the site, including as related to the Monterey Peninsula Recreational Trail and Fort Ord Dunes State Park, as well as how this will be maintained and/or closed during construction activities. If public access will be closed during construction, please describe why it will be necessary to close public access and the estimated duration of the closure(s).

6. Public Access After Construction: Please describe, and show on a site plan, the proposed post-construction public access at the site, including the nature and location of any changes or additions to bicycle and pedestrian access to and along Fort Ord Dunes State Park and the Monterey Peninsula Recreational Trail.

Please include a detailed description of all bicycle and pedestrian crossings on the busway and how safety will be maintained at these crossings. Please also indicate any relocation of any bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, any locations where there is no separation between the busway shoulder and the Recreational Trail, and any locations where there is less than 10 feet between the Recreational Trail and the Busway shoulder.

7. Construction Plans: Please provide complete details of the proposed construction, including: all heavy machinery proposed to be used and at which phases they are required, the construction staging area, the time and duration of construction and all of the proposed best management practices that would be employed to protect water quality and ESHA during construction.

8. Drainage Plan: The proposed project will lead to significant impervious coverage over coastal sand dunes which are highly susceptible to erosion. Please provide a drainage plan that clearly identifies all measures that will be taken to collect and direct site drainage. Please also describe and show on a site plan where drainage will be directed, including the location and type of any infiltration infrastructure, and indicate how erosion will be prevented during heavy rains.

9. Mapping: The proposed project covers a large area, and the maps provided either do not show adequate detail or are so zoomed in as to lack the overall context of the project. Please provide a highly detailed map overlaid onto satellite imagery, or shapefiles of the proposed project, that show in detail the locations of all proposed elements of the project including the busway, any modifications to the existing public access trails, and the location of proposed retaining walls.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CAFB87E-BC87-4E83-8D47-194F4FE3A6D6

EXHIBIT A
166

10. Retaining Walls: T
he proposed project includes a total of 5,920 linear feet of retaining walls. Please indicate the length of retaining walls proposed in this CDP application, excluding all retaining walls outside of the original permitting jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. Please also provide visual simulations showing a typical section of the proposed retaining wall as seen from traveling north and south on both Highway 1 and the Monterey Peninsula Recreational Trail.

11. Fencing: Under the ‘Construction Impacts’ section of the CDP application package, the final bullet point mentions fencing but no additional information regarding proposed fencing is provided. Please describe the location, height, and type of any permanent fencing proposed for installation. Please also describe any signage or other measures intended to keep pedestrians and bicyclists off the Busway.

12. Parking: Please provide additional details on the parking at the 5 th Street station,
including as related to cost, availability to the general public (i.e., will it be available for just bus riders or the general public, including users of the Recreational Trail and State Park?), and hours of operation.

13. Zero Emission Vehicles: Please clarify the status of proposed usage of zero emission vehicles on the busway. Will zero emission vehicles be exclusively used on day one of the operation of the busway? If the busway is only a section of a much longer route that buses will take between Salinas and Monterey, will MST have an adequate number of zero emission buses to run the entirety of that route without requiring passengers to disembark from fossil fuel power vehicles and transfer to zero emission vehicles before traveling on the busway?

14. Other Vehicles: Please clarify if any other vehicles, including emergency services or vehicles used for special events (shooting a movie, etc.), will ever be permitted on the busway aside from those necessary for maintenance.

15. Future Rail Service: Please further describe the impacts the project will have on the existing railroad tracks, including where and how much track will be removed and any impacts to the structural integrity of the tracks caused by grading and retaining walls adjacent to the tracks. Please also describe the future compatibility of the busway and rail service if funding were secured to restore rail service along the corridor; would the busway and rail service be able to provide service simultaneously given the currently proposed configuration of the busway? Would future rail service require the termination of bus service? Overall, how would the construction of the proposed busway impact the feasibility of future rail service? Please describe and provide any relevant documentation regarding any commitments or legal restrictions relating to the future use of rail in the TAMC corridor and the preservation of the railroad tracks, if any such commitments or restrictions exist.

16. Public Outreach: please provide a comprehensive summary of the public outreach that has been conducted relating to the project, including the DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CAFB87E-BC87-4E83-8D47-194F4FE3A6D6

EXHIBIT A
167
communities th
at were engaged, the extent of public participation, and when outreach activities occurred.

17. Public Access Signage: Please clarify the type and nature of signage to be installed at the 5th Street station for “social equity reasons” (described on page 28 of the supporting materials and required attachments document submitted with the CDP application).

18. Appendix B (Local Agency Review Form): Please have a member of Monterey County planning staff complete and sign Appendix B and return the completed form to our office.

19. Appendix C (Mailing List) and Envelopes for Noticing: Please submit a revised mailing list (Appendix C) that includes the addresses for all property owners and occupants for each property located within 100 feet (excluding roads) of the property lines of the entire project site, including areas outside the Coastal Commission’s original jurisdiction. In addition to the 100-foot addressees, please also supplement the mailing list with addressees organized by and corresponding to: (a) all other parties known to be interested in the proposed development (e.g., persons expressing interest at local hearings, advisory committee meetings, during CEQA review, etc.); (b) the Monterey County Department of Housing and Community Development; and (c) all contacts from consultations with other applicable regulatory agencies (e.g., State Parks, CDFW, ACOE, USFWS, NMFS, RWQCB, etc.). Please provide stamped envelopes for each person or agency on the mailing list. The envelopes must be #10 envelope: no window, no return address, square flap, NOT self-seal with forever stamps (not 1
st class). Finally, to the extent that multiple hearings are noticed for this matter, you will need to submit new sets of stamped envelopes for each subsequent hearing after the first. Please also provide written evidence that you will submit such additional envelopes, if necessary, upon request in the future.

20. Appendix D (Declaration of Posting) and Posting Notice: Please fill out the enclosed “Notice of Pending Permit” forms and post and maintain the notices where they will be conspicuously visible to the public including, at a minimum, at the northern end of Beach Range Road before it passes under Highway 1, the northern end of the Recreational Trail before it passes under Highway 1, the intersection of Beach Range Road and 8
th Street, the intersection of the
Recreational Trail and the path that runs under Highway 1 by 5th Street, the intersection of 1st Street and Beach Range Road, and the southernmost end of Beach Range Road where it intersects the Recreational Trail. All notices: (a) must be weatherproofed (e.g., laminated or otherwise covered in plastic) in the event of inclement weather; such weatherproofing must not make the notices difficult to read; and (b) must be posted at a readable height (i.e., three to five feet or so) against a solid background at least as large as the notice (e.g., an 8½" x 11" piece of plywood attached to a stake). Once the notices are posted, please submit a graphic showing all notice locations (in site plan view), and please submit photographs of such notices keyed to the site plan. All of the notices must DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CAFB87E-BC87-4E83-8D47-194F4FE3A6D6

EXHIBIT A
168
remain posted as d
escribed until the Commission makes a decision on the
proposed project. Any notices that become unreadable or are missing (for whatever reason) must be immediately replaced. When the site has been posted, please complete Appendix D (Declaration of Posting) and return this completed form to our office. Please note that additional posting may be necessary when this item gets closer to being scheduled for a hearing in front of the Commission.

Please provide written evidence that you will commit to such posting when and as directed in the future.

We will hold the application for six months from today’s date (i.e., until November 3, 2023) pending receipt of these materials. After all of the above-listed materials have been received, the package will again be reviewed and will be filed if it contains materials sufficient for a thorough and complete review. Please note that there may be additional materials necessary for filing purposes depending upon the nature of the information provided pursuant to the above-listed materials. If all of the above-listed materials are not received within six months, CDP Application 3-23-0288 will be considered withdrawn and will be returned to you. This submittal deadline may be extended for good cause if such request is made prior to November 3, 2023. I look forward to working with you on this project. Please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or (831) 427-4863 if you have any questions regarding the above information requests.

