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. The City of Marina does hereby adopt a new Chapter of the Municipal Code (Chapter 17.37 Downtown Specific Plan Zoning Designations). Title 17, Zoning, of the Marina City Code is hereby amended to read as follows.
17.37 Downtown Specific Plan Zoning Designations
All properties within the Downtown Specific Plan area shall utilize the Downtown Specific Plan Appendix A (Development Code) as the zoning standards and designations.
Section 3. Zoning Map
Additionally, the Zoning Map shall be amended to incorporate the zoning designations as identified in Appendix A of the Downtown Specific Plan.
Section 4. California Environmental Act (CEQA).
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (“ EIR”) was prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) and necessary implementing amendments to the Zoning Ordinance (“Project”) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment from April 9, 2024 to May 24, 2024. Hardcopies of the Draft EIR were available for public review at the Community Development Department and the Public Library. The Final EIR provides a list of the federal, state, regional and/or local agencies along with private organizations and individuals that commented on the Draft EIR. A few minor changes were made in response to the comments received from commentors. This has been
EXHIBIT G
64 identified in the Final EIR with strikethroughs for deletions. These revisions are not considered significant new information that would trigger Draft EIR recirculation pursuant to section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. For example, they do not disclose a new or substantially worsened significant environmental impact, or a new feasible mitigation measure or alternative not previously proposed for adoption. A Resolution recommending consideration by the City Council to certify the Final EIR includes the required findings, in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091. The Findings adopt feasible mitigation measures to reduce the significant environmental impacts of the project. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project will be adopted as part of the certification of the Final EIR. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure the mitigation measures adopted in the Findings for the project are implemented, in accordance with CEQA requirements. Some of the environmental impacts do have mitigation measures which would reduce impacts but not to a level of insignificance. When an agency approves a project with significant and unavoidable environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency’s decision and explains why the project’s benefits outweigh the significant environmental effects. CEQA Guidelines § 15093.
Section 5. 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 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 6. 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 16TH day of October 2024 and was finally adopted on the ___ day of _______ 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_______________________________
Bruce C. Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk
65 From: Guido Persicone
Bcc: Nick Mcilroy; Galia Baron; Surinder Rana; Audra Walton; Glenn Woodson; Paul Cheng; John Richard; Victor Jacobsen
Subject: FW: Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan
Date: Thursday, September 12, 2024 3:28:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image001.png
From: Martine Watkins <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 3:23 PM
To: Guido Persicone <[email protected]>
Subject:
Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good afternoon, Guido,
I hope this email finds you well. Thank you for involving us in the engagement process with the Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan (DVSP). We appreciate the opportunity to collaborate with the city to emphasize the crucial role of the Monterey Bay Aquarium's facilities in relation to the plan.
We fully support the Monterey Bay Aquarium's facilities being legally conforming within the proposed zoning plan. Outlined below are the key reasons for this support:
Monterey Bay Aquarium purchased 206 Reindollar in 2007, and since then, significant investments have been made in the ARCC facility to uphold the highest standards of care for our animals. The ARCC facility received its final certificate of occupancy on May 4th, 2010. This facility is indispensable to our operations, and it is irreplaceable, with no alternative location available in the region.
The functionality of the Monterey Bay Aquarium is closely connected to the full operation of the Reindollar facilities, which are essential for meeting our accreditation requirements with the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. These facilities play a vital role in our operations, directly supporting our mission to inspire ocean conservation.
In 1989, 232 Reindollar was completed and occupied by the Monterey Bay Aquarium, serving as office and warehouse space. The proximity of the ARCC facility to the 232 Reindollar warehouse was strategically planned to ensure that essential materials, large tools, and parts for animal services are readily accessible for time-sensitive critical infrastructure repairs.
EXHIBIT H
66 The Monterey Bay Aquarium plays an important role in the Monterey Bay region, contributing to both the local economy and community. In 2023, the Aquarium employed over 500 people, welcomed about 1,837,000 guests, engaged with approximately 22,700 students from preschool through college, and was supported by nearly 1,000 volunteers. Any impact on our essential facilities could significantly affect our ability to fulfill our mission and continue supporting the region.
Based on the areas outlined above, we strongly support the Monterey Bay Aquarium's facilities being legally conforming in the proposed zoning plan. These spaces are critical to our mission, and any changes to current allowances could jeopardize our operations and accreditation.
We understand the importance of the proposed plan and are committed to working collaboratively with the City of Marina. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or need further information.
All my best,
Martine
Martine Watkins (Pronouns: she/her/hers)
Local Government Affairs Senior Manager
P 831-648-9815 M 831-334-0399
Monterey Bay Aquarium
886 Cannery Row, Monterey, CA 93940
www.montereybayaquarium.org
Our mission is to inspire conservation of the ocean.
Martine Watkins (Pronouns: she/her/hers)
Local Government Affairs Senior Manager
O:
831.648.9815 M: 831.334.0399
MontereyBayAquarium.org
Inspiring conservation of the ocean
EXHIBIT H
67 EXHIBIT H
68 JOY P. JUNSAY
PO BOX 1358, SEASIDE, CA 93955-1358
831-320-0302 (cell/text)
[email protected]
August 30, 2024
MARINA PLANNING COMMISSION AND
HONORABLE BRUCE DELGADO &
COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY OF MARINA
211 HILLCREST AVENUE
MARINA, CA 93933
RE: Support of proposed Downtown Vitalization Plan
Downtown Specific Plan | Marina, CA - Official Website (cityofmarina.org)
Dear Planning Commissioners, Mayor Delgado and Council Members:
My family came to the United States/Monterey County in 1957, and lived Marina in 1958-1960 before Marina was incorporated as a City in 1975. My father retired in 1957 at the Fort Ord Army base after 20 years in the US Army (former Philippine Scout).