Sincerely,
Breylen Ammen
Coastal Planner
Central Coast District Office

Cc: Todd Muck, Michelle Overmeyer, Lisa Rheinheimer, Tad Stearn, Peter Meyerhofer Enclosure
DocuSign Envelope ID: 6CAFB87E-BC87-4E83-8D47-194F4FE3A6D6

EXHIBIT A
169
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT
725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300
SANTA CRUZ , CA 95060
PHONE: (831) 427 -4863
FAX: (831) 427 -4877
WEB: WWW.COASTAL.CA.GO V

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL May 10, 2021

Michelle Overmeyer
Director of Planning & Innovation
Monterey-Salinas Transit
19 Upper Ragsdale Drive, Suite 200
Monterey, CA 93940

Re: Monterey-Salinas Transit Busway Project

Dear Ms. Overmeyer:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) Busway Project in north Monterey County. Please provide these comments to the MST Board Members prior to today’s meeting on the project and please include these comments in the administrative record for the project.

The Coastal Commission has worked diligently over many years to develop strategies to maximize public transit opportunities and to reduce carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, including to help counter the effects of global climate change and the resulting impacts from sea level rise. Thus, at a broad level, we are generally supportive of projects that can help increase our overall resiliency through development of public transit projects such as this. At the same time, however, such support only extends as far as such development can be achieved in a manner that is consistent with the California Coastal Act and with the applicable Local Coastal Programs (LCPs). It is within this context that we provide the following comments.

Outreach
We understand that MST has undertaken some outreach to the public and relevant stakeholders to solicit public comment for the proposed transit project, including via today’s meeting. However, from our discussions with the public and other stakeholders it appears that there is limited understanding of the proposed project, and thus it appears that potential interested parties may not have been thoroughly engaged, especially in light of COVID-19 and the associated difficulty for the public to ask questions and receive answers on the proposal in a meaningful way. We strongly recommend that the MST Board not take action on the project today and instead recommend that MST staff redouble its efforts to reach out to affected communities by scheduling multiple/repeat informational and educational webinars, including at a minimum presentations through regular City Council and Board of Supervisor virtual meetings (and in-person meetings as soon as possible) for all jurisdictions affected by the project going forward. We also strongly believe that the process should be extended to allow more time to discuss and evaluate project alternatives with affected cities and entities that address regional public transportation needs in a manner that protects

EXHIBIT A
170
MST Busway Project Comments
2 coastal resources and is approvable under the Coastal Act and applicable LCPs. See more discussion in the “ESHA” section below.

Jurisdiction
A significant portion of the project lies within the Transportation Agency of Monterey County’s (TAMC’s) right-of-way on the former Fort Ord military base seaward of Highway 1. The entire area west of the highway is within the Commission’s retained permitting jurisdiction and a coastal development permit (CDP) from the Commission will be required for any development within this area. The standard of review will be the Coastal Act. Also, as we understand it, other elements of the project fall within the purview of adjacent local governments (e.g., Marina, Sand City, Seaside, and Monterey County) and separate CDPs for those project elements will be required from those respective jurisdictions. The certified LCPs will be the standard of review in those locations. In certain limited cases where a project has split CDP jurisdiction, the Commission has the ability to process a consolidated CDP as opposed to separate CDPs (and potential appeals), provided the applicant, the local government, and the Commission’s Executive Director all agree to such processing and when public comment and participation will not be substantially impaired. While consolidation is a potential vehicle to process the CDP, we believe it is too early in the process to determine whether it is appropriate to do so, including because there are substantive coastal resource issues that first need to be addressed prior to a determination of how the permitting process should be undertaken, all as described in more detail below.

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESHA)/ Project Alternatives The IS/MND notes that the majority of the alignment (roughly five miles) of the busway project would be within TAMC’s Monterey Branch Line rail corridor right-of-way, an approximately 100-foot- wide corridor located between the Fort Ord Dunes State Park recreational trail (i.e., Beach Range Road) and the Caltrans right-of-way recreation trail, both of which are located seaward of Highway 1. More specifically, the alignment would be located mainly in the sand dunes area seaward of the TAMC rail corridor right-of-way and would deviate from this general alignment only when necessary to avoid bridge under-crossings and other similar obstacles. The IS/MND describes the TAMC rail corridor as heavily disturbed but also wide enough to support native and non-native plant communities. The IS/MND acknowledges that sensitive habitats exist in this area of the coastal zone, which includes the underlying sand dunes within the TAMC right-of- way, and focuses on providing mitigation for project-specific impacts to known rare and/or sensitive plant and animal species. The IS/MND only evaluates the busway on the Monterey Branch Line rail corridor right-of-way alternative.1

1 MST in conjunction with TAMC and other stakeholders, prepared a Bus-on-Shoulder/Branch Line Feasibility Study in 2018 to respond to growing traffic congestion and delays on State Route 1 in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. The study evaluated several project alternatives. Determination of feasibility was based primarily on annual ridership, time savings, total capital cost, and reduction in vehicle miles traveled. Environmental impacts were scored as either significant, possibly significant, or not significant.

There was no quantification of impacts in terms of habitat loss or disturbance, no discussion of necessary mitigations or costs associated with mitigations, and these costs did not enter into the feasibility equation.

EXHIBIT A
171
MST Busway Project Comments
3 Coastal Act Section 30240 provides for the protection of ESHA, including sensitive dune habitats such as those found at the former Ford Ord and within the TAMC right-of-way:

Section 30240 (a) environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.

The protections afforded by Coastal Act Section 30240 extend to both natural and degraded dunes, i.e., whether the dunes are covered in native dune plant species, ice plant, or base rock, including because of the inherent ability for degraded dunes to be restored. As noted in past correspondence to MST staff regarding this project, only resource-dependent uses that do not significantly disrupt ESHA are allowable in ESHA.

The project description contained in the IS/MND identifies roughly five linear miles of two-lane roadway surface, drainage improvements, retaining walls, fencing, utility connections, traffic and safety controls, and operation of motorized bus service all within sand dune ESHA. The project would include roughly 22 acres of new impervious surface and approximately 23 acres of grubbing and grading, much of this in dune ESHA. A transportation infrastructure project like this is not an allowed use in ESHA and therefore is inconsistent with the Coastal Act and applicable LCPs. Additionally, based on the project description the proposed development will introduce additional traffic, noise, light, and general disturbance within and adjacent to sand dune ESHA, thereby also resulting in significant disruption of ESHA habitat values.

The currently proposed project is located in dune ESHA and is not resource dependent and is not approvable under Coastal Act Section 30240 or under the ESHA policies of the various LCPs that would apply to the project in the areas located outside of the Commission retained permitting jurisdiction. Furthermore, the project will include the construction and staging of equipment and materials, and it is not clear whether these activities will occur within the dunes; if so, those activities also have the potential to cause significant disruptions to adjacent habitat areas, inconsistent with Coastal Act Section 30240 and related LCP ESHA policies. Given the sensitive dune resources involved and the need to ensure that ESHA habitat values are appropriately protected, we recommend that MST prepare a comprehensive evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives, including options that avoid impacts to dune ESHA, whether degraded or not, that the proposed new two-lane bus thoroughfare would present.2 The analysis must quantify the impact for each alternative in terms of permanent and temporary habitat loss / disturbance, along with identification and recommendation of corresponding mitigation proposed for each alternative. This level of analysis will be needed for Commission staff and City and County staffs to fully evaluate any project for

2 At a minimum, the range of alternatives should include: 1) establishing bus service within the existing highway right-of-way via widening or use of an existing lane; 2) establishing an HOV lane in the right- hand lane of Highway 1; 3) commuter rail on the existing rail alignment; 4) utilizing surface city streets to accommodate bus rapid transit.

EXHIBIT A
172
MST Busway Project Comments
4 Coastal Act and LCP consistency, and our Commission will expect this analysis to be present in the staff report for any project.

Public Access and Recreation
Coastal Act Section 30240(b) requires that development sited adjacent to parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would substantially degrade those areas. Based on the project description contained in the IS/MND, the proposed busway transit project would include roughly five linear miles of two-lane roadway surface, drainage improvements, retaining walls, fencing, utility connections, traffic and safety controls, and operation of motorized bus service immediately adjacent to an important park and recreation area, i.e. Fort Ord Dunes State Park, where it is clear the effect will be a significant degradation of the park experience, inconsistent with Coastal Act Section 30240(b). The proposed development will introduce additional traffic, noise, light, and general disturbance well beyond the physical development location and much closer to important park recreational amenities (e.g., the portion of the recreation trail located on Fort Ord State Park property) than the current commotion originating from Highway 1 in this area. The busway would be visible from the same public recreation trail and the Commission-approved Fort Ord Dunes State Park campground. Please also see the letter from the California Department of Parks and Recreation (dated April 11, 2021), in which State Parks’ staff describes a myriad of impacts to Fort Ord Dunes State Park from the project. In short, the proposed project will result in significant coastal access and recreation impacts, including to Fort Ord Dunes State Park and the adjacent recreation trail, and thus the proposed project is inconsistent with Coastal Act Section 30240(b) and cannot be approved.

Public Views
The Coastal Act protects public views “as a resource of public importance,” where development is required to be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding area. The IS/MND suggests that although the views of coastal Fort Ord could be considered scenic, these same vistas are not significantly affected or compromised by the project.

Visual renditions from Highway 1 provided with the IS/MND are clear in that buses traveling within the rail right-of-way will be visible during both day and night, and will be especially noticeable during the night due to bus lighting. As proposed, the sweeping unobstructed views of the highly scenic Fort Ord coast would now include additional permanent facilities that would be visible during day and ongoing bus travel that would visible day and night, significantly degrading said views. These impacts are certain to occur no matter whether an alternative is chosen within the Caltrans or TAMC right-of- way. However, views from the Fort Ord recreational trail would more likely be significantly impacted by the busway development in the TAMC right-of-way, which would be in some instances merely feet away from the trail. Likewise, views from the campground would suffer from a similar increase in visual detractions. Accordingly, we strongly recommend that MST adopt an alternative that avoids and/or minimizes the amount of new paving and infrastructure needed to initiate service, and realigns the bus service in closer proximity to the existing highway right-of-way, i.e. away from the Fort Ord recreation trail and the Commission-approved Fort Ord State Park campground.

EXHIBIT A
173
MST Busway Project Comments
5 In conclusion, although we are supportive of strategies to maximize public transit opportunities and to reduce carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, the current proposal cannot be found consistent with the Coastal Act or with the applicable LCPs.

We strongly suggest that MST take a pause on this project to develop a public process to evaluate alternatives that will not result in the range of significant coastal resource impacts described herein. We are available for consultation as you proceed forward.

Regards,

Mike Watson
Coastal Planner
California Coastal Commission

EXHIBIT A
174

EXHIBIT A
175

EXHIBIT A
176

EXHIBIT A
177
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEALS OF CDP 23-0004 (MST’S SURF! BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT ) AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APRIL 11, 2024, APPROVAL BASED ON FINDINGS, CONDITIONS

OF APPROVAL, AND THE FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA PER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080.25(b).

WHEREAS, SURF! Bus Rapid Transit project, in its entirety, consists of approximately 6 linear miles of roadway surface dedicated for express busway service (bus rapid transit) between Marina and Sand City. The Marina portion of the route for the SURF! busway project would begin at Monter ey-Salinas Transit’s (MST)’s Marina Transit Exchange at Reservation Road and De Forest Road (northern terminus), and end at the proposed 5th St. Transit Center Contra Costa Street in Sand City (southern terminus in Marina);
WHEREAS, the project would be located in the cities of Marina and Sand City, running parallel to Highway 1 next to Fort Ord Dunes State Park. The busway includes dedicated express busway lanes, platforms, a new station at 5th Street on the former Fort Ord (outside the Coastal zone), and related infrastructure including the extension of the Beach Range Rd. path to the new Palm Ave. station; WHEREAS, the project will use 100 percent zero -emission, near-zero emission, low oxide or nitrogen engines, compressed natural gas fuel, fuel cell, or hybrid powertrain buses. The completed project is expected to open in 2027 and will relieve congestion and support more frequent public transit services for people traveling within the corridor and beyond;
WHEREAS, the Transportation Agency of Monterey (TAMC) right -of-way (ROW), within which a portion of the proposed bus rapid transit (BRT) project is proposed to occur, has been utilized for transportation uses since the 1880s. The Monterey Branch Line, where the SURF! BRT project is to be developed, was purchased by TAMC in 2003 expressly for public transportation and transit uses; WHEREAS, TAMC recognizes the SURF! project as the intended user of this portion of the Monterey Branch Line until such time as it develops a rail project within the corridor. TAMC supports the SURF! project and, as property owner, is signatory on the City of Marina permit application; WHEREAS, Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST), the applicant and developer of the SURF! project, owns the property known as the 5th St. Transit Station (APN 031-221-005), located at 1st Ave. and 5th St. within the former Fort Ord area, east of Highway 1. This property was conveyed to MST as part of the original Fort Ord closure with the express intent of developing a new multimodal mobility hub. The Station will include a safe drop -off and pick -up area, public parking with EV charging, and bicycle and mobility amenities including a bicycle repair station;
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2024, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and a Tree Removal Permit (TRP) as necessary for the multi -jurisdiction Project;
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2024, within the City’s 10-day appeal period, the City of Marina received two (2) appeals of the Planning Commission’s action to approve the CDP : one from Robert Solerno, on behalf of Keep Fort Ord Wild (KFOW), and one from Mason Clark, the owner/operator of the handcar commercial use that currently occupies a portion of the subject TAMC ROW. Issues raised in the appeal(s) include, generally:

EXHIBIT B
178

Resolution No. 2024-
Page Two

a) The project is not in compliance with the Coastal Act b) The project is not in compliance with the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) c) The project will not improve coastal access
d) The project is not in compliance with Proposition 116 e) The Planning Commission erred in finding the Project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Each appeal is described more specifically in the accompanying staff report, which also attaches the appeals in their entirety as exhibits;

WHEREAS, the 5th St. Transit Station is outside of the Coastal Zone and not subject to the requirements of the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP). Seventy-six (76) of the total 92 trees authorized for removal under Tree Removal permit (TP 23-004) are located on this property. The Tree Removal Permit has not been appealed and remains in effect;

WHEREAS, sixteen (16) trees are authorized for removal within the TAMC ROW between Palm Ave. and the Highway 1 overcrossing to the south. Two (2) of those trees are located within the 0.37 acre portion of the TAMC ROW within the Coastal Zone and are subject to this appeal. The other 14 are not;

WHEREAS, both of the appeals expressly do not appeal the TRP approved by the Planning Commission on April 11, 2024, and thus the TRP is final and remains in effect notwithstanding the Council’s action on the appeals;

WHEREAS, the biological report 1 prepared for the project analyzed the entirety of the project, both within and outside the City of Marina and the multi-jurisdictional Coastal Zone boundary and, based on findings for Segment 2 which includes the 0.37 acre portion of the TAMC ROW within the City’s Coastal Development Permit (CDP) jurisdiction, found that the subject appeal area (0.37 acres) does not contain the three (3) vegetation types that can be considered sensitive or Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) in the City’s LCP . These three (3) habitat areas are: dune scrub, habitat for the Smith’s blue butterfly (i.e., buckwheat) and areas supporting rare plants;

WHEREAS, the City’s CDP jurisdiction over the Project is limited due to the Coastal Commission’s retention of CDP jurisdiction within City limits, specifically, within the area to the south of the Highway 1 overpass at Del Monte and west of the Highway 1 ROW;
WHEREAS, contrary to the Appellants’ claims that the SURF! BRT Project would negatively impact coastal access, the portion of the SURF! project within the City’s CDP jurisdiction will improve existing coastal access by formalizing the existing “social trails” along Beach Range Rd. and Marina Dr. to the new Palm Ave. transit stop (all within the TAMC ROW) , and by improving pedestrian crossings at Reindollar Ave.;

WHEREAS, the City’s LCP policies are “statements of intent” and are not binding upon the City. LCP at 2-1. Rather, “[i]implementation of these policies will sometimes mean achieving a balance among the policies which best effectuates the City’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan.” Id. Although certain policies prioritize maintaining coastal access for recreational uses, o ther policies in the LCP support implementation of the SURF! busway, for example: Policy 35 (“To encourage continued and improved service by mass transit within the Coastal Zone. ”); Policy 36 (“ To provide and promote the role of Marina as the physical and visual gateway to the Monterey Peninsula.”); and Policy 39 (“To encourage development which keeps energy consumption to the lowest level possible.”);

1 Final Biological Resources Report, May 2021. Prepared by Denise Duffy & Assoc. (DD&A) for the MST SURF! BRT Project on file with the City of Marina Community Development Dept.