I then returned to the City of Marina in November 1989, residing as a home owner from 1991 to October 2019.
Throughout my years as a resident for over 30 years (and as an employee of the City of Marina, as City Clerk for 21 years of those years), I’ve seen Marina change and grow to what it is today.
Marina is the “Gateway to the Monterey Peninsula.
Marina was dirt roads, pig farm, begonia, and strawberry fields when I first moved to Marina at the age of 3. My parents and three older brothers (and many Filipinos who came here by way of the US Army) worked in the strawberry fields off Reservation and DeForest Road for years until the land was purchased from Grandma and Grandpa Braga for a ice rink, now a Post Office and MST Transit Center.
With the closure of the Fort Ord Army base in 1994, the City’s focus has been on the development for the former Fort Ord – it’s booming with tons of housing (affordable and not so affordable) and businesses.
There is a need to now focus on Marina’s original Downtown area along Del Monte Blvd and Reservation Road.
Section 3.1: “Plan Goals” is a great start to implementing the Specific Plan.
I lived in the Core District for 24 years (“on the other side of the tracks”) walking to the other side of town was not always comfortable trying to cross 4 lanes of traffic, even with pedestrian crossing lights after the high-rise crosswalk was removed. My concern is for the children crossing Del Monte to walk to and from the Marina Del Mar Elementary School (now Marina Child Development). Families wanting to walk to the grocery stores and/or businesses on the other side of the railroad tracks may have similar fears for their safety.
Transition District: I like the idea of combining commercial, multifamily residential and mixed-use development in this area. Building parking areas behind or to the side of buildings would improve the view from the street and having larger/wider sidewalks for a walkable/wheelchair accessible community.
EXHIBIT H
69 Marina City Council – Downtown Vitalization Plan
August 30, 2024
Affordable housing is much needed in the Multi-family Residential District. Marina is a growing community and considered more affordable than other communities on the Monterey Peninsula. This area is within walking distance to neighborhood elementary schools.
I know there are several new parks planned in the new housing areas within the former Fort Ord area. Marina has Windy Hill, Gloria Jean Tate Bicycle Pump Track, and Vince DiMaggio Park for limited use. It would be nice to see a nice family park for public access with large bbq pits, picnic tables, a child park; and ball park for baseball, basketball, and soccer.
Although “buildout” of the development area is “expected to occur over the approximately 20-year planning horizon”, Marina will be known throughout Monterey County as the City that has grown and survived through adversity after the closure of the Fort Ord Army base.
Marina is a great place to live, work and visit because of its diversity, walkability, accessibility for bicycles and wheelchairs, and has a beautiful beach.
Thank you for listening/reading.
Yours truly,
Joy P. Junsay
Former long-time resident and employee of the City of Marina
P.S. I miss living in Marina. I moved back to the family home in Seaside after my cancer returned in 2019 and continue to fight the good fight. I still shop and eat at Marina stores/restaurants. �� �� � �
EXHIBIT H
70 1800 Willow Pass Court Concord, California 94520
tel 925.609.6200 fax 925.609.6292
www.spprop.com
September 12, 2024
VIA E-MA
IL DELIVERY
Guido Persicone,
Community Development Director
Community Development Department
211 Hillcrest Avenue
Marina, CA 93933
[email protected]
RE: Letter of Conditional Support for the Proposed Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan
Hello Mr. Persicone,
I write on behalf of Sierra Pacific Properties, Inc. (“SPPI”), the owner of the Seacrest Plaza Shopping Center, located at the intersection of Reservation Road and Seacrest Avenue in Central Marina (“Seacrest Plaza ”). We understand that the City of Marina’s (“City”) Planning Commission will be meeting on September 12, 2024, and will be addressing the Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan (“DVSP”). Specifically, the agenda states that the Commission will consider adopting Resolution No. 24-21 recommending that the City Council:
1. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), and adopt the mitigation monitoring program (MMRP), findings of fact, and statement of overriding considerations.
2. Approve the Downtown Specific Plan.
3. Adopt General Plan Amendments (GPA 24- 003) to the 2000 Marina General Plan to implement the Downtown Specific Plan.
4. Adopt zoning text amendments to the Marina Municipal Code to implement the Downtown Specific Plan.
5. Amend the Marina Zoning Map to incorporate by reference the zoning standards identified as Appendix A (Development Code) to the Downtown Specific Plan.
We want to take this opportunity to OFFER OUR SUPPORT for the DVSP, subject to the clarifying changes staff is recommending to DVSP Section 7.6.2: Legal Nonconforming Uses and Structures. SPPI fully supports the vitalization of the City of Marina and is eager and excited to hold a central location in what is destined to be a beautiful coastal city center. The grocery store and pharmacy in Seacrest Plaza are the primary grocery store and pharmacy utilized by residents of the City of Marina, and SPPI is excited about new lifeblood entering this region.
However, SPPI does not support the DVSP without changes to Section 7.6.2. The DVSP, in its current form, includes land use provisions that will be counterproductive to the seaside oasis the City is hoping to create. Indeed, if the issues raised herein are not addressed, the City is inviting—and ultimately guaranteeing —unsightly urban decay and vacancies along the very
EXHIBIT H
71 1800 Willow Pass Court Concord, California 94520
tel 925.609.6200 fax 925.609.6292
www.spprop.com
thoroughfare it is seeking to beautify. The City’s failure to adopt staff’s clarifying language to remedy this easily addressed problem is not only shortsighted, but also renders City’s F inal Environmental Impact Report (which does not address urban decay and blight whatsoever) insufficient and thus open to legal challenge. We are optimistic that the City will agree to adopt the clarifying change to section 7.6.2 to rectify these concerns, thereby accomplishing our common goal of serving the community.