EXHIBIT B
179

Resolution No. 2024-
Page Three

WHEREAS, by improving coastal access for pedestrians/bicyclists while also implementing the SURF! busway – which provides a more climate-friendly, mass transit alternative to commuters in the region – the Planning Commission properly exercised its policy judgment to strike a b alance among the LCP’s various policies;

WHEREAS, Appellant KFOW claim s that the Project is not eligible for MST’s proposed funding pursuant to Proposition 116 – because this 1990 voter initiative allegedly limits this funding to “rail” projects, which do not include the SURF! BRT Project – yet the Project’s funding source is irrelevant to the CDP permit at issue; City has no role in the funding of the project because the SURF! project is solely grant funded; and thus the funding’s consistency wi th Proposition 116 is outside of the City’s purview;

WHEREAS, for informational purposes, a full outline of the funding sources and construction timelines is available on the MST website at: https://mst.org/about-mst/planning-development/surf;

WHEREAS, Appellant KFOW alleges that portions of MST’s larger project, which are outside of the City’s LCP jurisdiction (and in some cases, outside of the City’s municipal boundary), contain Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA). Under the Coastal Act, only uses dependent on their proposed location in ESHA may be allowed within ESHA. Pub. Res. Code sec. 30240(a). However, the claim that portions of the Project site outside of the City’s CDP jurisdiction (and/or City’s municipal boundaries) may unlawfully interfere with ESHA is unrelated to the CDP being appealed, and is beyond the City’s purview here;

WHEREAS, Appellant KFOW alleges that the Planning Commission erred in finding the Project exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.25(b), specifically because in Appellant’s view, the Coastal Commission must find that the exemption applies before the City can make such finding. However, Appellant’s claim that the Coastal Commission must find that the Project qualifies for the statutory exemption for certain mass transit projects (PRC 21080.25(b)) before the City can make such determination has no basis in the law, nor does Appellant cite to any. The Planning Commission reviewed MST’s grounds for finding the overall Project eligible for the statutory exemption when MST approved the Project. The Commission then exercised its independent judgment to find that the CDP (which is necessary for the overall project) qualifies for the exemption for the same reasons the overall Project does;

WHEREAS, TAMC, through a sublease with the City, currently leases an approximately 3.5 mile segment of the railroad tracks to the Museum of Handcar Technology (“Museum”), which is also one of the parties to this appeal (Mason Clark). The existing lease expires on October 31, 2024 . Both the primary lease between the City and TAMC and the sublease between the City and Museum expressly acknowledge that “ Museum understands and agrees that LESSOR has future plans for the Property, such as the SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project, or other transportation uses. Thus, Museum agrees to vacate the Property during the TERM of the SUBLEASE or any renewal or extension of the SUBLEASE, without liability to the CITY, upon termination of the SUBLEASE by the CITY.”2

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission’s approval of the Coastal Development Permit is subject to findings (Exhibit A) and conditions of approval (Exhibit B1) as provided herein;

2 TAMC/City Lease agreement executed 11/04/22 and City/Museum Sublease agreement executed 11/09/22

EXHIBIT B
180

Resolution No. 2024-
Page Four

WHEREAS, although not applicable or relevant to the subject appeal of the Coastal Development Permit, for ease in City staff’s review for compliance with conditions of approval upon Project implementation, the TRP conditions are also provided herein as Exhibit B2; and

WHEREAS, Staff recommends that the City Council (1) find that the Council has reviewed the Notices of Exemption filed by MST on July 12, 2021, and March 13, 2023, including the reasons MST provided for adopting the exemptions; and (2) find that in the Council’s independent judgment, the project qualifies as exempt from CEQA per Section 21080.25(b) of the Public Resources Code. The City will file a Notice of Exemption with the Monterey County Clerk’s Office.

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

1. Find that the foregoing recitals, and the accompanying staff report, are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth fully herein.

2. Deny the appeal by Mason Clark (Exhibit C1), and deny the appeal by Robert Solerno on behalf of KFOW (Exhibit C2), based on such findings, and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, including:

a. Making the findings set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto; b. Adopting the Resolution to approve CDP 23-0004 subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto; and
c. Finding that in the Council’s independent judgment, the project qualifies as exempt from CEQA per Section 21080.25(b) of the Public Resources Code.

3. Direct staff to submit the City’s Notice of Final Action to the California Coastal Commission.

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:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

_________________________________
Bruce Delgado, Mayor

ATTEST:

__________________________
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk

EXHIBIT B
181

Exhibit A

Findings

Coastal Development Permit § 17.40.200.E.3
The finding is in standard font with Staff’s response following in italics.

In considering an application for a coastal development permit the planning commission shall consider and give due regard to the Marina general plan and local coastal land use and implementation plans. The planning commission shall determine whether or not the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use applied for will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be consistent with the general plan and local coastal land use and implementation plans, based upon the following findings that the project will:
a. Not impair major view corridors towards the sea from Highway 1 parallel to the sea, including the planning guidelines listed in the LCLUP;
The 0.37-acre portion of the project that lies within the City’s jurisdiction of the Coastal zone will be developed with a paved bus rapid transit busway consisting of two (2) twelve -foot paved traffic lanes within the TAMC right-of-way (ROW). The busway itself will be at existing grade with minimal vertical disruption to views to the west at this point. A portion of the subject location is under an existing freeway overpass and a portion is just north between the Del Monte Blvd. ROW to the east and the Beach Range Rd. extension (trail) to the west. The TAMC ROW travels through and adjacent to the Caltrans Highway 1 ROW.
b. Be subject to approval of the site and architectural design review board, including the planning guidelines listed in the LCLUP;
No development that is subject to design review is proposed at this time; Design Review Board review is not required.
c. Guarantee that appropriate legal action is taken to insure vertical and lateral coastal access or fees paid in lieu thereof as required in the LCLUP and coastal zoning ordinance access components. Required improvements shall be completed, or a bond adequate to guarantee their completion shall be posted with the city, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
The project will not negatively affect public access to the coast. The 0.37-acre portion of the project that is located in the City’s CDP jurisdiction that will be developed with the busway will continue to provide access to existing beach trails.
d. Be adequately set back from the shoreline to withstand erosion to the extent that the reasonable economic life of the use would be guaranteed without need for shoreline protection structures; The proposed busway is more than 2,500 feet from the shoreline and not subject to coastal erosion. e. Protect least disturbed dune habitat areas, primary habitat areas and provide protection measures for secondary habitat areas consistent with the LCLUP and coastal zoning ordinance; According to the LCLUP, the property is outside areas mapped as having sensitive natural habitats.

Furthermore, the biological report prepared for the project did not identify any special status species within this area, although two (2) trees are to be removed. The site is an existing transp ortation ROW (TAMC, state highway, local road, Monterey Bay Rec. Trail) and is developed with out -of- service railroad tracks and paved trails. Given the existing transportation network in this area, this

EXHIBIT B
182

portion of the project site is highly disturbed. The LUP includes a policy (#35) stating mass transit within the Coastal zone shall be continued and improved. f. Be consistent with beach parking standards, as established in the LCLUP access component; There is no vehicular access (other than the BRT bus) provided at the subject location. g. Included feasible mitigating measures which substantially reduce significant impacts of the project as prescribed in any applicable EIR;
The mitigation measures identified by and certified in MST’s adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), part of the MST Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), are in full force and effect over activities within the City’s permit jurisdictio n where they apply. As noted in “e” above, there were no sensitive species observed in the preparation of the project biological report for the 0.37-acre portion of the project in the City’s Coastal zone jurisdiction and this location is not included in t he LCP’s sensitive habitats maps. The other development and tree removal is outside the Coastal zone and not subject to these findings. h. Not interfere with public access along the beach;
There is no beach access at this location.
i. Comply with the access, shoreline structure and habitat protection standards included in the local coastal land use and implementation plans;
Direct shoreline access, shoreline structure, and habitat protection standards are not applicable to this project or site.
j. Comply with the housing element and housing recommendations of the local coastal land use and implementation plans;
The project is a transportation project to be developed in a transportation corridor and on a ± 4.5 acre property owned by MST and required to be used as a multi -modal transportation hub . No housing is proposed.
k. In the case of demolition of a residential structure, except to abate a nuisance, not detrimentally alter the character or housing mix of the neighborhood. The structure shall be moved, if capable of providing comparable housing opportunities at another lo cation. The demolition and replacement structure shall comply with applicable local coastal land use plan policies; No demolition is proposed other than preparing the site for a busway. l. In the case of new surf zone or beach sand mining operations, comply with all standards regarding such operations specified in the LCLUP including standards for significant adverse impacts on shoreline erosion, either individually or cumulatively.

No mining operations are proposed.

LCP Land Use Plan consistency
The City’s LUP includes 42 “policies of intent” which are very broad in nature and seek to communicate all the City’s aspirations for development in the Coastal zone . These include policies that prioritize coastal access and recreation opportunities (#2) and policies that encourage continued and improved

EXHIBIT B
183

service by mass transit within the Coastal Zone (#35) and encourage development which keeps energy consumption to the lowest level possible (#39). It is the City’s job to balance these sometimes opposing goals.

The LUP has policies for the protection of rare and endangered species and their habitat (p. 3-1), wetlands (p. 3-2), and ponds (p. 3-3). None of the characteristics of these features are present on or immediately adjacent to the 0.37 acre portion of the project within the Coastal zone. Furthermore, this segment of the TAMC ROW is surrounded on all sides by either paved or vertical State Highway 1 ROW and overpass structures, the Del Monte Blvd. ROW, the Monterey Peninsula Rec reation Trail (Rec Trail) ROW and Beach Range Rd., a narrow paved road within the TAMC ROW which Monterey One Water (M1W) utilizes to access its lift station from time to time.

In terms of public access to the coast, the LUP discusses the three (3) existing coastal access points (Reservation Rd., Dunes Dr., and Lake Ct.) and does not discuss trail access from Del Monte since the establishment of the trails from Beach Range Rd. and the Rec Trail were established with the State Parks property (former Fort Ord) and post -LCP certification. The establishment of a transit use within an existing transportation corridor that does not contain either ESHA or other habitat or species of crit ical concern is consistent with the overarching policies in the LUP.

EXHIBIT B
184

Exhibit B1
Conditions of Approval for the Coastal Development Permit (CDP)

1. Effective Date, Expiration, and Extensions. This approval shall become effective immediately, except when an appeal period applies pursuant to MMC Section 17.70 in which case actions shall become effective ten (10) days after the approval date provided that no appeal is filed. Approval shall expire two (2) years from the Approval date, or from the date of the final decision in the event of an appeal, unless within such period a complete building permit application has been filed with the Community Development Department, or the authorized activities have commenced in the case of a permit not involving construction. Upon written request and payment of appropriate fees submitted no later than the expiration date of this Approval, the Community Development Director or designee may grant a one -year extension of this date, with additional extensions subject to approval by the approving body (Planning Commission). Expiration of any nece ssary building permit or other construction-related permit for this project may invalidate this Approval if said Approval has also expired. If litigation is filed challenging this Approval or its implementation, then the time period stated above for obtain ing necessary permits for construction and/or commencement of authorized activities is automatically extended for the duration of the litigation.

2. Compliance with Other Requirements. The owner, applicant, and operator shall comply with all other applicable federal, state, regional, and local laws, codes, requirements, regulations, and guidelines. Compliance with other applicable requirements may require changes to the approved use and/or plans. These changes shall be processed in accordance with the procedures contained in Condition #4.

3. Modifications. Any modification to the approved project, site plan, conditions of approval, or use requires consistency review and approval by Planning Staff. Major revisions may require review and approval by the original approving body or a new independent permit.

4. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. The owner, applicant, and operator shall be responsible for compliance with all Conditions of Approval. The City reserves the right at any time during construction to require certification by a licensed professional at the applicant’s expense that the as- built project conforms to all applicable requirements. Violation of any term, project description, or Condition of Approval is unlawful and prohibited. In the case of noncompliance with the requirements of a Use Permit, MMC Section 17.58.060 allows for the revocation of said permit. The City reserves the right to initiate civil and/or criminal enforcement and/or abatement proceedings where violations are present, consistent with Chapter 1.08 of the Marina Municipal Code.

5. Mitigation Measures BIO 1 – BIO 6. The owner, applicant, and operator shall be responsible for compliance with the Construction Best Management Practices, Construction -Phase Monitoring, Non-Native/Invasive Species Controls, Pre-Construction Surveys for Protected Avian Species, Pre- Construction Surveys for Monterey Dusky -Footed Woodrat , and Pre-Construction Surveys for Townsend’s Big-eared Bat as described in the Biological Report3 and MMRP.

6. Timing of Tree Removal.

Per Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1.4 from MST’s adopted MND:

Construction activities that may directly (e.g., vegetation removal) or indirectly (e.g., noise/ground disturbance) affect protected nesting avian species will be timed to avoid the breeding and nesting season. Specifically, vegetation and/or tree removal can be scheduled after September 16 and before January 31. Alternatively, a qualified biologist will be retained by the project applicant to conduct

3 https://mst.org/wp-content/media/Appendix-07-Final-Biological-Resources-Report.pdf

EXHIBIT B
185

pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors and other protected avian species within 500 feet of proposed construction activities if construction occurs between February 1 and September 15. Pre - construction surveys will be conducted no more than 14 days p rior to the start of construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (February through April) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May through August). Because some bird species nest early in spring and others nest later in summer, surveys for nesting birds may be required to continue during construction to address new arrivals, and because some species breed multiple times in a season. The necessity and timing of these continued surveys will be determined by the qualified biologist based on review of the final construction plans and in coordination with the CDFW [California Department of Fish and Wildlife], as needed.

If raptors or other protected avian species nests are identified during the pre -construction surveys, the qualified biologist will notify the project applicant and an appropriate no disturbance buffer will be imposed within which no construction activities or disturbance should take place (generally 500 feet in all directions for raptors; other avian species may have species -specific requirements) until the young of the year have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival, as determined by a qualified biologist.

Per MM BIO-1.5:

Not more than thirty (30) days prior to the start of construction of Segments 1 -4 and the 5th Street Station (including vegetation removal), a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of suitable habitat within the work site to locate existing Monterey d usky-footed woodrat nests. All Monterey dusky - footed woodrat nests shall be mapped and flagged for avoidance. Graphics depicting all Monterey dusky-footed woodrat nests shall be provided to the construction contractor. Any Monterey dusky - footed woodrat nests that cannot be avoided shall be relocated according to the following procedures:

• Each active nest shall be disturbed by the qualified biologist to the degree that the woodrats leave the nest and seek refuge elsewhere.

• Nests shall be dismantled during the non -breeding season (between October 1 and December 31), if possible.

• If a litter of young is found or suspected, nest material shall be replaced and the nest left alone for 2-3 weeks, after this time the nest will be rechecked to verify that young are capable of independent survival before proceeding with nest dismantling.

Per MM BIO-1.6:

To avoid and reduce impacts to Townsend’s big -eared bat, if the project construction is planned during the reproductive season (May 1 through September 15), MST will retain a qualified bat specialist or wildlife biologist to conduct site surveys to charact erize bat utilization within and adjacent to the project site and potential species present (techniques utilized to be determined by the biologist) prior to construction. Based on the results of these initial surveys, one or more of the following will occur:

• If it is determined that bats are not present within or adjacent to the site, no additional mitigation is required.