I. Non-C
onforming Structures under the Proposed DVSP
The DVSP, in its current form, will negatively impact property owners, residents and the Seacrest Plaza. The Specific Plan proposes an urban block site layout in the Downtown Core, with building fronts brought to the lot line facing public streets and tangential with the pedestrian right of way, creating a continuous “street wall,” and parking located behind or under rows of buildings.
The DVSP also creates new development standards, including lot dimension requirements, minimum and maximum setback and building height requirements, landscaping, parking, fencing and other site requirements.
Significantly, it is reported that there are multiple properties that would become nonconforming if the DVSP is adopted in its present draft. In fact, very few of the blocks in the Core Area currently utilize the layout envisioned under the DVSP, and neither of the two existing shopping centers in the Core—the Shopping Center and the Marina Village Shopping Center at Reservation Road and Del Monte Boulevard—employ the contemplated urban block site layout but rather are configured in the exact opposite form with parking lots in front of the buildings. While we applaud the City’s efforts to upzone the area, the commercial component of the plan in its current iteration is misguided.
If the DVSP is implemented without amendment, Seacrest Plaza would be one of many properties in Downtown Marina where the existing uses and the associated structures and improvements would no longer be permitted because they would not comply with the newly enacted zoning and use regulations . As such, Seacrest Plaza would become a non -conforming building. Under the current iteration of the DVSP, businesses operating in non-confirming buildings would have limited rights to reconfigure or update their retail spaces for future tenants.
Very few businesses are willing to take on a commercial or retail lease without some modification to the existing layout. Thus, many of Marina’s retail and commercial buildings would be unable to release their spaces, resulting in guaranteed vacancy and urban decay within the very area that the DVSP is attempting to beautify.
a. Current Language Applicable to Non-Conforming Uses
The proposed DVSP all but guarantees Seacrest Plaza will be vacant in the coming years because the plan effectively prohibits tenant improvements, space reconfiguration and façade updates for future tenants. Section 7.6.2 sets forth the framework for legal nonconforming use buildings:
EXHIBIT H
72 1800 Willow Pass Court Concord, California 94520
tel 925.609.6200 fax 925.609.6292
www.spprop.com
2. Nonconforming buildings. A legal nonconforming
building may continue to be used as follows: Within five years of adoption of the Specific Plan, if a nonconforming structure is modified or altered by 25 percent or more of the existing floor space or ground area,
1 all structures must come
into full compliance with the Specific Plan. After five years from the date of adoption of the Specific Plan, non-
conforming uses and structures are subject to Chapter 17.64 of the Marina Municipal Code.
. . .
5. Ordinary maintenance and repairs may be made to
any nonconforming building, provided no structural
alterations are made and provided that such work does not exceed 25 percent of the appraised value in any one -year period.
. . .
Upon adoption of the Specific Plan, all structures that do not meet the standards identified in Appendix A: Development Code of the DVSP shall be considered legal nonconforming structures. A legal nonconforming structure may be altered subject to approval by the Community Development Director. Within five years of adoption of the Specific Plan, the Community Development Directo r may approve alterations that are modified by less than 25 percent of the floor space or ground area existing at the time the structure became nonconforming. No alterations to nonconforming structures may be approved by the Director unless they are made more nearly
1 Section 7.6.2 uses undefined terms and verbiage that do not have clear meanings, rendering these provisions impermissibly vague, and possibly void. See, e.g., Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972) (“It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.”); see also, City of Los Altos v. Barnes, 3 Cal. App. 4th 1193 (1992) (recognizing that undefined terms can lead to a phrase being impermissibly vague.).
Section 7.6.2. subs .2 states that a nonconforming use may continue, so long as the building modification or alternation is less than 25 percent “of the existing floor space or ground area.” 1 But what exactly does that mean? May alternations be made to 80 percent of the walls and ceilings so long as the floors are not affected and still keep its nonconforming legal use status? Would converting the flooring material in 100% of the building—even if everything else remains untouched—require Seacrest Plaza to come into full compliance with the proposed DVSP ? And 25 percent of what? Is it 25% of the entire parcel? Or just 25% the individual unit? Or 25% of the building? What exactly does “floor space” and “ground area” mean here? Without more detail and clarity, this provision is all but meaningless.
EXHIBIT H
73 1800 Willow Pass Court Concord, California 94520
tel 925.609.6200 fax 925.609.6292
www.spprop.com
conforming. Any structural alteration, modification, or expansion above the 25 percent of the lawful floor space or ground area must come into full structural compliance with the design guidelines identified within the Specific Plan. After five years from the date of adoption of the Specific Plan, non- conforming uses and structures are subject to Chapter 17.64 of the Marina Municipal Code.
Id., DVSP at p. 88-89 (emphasis added).
b. Foreseeable Impact on the Seacrest Shopping Center
The Seacrest Center is a retail shopping center. As noted above, the key current tenants are Lucky’s Market and CVS Pharmacy. The center also includes Chase Bank, and AutoZone and multiple other national and local retail businesses central to the lives of the residents of Marina.