• If it is determined that bats are utilizing the trees or abandoned buildings within or adjacent to the site and may be impacted by the proposed project, pre-construction surveys will be conducted within 50 feet of construction limits no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction. If, according to the bat specialist, no bats or bat signs are observed in the course of the pre - construction surveys, construction may proceed. If bats and/or bat signs are observed during the pre-construction

EXHIBIT B
186

7. Display of Tree Removal Permit. Prior to and during the removal of any tree approved for removal, a copy of the tree removal permit shall be displayed on site. If no tree removal permit is displayed, the City will issue a stop work order and commence the City’s administrative fine process.

8. Tree Protection. Per MM BIO-1.1 from MST’s adopted MND:

a. Tree and vegetation not planned for removal or trimming shall be protected prior to and during construction to the maximum extent possible through the use of exclusionary fencing, such as hay bales for herbaceous and shrubby vegetation and protective wood barriers for trees. Only certified weed-free straw shall be used to avoid the introduction of non-native, invasive species.

A biological monitor shall supervise the installation of protective fencing and monitor at least once per week until construction is complete to ensure that the protective fencing remains intact.

b. Per MM BIO-4.12:

i. Temporary construction fencing shall be placed at approximately 10 feet from the trunk of native trees intended to be retained. Grading, vegetation removal, and other ground disturbing activities shall not commence until the project arborist has inspected and approved the protective fencing installed by the contractor. No equipment or materials, including soil, shall be stored within the established environmental exclusion zone. Prior to grading within 25 feet of retained trees, the project arborist shall be consulted to determine whether pruning is necessary to protect limbs from grading equipment.

ii. To avoid soil compaction from damaging the roots, heavy equipment shall not be allowed to drive over the root area. If deemed necessary and approved by the forester, equipment may drive across one side of the tree. To reduce soil compaction, wood chips shall be spread 6-12 inches deep to disperse the weight of equipment and plywood sheets shall be placed over the wood chips for added protection.

iii. Roots exposed by excavation must be pruned and recovered as quickly as possible to promote callusing, closure, and healthy regrowth.

iv. Retained trees shall be watered periodically in accordance with species need to promote tree health. Transplanted trees and their intended planting areas shall be pre -watered. Post planting watering shall be done as needed to assure establishment.

As determined necessary by the project arborist, retained trees shall be watered periodically to promote tree health.

9. Additional Mitigation Measures. In addition to the measures stated herein, the City of Marina relies upon all other mitigation measures included in the MMRP and certified by MST as they apply to the portions of the project subject to the City’s discretionary permit review; i.e., tree removal within the TAMC ROW, new transit development within the 0.37 ac portion of the TAMC ROW in the City’s CDP jurisdiction, and site development at the 5th St. Transit Center.

10. Replacement Trees. Upon completion of the grading and infrastructure development for the Phase in which trees were removed, new trees shall be planted at a 2:1 ratio. The replacement tree species and sizes shall be a mix of native coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia), Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), Ray Hartman Wild Lilac (Ceanothus X ‘Ray Hartman’), Majestic beauty fruitless olive (Olea Europaea ‘Majestic Beauty’ ), with Coffeeberry ( Frangula califonica ), Coast silktassel (Garrya elliptica), and Toyon ( Heteromeles arbutifolia) interspersed to supplement the Ceanothus at the discretion of the landscape architect. The tree sizes shall follow the Appendix C of Resolution 24-01. Alternatively, MST may provide the City with “in lieu” fees per MMC Section 17.62.060.D.2.

Any combination of these two (2) replacement methods is acceptable.

EXHIBIT B
187

11. Tree and Landscaping Maintenance. The trees and landscaping installed under this permit shall be maintained for the life of the project using the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) best management practices (BMPs).

12. Site Restoration Plan. The ground surface shall be restored in the vicinity of the tree removals.

Restoration shall include but not be limited to the removal of tree stumps and filling of any holes left by the removal.

13. Coastal Development Permit. The two trees proposed for removal within the coastal zone (nos. 1073 and 1074) are subject to additional review and a coastal development permit (CDP) from the City of Marina. These trees shall not be removed until the CDP has been issued and all appeal periods have passed. Removal of any trees within the coastal zone shall be consistent with the required Conditions of Approval attached to the CDP.

14. Encroachment Permit(s). Prior to the commencement of any work within the City’s public ROW, an encroachment permit from the Public Works Dept. shall be obtained.

15. Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological , Tribal Cultural Resources , Paleontological Resources or Human Remains. Any inadvertent discovery while removing trees and/or restoring the site post-removal shall be mitigated in accordance to MM CR-2 in the adopted MMRP.

16. Indemnification. To the extent allowable by law, the owner, applicant, and operator agree to hold the City harmless from costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City in connection with the City’s defense of it s actions in any proceeding brought in any state or federal court challenging the City’s actions with respect to the project. The owner, applicant, and operator understand and acknowledge that the City is under no obligation to defend any legal actions challenging the City’s actions with respect to the project.

17. Violation of Code. Any person who does any work or uses, occupies or maintains any building or structure, or causes the same to be done, or does any grading, contrary to or in violation of this title or of any of the uniform codes adopted by this title is guilty of an infrac tion pursuant to MMC

15.04.060.

18. Construction Noise. Unless otherwise authorized, construction activities shall be conducted in compliance with MMC Section 15.04.055 and all non -emergency construction or repair work shall be limited to the following schedule:
a. Monday through Saturday: 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
b. Sunday and holidays: 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. (For the purposes of this section, “holidays” shall include New Year’s Day, July 4th, Thanksgiving and Christmas) c. During daylight savings time, the hours of construction may be extended to 8 p.m.

No construction, tools, or equipment shall produce a decibel level of more than sixty (60) decibels for twenty-five (25) percent of an hour at any receiving property line.

19. Operational Noise. Noise levels from the project site after completion of the project (i.e., during project operation) shall comply with the performance standards of Chapter 9.24 of the Marina Municipal Code. If noise levels exceed these standards, the activity causing the noise shall be abated until appropriate noise reduction measures have been installed and compliance verified by the City.

20. Site Maintenance. The site shall be kept in a blight - and nuisance-free condition, and healthy and well-kept landscaping shall be continuously maintained. Any existing blight or nuisance shall be abated within 60 days of permit approval.

EXHIBIT B
188

21. Lighting. Exterior lighting fixtures shall be adequately shielded to a point below the light bulb and reflector to prevent unnecessary glare onto adjacent properties. After installation, the Community Development Director or designee shall retain the right to requi re reduction in the intensity of illumination or change of light color if said illumination creates any undue public nuisance.

22. Waste Receptacles. No storage of trash, recycling, or food waste receptacles shall be permitted within the public right -of-way. Receptacles shall be stored on site and screened from public view.

The owner, applicant, and operator shall ensure that the requirements of Chapter 8.04 of the Marina Municipal Code pertaining to recycling and solid waste disposal are met.

23. Graffiti. All graffiti on facilities must be removed at the sole expense of the permittee within 48 hours after notification from the City.

EXHIBIT B
189

Exhibit B2

Conditions of Approval for the (non-Coastal) Tree Removal Permit (TRP) - Note that the first three (3) are TRP-specific; the following are general COAs included in both COA Exhibits (B1 and B2)

1. 5th St. Station – MM BIO-10: Special-Status Plant Surveys and HMP Compliance A qualified biologist shall be retained to conduct surveys for Monterey spineflower and Yadon’s piperia within the 5th Street Station. The surveys shall be conducted during the appropriate identification period(s) to determine presence or absence, according to USFWS, CDFW, and CNPS protocol. The biologist shall prepare a report that provides the results of the survey, and, if found the number and locations of individuals/populations identified.

• If no Monterey spineflower or Yadon’s piperia are found, no further mitigation is necessary.

• If Monterey spineflower or Yadon’s piperia are found, salvage efforts for these species will be evaluated by a qualified biologist in coordination with the MST prior to construction to further reduce impacts per the requirements of the HMP and 2017 Programmatic BO. Where salvage is determined feasible and proposed, seed collection should occur from plants within the development site and/or topsoil should be salvaged within occupied areas to be disturbed. Seeds should be collected during the appropriate time of year for each species as determined by the qualified biologist. The collected seeds and topsoil should be used to revegetate tempo rarily disturbed construction areas and reseeding and restoration efforts on- or off-site, as determined appropriate by the qualified biologist and MST.

2. Sewer Easement. Prior to removing any trees within the 5th Street station area, the applicant shall provide Community Development Department staff with written documentation from Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) certifying trees near the existing MCWD sewer easement are cleared for removal.

3. Site and Architectural Design Permit. The applicant shall obtain a Design Review permit prior to any vertical development at the 5 th St. Transit Center or platform improvements at the Palm Ave. transit stop if required by MMC 17.56.010. Depending on the future scope of transit -related development, a Design Review permit may not be required.

4. Effective Date, Expiration, and Extensions. This approval shall become effective immediately, except when an appeal period applies pursuant to MMC Section 17.70 in which case actions shall become effective ten (10) days after the approval date provided that no appeal is filed. Approval shall expire two (2) years from the Approval date, or from the date of the final decision in the event of an appeal, unless within such period a complete building permit application has been filed with the Community Development Department, or the authorized activities have commenced in the case of a permit not involving construction. Upon written request and payment of appropriate fees submitted no later than the expiration date of this Approval, the Community Development Director or designee may grant a one -year extension of this date, with additional extensions subject to approval by the approving body (Planning Commission). Expiration of any necessary building permit or other construction-related permit for this project may invalidate this Approval if said Approval has also expired. If litigation is filed challenging this Approval or its implementation, then the time period stated above for obtaining necessary permits for construction and/or commencement of authorized activities is automatically extended for the duration of the litigation.

5. Compliance with Other Requirements. The owner, applicant, and operator shall comply with all other applicable federal, state, regional, and local laws, codes, requirements, regulations, and guidelines. Compliance with other applicable requirements may require changes to the approved use

EXHIBIT B
190

and/or plans. These changes shall be processed in accordance with the procedures contained in Condition #4.

6. Modifications. Any modification to the approved project, site plan, conditions of approval, or use requires consistency review and approval by Planning Staff. Major revisions may require review and approval by the original approving body or a new independent permit.

7. Compliance with Conditions of Approval. The owner, applicant, and operator shall be responsible for compliance with all Conditions of Approval. The City reserves the right at any time during construction to require certification by a licensed professional at the applicant’s expense that the as- built project conforms to all applicable requirements. Violation of any term, project description, or Condition of Approval is unlawful and prohibited. In the case of noncompliance with the requirements of a Use Permit, MMC Section 17.58.060 allows for the revocation of said permit. The City reserves the right to initiate civil and/or criminal enforcement and/or abatement proceedings where violations are present, consistent with Chapter 1.08 of the Marina Municipal Code.

8. Mitigation Measures BIO 1 – BIO 6. The owner, applicant, and operator shall be responsible for compliance with the Construction Best Management Practices, Construction -Phase Monitoring, Non-Native/Invasive Species Controls, Pre-Construction Surveys for Protected Avian Species, Pre- Construction Surveys for Monterey Dusky -Footed Woodrat , and Pre-Construction Surveys for Townsend’s Big-eared Bat as described in the Biological Report4 and MMRP.

9. Timing of Tree Removal.

Per Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1.4 from MST’s adopted MND:

Construction activities that may directly (e.g., vegetation removal) or indirectly (e.g., noise/ground disturbance) affect protected nesting avian species will be timed to avoid the breeding and nesting season. Specifically, vegetation and/or tree removal can be scheduled after September 16 and before January 31. Alternatively, a qualified biologist will be retained by the project applicant to conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors and other protected avian species within 500 feet of proposed construction activities if construction occurs between February 1 and September 15. Pre - construction surveys will be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (February through April) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May through August). Because some bird species nest early in spring and others nest later in summer, surveys for nesting birds may be required to continue during construction to address new arrivals, and because some species breed multiple times in a season. The necessity and timing of these continued surveys will be determined by the qualified biologist based on review of the final cons truction plans and in coordination with the CDFW [California Department of Fish and Wildlife], as needed.

If raptors or other protected avian species nests are identified during the pre -construction surveys, the qualified biologist will notify the project applicant and an appropriate no disturbance buffer will be imposed within which no construction activities or disturbance should take place (generally 500 feet in all directions for raptors; other avian species may have species -specific requirements) until the young of the year have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival, as determined by a qualified biologist.

Per MM BIO-1.5:

Not more than thirty (30) days prior to the start of construction of Segments 1 -4 and the 5th Street Station (including vegetation removal), a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of suitable habitat within the work site to locate existing Monterey d usky-footed woodrat nests. All Monterey dusky - footed woodrat nests shall be mapped and flagged for avoidance. Graphics depicting all Monterey

4 https://mst.org/wp-content/media/Appendix-07-Final-Biological-Resources-Report.pdf

EXHIBIT B
191

dusky-footed woodrat nests shall be provided to the construction contractor. Any Monterey dusky - footed woodrat nests that cannot be avoided shall be relocated according to the following procedures:

• Each active nest shall be disturbed by the qualified biologist to the degree that the woodrats leave the nest and seek refuge elsewhere.

• Nests shall be dismantled during the non -breeding season (between October 1 and December 31), if possible.

• If a litter of young is found or suspected, nest material shall be replaced and the nest left alone for 2-3 weeks, after this time the nest will be rechecked to verify that young are capable of independent survival before proceeding with nest dismantling.

Per MM BIO-1.6:

To avoid and reduce impacts to Townsend’s big -eared bat, if the project construction is planned during the reproductive season (May 1 through September 15), MST will retain a qualified bat specialist or wildlife biologist to conduct site surveys to charact erize bat utilization within and adjacent to the project site and potential species present (techniques utilized to be determined by the biologist) prior to construction. Based on the results of these initial surveys, one or more of the following will occur:

• If it is determined that bats are not present within or adjacent to the site, no additional mitigation is required.

• If it is determined that bats are utilizing the trees or abandoned buildings within or adjacent to the site and may be impacted by the proposed project, pre-construction surveys will be conducted within 50 feet of construction limits no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction. If, according to the bat specialist, no bats or bat signs are observed in the course of the pre - construction surveys, construction may proceed. If bats and/or bat signs are observed during the pre-construction

10. Display of Tree Removal Permit. Prior to and during the removal of any tree approved for removal, a copy of the tree removal permit shall be displayed on site. If no tree removal permit is displayed, the City will issue a stop work order and commence the City’s administrative fine process.

11. Tree Protection. Per MM BIO-1.1 from MST’s adopted MND:

a. Tree and vegetation not planned for removal or trimming shall be protected prior to and during construction to the maximum extent possible through the use of exclusionary fencing, such as hay bales for herbaceous and shrubby vegetation and protective wood barriers for trees. Only certified weed-free straw shall be used to avoid the introduction of non-native, invasive species.

A biological monitor shall supervise the installation of protective fencing and monitor at least once per week until construction is complete to ensure that the protective fencing remains intact.

b. Per MM BIO-4.12:

j. Temporary construction fencing shall be placed at approximately 10 feet from the trunk of native trees intended to be retained. Grading, vegetation removal, and other ground disturbing activities shall not commence until the project arborist has inspected and approved the protective fencing installed by the contractor. No equipment or materials, including soil, shall be stored within the established environmental exclusion zone. Prior to grading within 25 feet of retained trees, the project arborist shall be consulted to determine whether pruning is necessary to protect limbs from grading equipment.

EXHIBIT B
192

ii. To avoid soil compaction from damaging the roots, heavy equipment shall not be allowed to drive over the root area. If deemed necessary and approved by the forester, equipment may drive across one side of the tree. To reduce soil compaction, wood chips shall be spread 6-12 inches deep to disperse the weight of equipment and plywood sheets shall be placed over the wood chips for added protection.

iii. Roots exposed by excavation must be pruned and recovered as quickly as possible to promote callusing, closure, and healthy regrowth.

iv. Retained trees shall be watered periodically in accordance with species need to promote tree health. Transplanted trees and their intended planting areas shall be pre -watered. Post planting watering shall be done as needed to assure establishment.