The DVSP, without the clarifying language that staff is proposing, can be understood to mean that, if a unit becomes vacant , Seacrest Plaza will be hampered significantly in the tenant improvements and facia updates it can offer prospective tenants. The DVSP in its current form poses insurmountable obstacles to Seacrest Plaza’s operations. Namely, it will be all but impossible for Seacrest Plaza to relet its property should any of its existing tenants vacate given the realities of how retail leasing operates . It takes considerable time and effort to lease retail space. Space must be modified, sometimes considerably, to suit the needs of the new business. “Big box” stores, such as the Lucky’s and CVS spaces within Seacrest Plaza, are very difficult to lease even under the best of circumstances. As a point of reference, for these ‘big box’ spaces, a standard commercial retail lease takes over a year to finalize once the tenant is identified. It often takes years to locate a new tenant, with time frames only increasing given the rise in online shopping for nearly all goods and groceries. It is highly unlikely that a unit can be re-rented in less than six months particularly if tenant improvements are largely prohibited, meaning that the space may ultimately be deemed be “abandoned” under the Municipal Code . According to the City of Marina Municipal Code § 17.64.050, “abandoned” buildings will need to comply with the current code, i.e. the proposed DVSP. Seacrest Plaza’s buildings will only comply with the DVSP if it is demolished and rebuilt to within 5 feet of the street.
2 Although this reading of the DVSP and the Municipal Code may sound overly dramatic, it is a potential interpretation of the plain language.
2 As set forth in our May 24, 2024, letter, w e also believe that implementation of the Specific Plan may constitute an unreasonable and unjust taking of the rights and property of SPPI. I mplementation of the proposed Specific Plan will significantly diminish the value of SPPI’s property by hindering its ability to attract future tenants, thereby ensuring it will be deemed abandoned under the Municipal Code and forced to come into compliance with the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan’s prohibitions and limitations on SPPI’s ability to use and enjoy its property will have a direct and substantial effect on SPPI’s property interest.
The City is not providing SPPI with just compensation for this taking, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of United States Constitution.
EXHIBIT H
74 1800 Willow Pass Court Concord, California 94520
tel 925.609.6200 fax 925.609.6292
www.spprop.com
c. The Final Environmental Impact Report Fails to Consider Reasonably Foreseeable Environmental Impacts
If Seacrest Plaza is not able to re-lease its center, a large and central shopping center in the proposed Core Area will sit unused and vacant, causing an increase in blight and urban decay.
Other retail and commercial properties will undoubtedly be in the same position. Blight and urban decay are environmental impacts that must be evaluated under California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq . (“CEQA”). Additionally, the resident s of Marina would need to drive a greater distance to shop for groceries and other retail services , a further impact that would require study.
The Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) prepared in connection with the DVSP fails to analyze this reasonably foreseeable blight and urban decay impact or the increase in traffic.
d. Proposed Alternative Language Will Moot these Concerns
However, with a minor modification to Section 7.6.2 of the DVSP, all these issues can be mooted, including the potential insufficiency of the FEIR. SPPI understands the staff is proposing the following revisions to Section 7.6.2:
7.6.2 Legal Nonconforming Uses and Structures
. . .
2. Nonconforming buildings. A legal nonconforming
bui
lding may continue to be used as follows: Within five
years of adoption of the Specific Plan, if a nonconforming structure is modified or altered enlarged or expanded by 25 percent or more of the existing floor space or ground area, all structures must come into full compliance with the
Specific Plan. After five years from the date of adoption of the Specific Plan, non- conforming uses and structures are subject to Chapter 17.64 of the Marina Municipal Code.
. . .
5. Ordinary maintenance and repairs may be made to
a
ny nonconforming building, provided no structural
alterations are made and provided that such work does not exceed 25 percent of the appraised value in any one -year period.
. . .
Upon adoption of the Specific Plan, all structures that do not meet the standards identified in Appendix A: Development Code of the
EXHIBIT H
75 1800 Willow Pass Court Concord, California 94520
tel 925.609.6200 fax 925.609.6292
www.spprop.com
DVSP shall be considered legal nonconforming structures. A legal nonconforming structure may be altered subject to approval by the Community Development Director. Within five years of adoption of the Specific Plan, the Community Development Director may approve alterations that are modified by less than 25 percent of the floor space or ground area existing at the time the structure became nonconforming. No alterations to nonconforming structures may be approved by the Director unless they are made more near ly conforming. Any structural alteration, modification, or expansion above the 25 percent of the lawful floor space or ground area must come into full structural compliance with the design guidelines identified within the Specific Plan. After five years from the date of adoption of the Specific Plan, non- conforming uses and structures are subject to Chapter 17.64 of the Marina Municipal Code.
As we discussed with staff on September 11, 2024, we believe this additional language will sufficiently remedy SPPI’s immediate3 concerns with the proposed DVSP. If these minor changes are incorporated, SPPI will be one of the loudest proponents of the DVSP . The Lucky’s Market and CVS pharmacy located at the Seacrest Plaza are vital to the residents of the community. SPPI is honored to serve this central role in the lives of the residents of Marina and would like to continue doing so for decades to come. The DVSP, with our proposed amendment, will surely help Marina evolve, grow and become a destination in the region, something that SPPI is excited to be a part of.
II. The Final Environmental Impact Report Fails to Evaluate all Reasonably Foreseeable Environmental Impacts
As noted in a letter dated June 25, 2021, from our attorneys to the City of Marina (the “2021 Comment Letter”) regarding the Notice of Preparation of the Environmental Impact Report, there are a number of potential impacts to the environment and the community that we believe the City has not properly evaluated and/or mitigated. A copy of the 2021 Comment Letter is enclosed. To the extent not properly studied or sufficiently addressed as required by CEQA, we incorporate the 2021 letter herein as objections to the FEIR.
* * * * *
3 City staff has stated that it will not interpret to the Nonconforming Use section of the existing Municipal Code to require SPPI to relocate its structures to come into full compliance with the DSVP in the event of vacancy lasting longer than six months or prevent SPPI from completing future tenant improvements to its property. City staff have indicated they will continue to work with SPPI to address the concerns SPPI has with the Nonconforming Use section of the existing Municipal Code. SPPI’s support herein is premised on staff working with SPPI to codify changes to the existing Municipal Code to address SPPI’s concerns.
EXHIBIT H
76 1800 Willow Pass Court Concord, California 94520
tel 925.609.6200 fax 925.609.6292
www.spprop.com
As mentioned above, the grocery store and pharmacy located at the Seacrest Plaza are vital to the residents of the community. The DVSP will turn the Seacrest Plaza into a non-conforming use and eventually cause the closure of the Seacrest Plaza . The closure would be harmful to the residents of the City of Marina.
However, with the small changes recommended by City staff as discussed herein, SPPI believes the DVSP has the potential to positively benefit the community for future generations. If these changes are incorporated, SPPI will happily go on record in favor of this project.
Of course, if the City refuses to adopt measures to protect the Seacrest Plaza and other retail and commercial landlords, SPPI will have no choice but take action to protect its property rights and interest s to the full extent possible. We remain optimistic that the City will adopt its staff’s recommended clarifying language, and that SPPI can continue its cooperative and productive relationship with the City for decades to come.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Regards
Jacquelyn M. Heitman
General Counsel
Sierra Pacific Properties, Inc.
Enclosures
cc: Doug Messner
Bob Garrison
Joseph Petta, Esq.
EXHIBIT H
77 Hanson Bridgett LLP
425 Market Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
NIRA N S. SOMA SUNDA RA M
ATTORNEY
REAL ESTATE + ENVIRONMENT
DIRECT DIAL (415) 995-5872
DIRECT FAX (415) 995-3464
E-MAIL [email protected]
June 25, 2021
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
City of Marina
Att: Fred Aegerter
Community Development Director
209 Cypress Avenue
Marina, California 93933
[email protected]
Re: Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan Notice of Preparation and Initial Study
Dear Mr. Aegerter:
On behalf of Sierra Pacific Properties Inc., we thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and associated Initial Study for the City of Marina’s proposed Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan (“DVSP” or the “Project”). Sierra Pacific Properties Inc. is the owner of the Seacrest Plaza Shopping Center located at the intersection of Reservation Road and Seacrest Avenue in Central Marina. In this letter, we provide recommendations for framing the scope of the Environmental Impact Report in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA;” Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (“Guidelines;” Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.).
These comments are not meant to signal opposition to the City’s efforts to plan for a vibrant Downtown Marina. The goals and broad policies reflected in the DVSP, including its attempt to revitalize downtown Marina and to create a pedestrian-friendly downtown district, are laudable.
However, the DVSP as proposed includes prohibitions against many currently permitted and conditionally permitted uses which, together with new development standards, will render these uses and their encompassing structures nonconforming. As you might know, Sierra Pacific Properties Inc. has articulated these concerns in the past. (See April 24, 2019 Ltr. from K.
Lawson to City of Marina Planning Commission.) The Initial Study ignores the potentially significant environmental effects that will foreseeably result from the prohibition of certain commercial uses in the Core Area. Likewise, the Initial Study ignores environmental effects that will result from re-classifying broad swaths of already existing downtown commercial buildings as non-conforming structures.
In theory, it might be the case that the DVSP envisions that these non-conforming commercial uses will be replaced over time by wholly new developments that will conform to the newly imposed design standards in the DVSP. In practice, local commercial centers and businesses have suffered through a punishing recession and, more recently, a pandemic. The vision of a brand-new Core Area is admirable but inattentive to practical considerations. Local businesses need help, time to adjust, and an opportunity to stabilize, and the DVSP threatens to hamstring
EXHIBIT H
78 City of Marina
June 25, 2021
realistic development by preventing existing grocery stores, pharmacies, banks, and other essential commercial institutions from undergoing necessary adjustments, renovations, or expansions. The idea that local businesses will have the capital to redevelop in a complete manner during the pertinent planning horizon is not workable. If indeed the DVSP envisions nearly 8,000 new residents, this influx does not automatically generate the economic wherewithal for businesses to “redo” existing shopping centers and other commercial buildings.
The more likely result is that many businesses, including our client, will take a lengthy time to adjust and redevelop according to the DVSP’s vision, and many business are likely not to redevelop at all. Under this reasonably foreseeable scenario, new and old residents would travel outside of the downtown area to fulfill their needs.
In light of these practical considerations, it is especially important for the DVSP’s Initial Study and Environmental Impact Report to “present information in such a manner that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can actually be understood and weighed.” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 448; see also Guidelines, § 15063(c) (one of the purposes of an initial study is to explain why environmental effects are significant)). While “perfection” isn’t necessary, an environmental analysis “must be ‘prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.’ ” (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 712, quoting Guidelines, § 15151). As we will explain in further detail below, the Initial Study falls short of these standards. It fails to meaningfully or adequately analyze the full scope of potential environmental impacts associated with the DVSP, and many of its conclusions are not supported by evidence. (See Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296 (initial study’s conclusions must be supported by evidence); accord Citizens Ass’n for Sensible Dev. v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 171). We therefore respectfully urge the City to revise the scope of its environmental analysis to ensure that all potentially significant environmental effects are adequately disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated.