As determined necessary by the project arborist, retained trees shall be watered periodically to promote tree health.

12. Additional Mitigation Measures. In addition to the measures stated herein, the City of Marina relies upon all other mitigation measures included in the MMRP and certified by MST as they apply to the portions of the project subject to the City’s discretionary permit review; i.e., tree removal within the TAMC ROW, new transit development within the 0.37 ac portion of the TAMC ROW in the City’s CDP jurisdiction, and site development at the 5th St. Transit Center.

13. Replacement Trees. Upon completion of the grading and infrastructure development for the Phase in which trees were removed, new trees shall be planted at a 2:1 ratio. The replacement tree species and sizes shall be a mix of native coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia), Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), Ray Hartman Wild Lilac (Ceanothus X ‘Ray Hartman’), Majestic beauty fruitless olive (Olea Europaea ‘Majestic Beauty’ ), with Coffeeberry ( Frangula califonica ), Coast silktassel (Garrya elliptica), and Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) interspersed to supplement the Ceanothus at the discretion of the landscape architect. The tree sizes shall follow the Appendix C of Resolution 24-01. Alternatively, MST may provide the City with “in lieu” fees per MMC Section 17.62.060.D.2.

Any combination of these two (2) replacement methods is acceptable.

14. Tree and Landscaping Maintenance. The trees and landscaping installed under this permit shall be maintained for the life of the project using the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) best management practices (BMPs).

15. Site Restoration Plan. The ground surface shall be restored in the vicinity of the tree removals.

Restoration shall include but not be limited to the removal of tree stumps and filling of any holes left by the removal.

16. Coastal Development Permit. The two trees proposed for removal within the coastal zone (nos. 1073 and 1074) are subject to additional review and a coastal development permit (CDP) from the City of Marina. These trees shall not be removed until the CDP has been issued and all appeal periods have passed. Removal of any trees within the coastal zone shall be consistent with the required Conditions of Approval attached to the CDP.

17. Encroachment Permit(s). Prior to the commencement of any work within the City’s public ROW, an encroachment permit from the Public Works Dept. shall be obtained.

18. Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological , Tribal Cultural Resources , Paleontological Resources or Human Remains. Any inadvertent discovery while removing trees and/or restoring the site post-removal shall be mitigated in accordance to MM CR-2 in the adopted MMRP.

EXHIBIT B
193

19. Indemnification. To the extent allowable by law, the owner, applicant, and operator agree to hold the City harmless from costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City in connection with the City’s defense of it s actions in any proceeding brought in any state or federal court challenging the City’s actions with respect to the project. The owner, applicant, and operator understand and acknowledge that the City is under no obligation to defend any legal actions challenging the City’s actions with respect to the project.

20. Violation of Code. Any person who does any work or uses, occupies or maintains any building or structure, or causes the same to be done, or does any grading, contrary to or in violation of this title or of any of the uniform codes adopted by this title is guilty of an infrac tion pursuant to MMC

15.04.060.

21. Construction Noise. Unless otherwise authorized, construction activities shall be conducted in compliance with MMC Section 15.04.055 and all non -emergency construction or repair work shall be limited to the following schedule:
a. Monday through Saturday: 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
b. Sunday and holidays: 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. (For the purposes of this section, “holidays” shall include New Year’s Day, July 4th, Thanksgiving and Christmas) c. During daylight savings time, the hours of construction may be extended to 8 p.m.

No construction, tools, or equipment shall produce a decibel level of more than sixty (60) decibels for twenty-five (25) percent of an hour at any receiving property line.

22. Operational Noise. Noise levels from the project site after completion of the project (i.e., during project operation) shall comply with the performance standards of Chapter 9.24 of the Marina Municipal Code. If noise levels exceed these standards, the activity causing the noise shall be abated until appropriate noise reduction measures have been installed and compliance verified by the City.

23. Site Maintenance. The site shall be kept in a blight - and nuisance-free condition, and healthy and well-kept landscaping shall be continuously maintained. Any existing blight or nuisance shall be abated within 60 days of permit approval.

24. Lighting. Exterior lighting fixtures shall be adequately shielded to a point below the light bulb and reflector to prevent unnecessary glare onto adjacent properties. After installation, the Community Development Director or designee shall retain the right to requi re reduction in the intensity of illumination or change of light color if said illumination creates any undue public nuisance.

25. Waste Receptacles. No storage of trash, recycling, or food waste receptacles shall be permitted within the public right -of-way. Receptacles shall be stored on site and screened from public view.

The owner, applicant, and operator shall ensure that the requirements of Chapter 8.04 of the Marina Municipal Code pertaining to recycling and solid waste disposal are met.

26. Graffiti. All graffiti on facilities must be removed at the sole expense of the permittee within 48 hours after notification from the City.

EXHIBIT B
194

Exhibit C1
Appeal filed by Mason Clark on April 16, 2024

EXHIBIT B
195

Exhibit C2
Appeal filed by Robert Solerno on behalf of Keep Fort Ord Wild (KFOW) on April 16, 2024

EXHIBIT B
196

EXHIBIT C
197

EXHIBIT C
198

EXHIBIT C
199

EXHIBIT C
200

EXHIBIT D
201

EXHIBIT D
202

EXHIBIT D
203

EXHIBIT D
204

EXHIBIT D
205

EXHIBIT D
206

EXHIBIT D
207

EXHIBIT D
208

EXHIBIT D
209

EXHIBIT D
210

EXHIBIT D
211

EXHIBIT D
212

EXHIBIT D
213

EXHIBIT D
214
Agenda Item 7.

TRANSPORTATION AGENCY FOR MONTEREY COUNTY
Memorandum
To: Executive Committee
From: Todd Muck, Executive Director
Meeting Date: June 5, 2024
Subject: Prop 116 & Monterey Branch Line
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECOMMEND that the Board of Directors ratify actions necessary for Agency staff to contract with an appraisal firm to determine the fair-market value of the Monterey Branch Line corridor.

SUMMARY:

In 2003, the Transportation Agency purchased the Monterey Branch Line from Union Pacific Railroad using Proposition 116 bond funds granted by the State. The California Transportation Commission recently informed Agency staff that the ten-year deadline to begin service on the line has not been met and current proposed uses of the rail right-of-way are not consistent with the Proposition 116 guidelines. The Commission has proposed curative actions that would resolve the issue and allow the SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit project to continue.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The Agency purchased the Monterey Branch Line using $9,228,475 of Proposition 116 rail bond funds in 2003. California Transportation Commission staff are recommending the Agency pay a credit to the State for the fair-market value of the property in 2024 dollars to rectify the missed deadline to begin service. To determine the fair-market value of the corridor, the Agency will need to retain the services of an appraisal firm, which is expected to be under $50,000, funded by rail lease revenues.

Failure to do so would jeopardize the $78 million in secured funding for the SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit project.

DISCUSSION:

The Monterey Branch Line stretches 16 miles from Castroville to downtown Monterey. Originally used for freight and passenger rail, the line has been dormant since 1978 after the switch connecting the branch line to the mainline tracks in Castroville was removed. The Transportation Agency purchased the line from Union Pacific Railroad (UP) in 2003 for $9.2 million using Proposition 116 funding granted by the State and approved by the California Transportation Commission (CTC).

In 2009, the TAMC Board adopted light rail as the preferred use for the Branch Line. The project was split into two phases: Phase 1 (Monterey to Marina) estimated at $165 million, and Phase 2 (Marina to Castroville) estimated at $40-50 million. However, funding constraints halted progress. TAMC's 2011 Alternatives Analysis reaffirmed light rail as the long-term goal but identified bus rapid transit (BRT) as a viable interim solution.

In 2018, Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) and Santa Cruz Metro conducted the Monterey Bay Area Feasibility Study of Bus on Shoulder Operations, which concluded that utilizing the Monterey Branch

Page 26 of 27 ends
← All documents from this meeting