We want to reiterate: these comments are not meant to signal opposition to the City’s downtown plan. Our client, who provides a “home” for many businesses in the heart of the Core Area, wishes to understand the environmental impacts of a proposed development that envisions 8,000 new residents and more than 3,000 new employees within the City’s limits. The scale of this change is enormous, especially considering the US Census estimated the population of Marina in 2019 was 22,781. The residents alone would constitute a 35 percent increase in the City’s population and we question, respectfully, whether a focused EIR is appropriate in any respect.
Further, we do ask that the City, in moving forward, not only consider the practical environmental implications of its blueprint, but also work more closely with the business community, including Sierra Pacific Properties Inc., to adjust this blueprint to accommodate the practical needs of the commercial sector. Our client would love the opportunity to discuss this issue in more detail with decisionmakers and staff. Our client would also like the opportunity to review and comment on any economic studies that informed the DVSP. The plan refers in a vague manner to some economic reports that might be more than ten years old, and a vetting of this information, in light of the circumstances of the past decade, appears to be warranted.
EXHIBIT H
79 City of Marina
June 25, 2021
Overall, the DVSP embodies a new vision and our client supports the City’s desire to reinvent the downtown — we simply ask that an on-ramp for this vision be created that accounts for practical realities.
1. The Initial Study Fails to Account for Impacts associated with Displacement of Existing Commercial Businesses
Specific deficiencies in the Initial Study’s analysis are set forth in further detail in the subsequent sections below, but many of these deficiencies are the result of a general failure in the environmental analysis: the omission of any discussion or analysis of the environmental impacts that will result from the designation of existing development or businesses as non-conforming, and the eventual but inevitable displacement of those uses to areas outside of downtown Marina. Whenever a structure or use becomes non-conforming, it is a very big deal. Owners of non-conforming uses and structure face strictures on their ability to expand or adjust operations to changing circumstances. Cessations in operations also become concerning, as the operator of a non-conforming use can lose that right to operate if there is a period of activity that lasts for more than 6 months – circumstances that many have faced just in the past year due to COVID-
19. Meanwhile, the DVSP will not only render existing uses and structures as non-conforming, but will also disallow the establishment of a number of new commercial uses when compared to the menu of land uses allowed by existing zoning.
While the details of such activities may not be set in stone, such outcomes are the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the DVSP as proposed. The City must evaluate and consider the impacts of the “most probable development patterns” that will result from a project. (See, e.g.
Aptos Council v. County of Santa Cruz (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 266, 292-293; City of Antioch v.
City Council (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 1337). Even if the potential impacts are nebulous and not yet sharply defined, because actual development has not yet been proposed, potential impacts of resulting displacement should be analyzed because they are reasonably foreseeable. (Aptos Council v. County of Santa Cruz (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 266, 292-293).
Many direct and indirect impacts occur from the displacement of land uses, and the Initial Study does not contemplate these impacts. Chief among these failures is a severe underestimation of the air quality, greenhouse gas, energy, and traffic impacts of the Project by failing to account for the additional vehicle miles traveled by residents of Marina who will now have to drive outside of the downtown area, either to the periphery of Marina or even to different cities altogether, to access key businesses which are either outright prohibited under the DVSP or rendered non-conforming (thus disallowing expansion and, in some cases, might force their closure).
In order to fully account for the potentially significant environmental impacts of the DVSP, the analysis must include an analysis of the impacts of the DVSP’s designation of existing development or businesses as non-conforming, including impacts of increased construction and demolition, and increased vehicle miles traveled. As a foundational issue, the EIR's analysis must account for (1) all commercial uses and structures that would be rendered non- conforming; (2) all commercial and other land uses that are allowed under current zoning, but would be prohibited under the DVSP; and (3) a detailed phasing plan for the introduction of new residential and commercial uses. Modern economic analyses, if not already prepared, must be used to validate the phasing assumptions, as well as the scope and magnitude of all displaced activities.
EXHIBIT H
80 City of Marina
June 25, 2021
2. Air Quality
The Initial Study concludes that air quality impacts will be less than significant (with the incorporation of a single mitigation measure regarding construction dust control). However, the Initial Study’s methodology includes several assumptions which are not supported by evidence.
A more detailed analysis of the Project’s air quality effects, accounting for all potential sources of air pollutants and including a health risk assessment, is needed.
a. Construction Emissions Analysis Fails to Account for All Sources of Emissions
The Air Quality analysis uses CalEEMod to estimate construction emissions for the Project. The Initial Study stated that construction activities studied “include demolition of existing structure, site preparation and grading, building construction, installation of wet and dry utilities as needed, construction of roadway improvements, and architectural coating.” (Initial Study at p. 31).
Appendix AIR to the Initial Study, which contains the CalEEMod calculations supporting the analysis, provides that the assumption is “half of existing residential units and half of existing retail/office space would be demolished and redeveloped.” (See Initial Study, Appendix AIR, at p. 2). The City provides no explanation for this assumption. The DVSP would render many existing commercial and residential developments in the Downtown area non-conforming. While neither the DVSP nor the Initial Study has taken steps to quantify the number of existing developments that would be affected, Marina Community Development Director Fred Aegerter has previously estimated that “the plan would result in most of the buildings in the downtown area being non-conforming buildings.” (See
https://www.montereyherald.com/2019/03/08/marinas-downtown-vitalization-plan-has-some- wondering-about-the-future/). The Project must undergo an evidence-based analysis to determine a defensible assumption for the level of demolition that will occur under the Project.
Understanding the level of development and construction will, in turn, require a more thorough accounting of how many structures will be rendered non-conforming, and contemporary economic analyses demonstrating what incentives exist for redevelopment and a survey or other reasonable assessment of the business community and its needs.
The Air Quality analysis also “assume[s] that soil material import would be minimal” and therefore “does not account for haul truck trips for soil material and export.” (Initial Study at p. 31). The Initial Study justifies this assumption by noting that “buildout of the DVSP would primarily result in redevelopment activities and would not include subterranean parking structures.” (Initial Study at p. 31). However, other sections of the Initial Study suggest that construction of the project would necessarily involve large-scale removal of soil from the Project site. Later in the Air Quality section, the Initial Study concedes that “construction activities facilitated by the DVSP may require substantial grading and excavation […].” (Initial Study at p. 36) (emphasis added). Furthermore, in the Geology and Soils section, the Initial Study contemplates “removing, replacing soil with the proper fill selection, and compacting the soil” to address any soil stability-related hazards. The current Air Quality analysis is based on an assumption that is contradicted by other sections of the study. The Project must undergo a full evaluation of potential Air Quality impacts, including those that would occur from haul truck trips for soil material and export.
EXHIBIT H
81 City of Marina
June 25, 2021
Finally, the Air Quality analysis fails to undergo any meaningful threshold impacts analysis regarding ozone precursor emissions from construction, specifically VOC and NOx emissions.
As the Initial Study notes, the Project region is in non-attainment for both PM10 and Ozone. The Initial Study Air Quality analysis determines that construction activities will cause a Maximum Daily Emissions level of:
• 180 pounds of VOC per day;
• 230 pounds of NOx per day; and
• 70 pounds of PM10 per day.
Though the Project area is in non-attainment for all of these pollutants, the Air Quality analysis only compares the PM10 construction emissions to a numerical threshold. The Initial Study justifies this approach by citing to the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District’s (MBARD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which state that ozone precursor emissions from demolition and construction activities using “typical construction equipment” would not have a significant impact on attainment and maintenance of state or federal ozone ambient air quality standards. (Initial Study at p. 35). However, the Initial Study includes no list of the construction equipment anticipated for the DVSP, but only a vague statement that “demolition and construction activities facilitated by the DVSP are anticipated to use typical construction equipment.” (Initial Study at p. 35). Under the MBARD guidelines, use of certain equipment, including grinders or any portable equipment, does not fall under the definition of “typical construction equipment.” (See Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2008) at p. 5-3). The analysis must at least address whether construction or demolition activities will use such equipment.
Furthermore, the MBARD guidelines are nearly 13 years old, and may not reflect the most up- to-date methodology for determining significant impacts from construction emissions. For instance, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s CEQA Guidelines, updated in 2017, specifically state that ozone precursor emissions from construction activities involving demolition or non-greenfield development should be analyzed by comparison to a threshold. (See Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2017) at pp. 3-1, 3-5).
The Project must undergo further evaluation and analysis to determine whether construction activity emissions, particularly ozone precursor emissions, will have a significant environmental impact.
b. Operational Mobile Emissions Analysis is based on a Flawed Vehicle Miles Traveled Calculation, which Fails to Account for Displacement The Project’s mobile source emissions were calculated using an estimate of “net new Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) estimated for residential and office land uses.” (Initial Study at p. 31).
Retail land uses, and retail-based trips, were not considered in the analysis, under an assumption that any local-serving retail use would reduce trip lengths and generate no new trips, because local-serving retail serves people with “an existing need that was met by the retail located further away and [are] now traveling to the new retail use because it is closer to the person’s origin location.” (Initial Study, Appendix TRAF-2 at p. 6). This assumption fails to account for mobile source emissions from out-of-area retail employees who will commute to downtown Marina.
EXHIBIT H
82 City of Marina
June 25, 2021
Furthermore, the VMT analysis as a whole does not discuss or account for trip generation or longer trips that will result from the displacement of currently existing commercial enterprises in the Project Area. Under the DVSP, a series of businesses that are currently allowed to operate under pre-DVSP zoning will be prohibited (for instance, professional office uses facing Reservation Road, drive-thru or drive-in facilities, and service stations, all of which are currently permitted under the C-1 Retail Business District zone, would be prohibited in the Core Area, per Table 3-6 of the DVSP). Additionally, many businesses that fall into use categories still allowed under the DVSP operate within buildings that would not conform to the development standards of the DVSP, thus rendering the businesses with no prospect of expanding or increasing the footprint of their current operations. For those businesses outright prohibited in an area, such as drive-thru restaurants or banks in the Core Area, residents will have to take longer mileage trips to fulfill an existing need that was previously filled by a business located closer to them. This increase in VMT would be permanent, as no such business could ever move back into the area under the DVSP. Even for those businesses that constitute a permitted use in a non-conforming building, such as a grocery store with a street-abutting parking lot in the Core Area, the inability of the business to expand its operational area will lead to an increase in VMT. While this type of stagnancy is not within the vision of the DVSP, it is a reasonably foreseeable outcome, if not the most practical outcome. As such, to the extent 8,000 new residents create new demand for services, the “paralysis” that will restrict existing business from expanding will cause coveted commercial services to become established elsewhere. As a result, new residents will be forced to take longer mileage trips to fulfill their needs, until such time that a similar business constructs and occupies a conforming building in downtown, if ever.
The VMT analysis in the Initial Study fails to account for the increase in VMT due to displacement of existing businesses and commercial services that currently are allowed under existing zoning but, under the DVSP, would be prohibited. The Project must undergo further evaluation and analysis to determine whether emissions attributable to this increase in VMT will have a significant impact. These additional trips must also be taken into account in the Transportation Section, which the Initial Study already determined will need further analysis in an EIR.
c. Failure to Include a Quantitative Health Risk Assessment for Toxic Air Contaminants
The Initial Study notes that the Project will be located adjacent to numerous sensitive receptors, including residential neighborhoods and schools, and that the Project has the potential for toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions during demolition and constructions activities. (Initial Study at pp. 39-40). However, the Initial Study declines to evaluate the long-term cancer impacts of such TAC emissions on sensitive receptors, claiming that construction activities will occur “over a relatively short duration.” (Initial Study at p. 40). This is a mischaracterization of the proposed construction and demolition activities. Construction and demolition activities are expected to occur over a period of approximately 20 years (Initial Study at p. 35), exposing sensitive receptors to TAC emissions throughout that time period. The City must conduct a quantitative health risk assessment to determine the long-term cancer impacts of these TAC emissions on nearby sensitive receptors. This analysis must be based on realistic phasing assumptions (as discussed earlier).
Additionally, the Initial Study does not analyze whether any of the proposed commercial or office uses contemplated by the DVSP would create TAC emissions. While residential uses often are
EXHIBIT H
83 City of Marina
June 25, 2021
not sources of TACs, non-residential uses are not similarly exempt from such analyses. Existing residents and business owners within and adjacent to the downtown area are entitled to know the health risks associated with the massive scape of development proposed under the DVSP, including the pertinent cancer and non-cancer risks.
The Project must undergo further evaluation and analysis to determine the effects of 20 years of construction-related TAC emissions on sensitive receptors, and to determine whether any of the commercial and office uses contemplated by the DVSP will expose sensitive receptors to further TAC emissions.
3. Aesthetics
“Aesthetic issues, such as public views, ‘are properly studied in an EIR to assess the impacts of a project.’ ” Citizens for Responsible & Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1337–1338. “[T]he CEQA Guidelines essentially establish a rebuttable presumption [that] any substantial, negative aesthetic effect is to be considered a significant environmental impact for CEQA purposes.” (Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1604; accord Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Montecito Water Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396, 401 [“Any substantial negative effect of a project on view and other features of beauty could constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA.”]).
Here, the scope of environmental analysis proposed by the Initial Study falls short of what is required by CEQA and the Guidelines. A far more expansive analysis of potential aesthetic impacts is necessary to meaningfully inform members of the public and City decisionmakers of the Project’s potentially significant environmental effects.
a. Applicability of SB 743
In 2013, the California Legislature adopted Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) to streamline the review of aesthetic impacts for certain categories of projects. Specifically, aesthetic impacts “of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099(d)(1) [unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent statutory references are to the Public Resources Code]). The City has taken the position that the Specific Plan Area “is exempt from findings greater than ‘less than significant’ ” under SB 743 because the Specific Plan Area has been designated as a potential future transit priority area by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (Opportunity Area MA-1). (Initial Study at pp. 17-18).
Although the Specific Plan Area is not currently located within an area that meets the definition of a transit priority area (“current [public transit] headways fall short of 15 minutes at peak periods”), the City asserts that “with development, increased ridership will result in more frequent headways.” (Id. at p. 18). To be eligible for SB 743 streamlining, the City must provide substantial evidence that public transit headways at transit stops within the transit priority area will meet or exceed the 15-minute threshold “within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program.” § 21099(a)(7). While Monterey-Salinas Transit will be releasing a comprehensive operational plan in 2021, we are not aware of any Transit Improvement Program that would implement 15-minute headways at transit stops in the vicinity of the Specific Area Plan. Indeed, it appears that Monterey-Salinas Transit will be facing
EXHIBIT H
84 City of Marina
June 25, 2021
numerous operational challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (including financial shortfalls that may last until the mid-2020s), which will likely make increased headways infeasible. See Monterey-Salinas Transit 2022-2023 Fiscal Year Budget, available at https://mst.org/wp-content/media/Final-Adopted-FY2022-FY2023-Budgets.pdf. One of the lines that served the Specific Plan Area was recently cancelled (Route 27), and other service reductions may occur in the future. (See Monterey-Salinas Transit Comprehensive Operational Analysis – Choices Report (May 27, 2020) at p. 49, available at https://mst.org/wp- content/media/MSTCOA_Choices-Report.pdf).
Moreover, SB 743 only applies to “a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area.” (§ 21099(d)(1)). A specific plan is not a “residential, mixed-use, or employment center project.” Here, substantial portions of the Specific Plan Area will be developed as uses that fall outside these categories, including 94.7 acres of “public uses;” 77.9 acres of “retail/services and office/other commercial uses” with no restrictions on floor area ratio to 0.75;
1 and 3.2 acres of “light industrial” uses. (Initial Study at p. 7). The Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan therefore does not qualify for SB 743 streamlining.
b. Adverse Effects on Scenic Vistas
Although the City asserts that the Project falls within the scope of SB 743, it nevertheless discusses certain potential aesthetic impacts “for the sake of full disclosure.” (Initial Study at p. 18). For potential impacts to scenic vistas, the Initial Study concludes that impacts will be less than significant because “no scenic vistas are available or would be blocked or substantially modified as a result of Specific Plan buildout.” Id. In the EIR, the City should provide detailed visual simulations to show the extent and severity of potential visual impacts so that the public and City decisionmakers can meaningfully assess whether impacts are less than significant. (See Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 831 [lead agencies must show the extent and severity of potential impacts]; see also Guidelines, § 15150 [“An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.”]).
“Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan could include buildings up to 60 feet high or five stories, whichever is less, in the core zone.” (Initial Study at p. 23). “Buildings currently in the Downtown area are one to two stories, so this change would increase the building height in the core zone by up to 45 feet.” (Id.). Aesthetic impact simulations should provide a comprehensive analysis of how these increased building heights will impact views from scenic vistas in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area.
1 Employment centers are exempt projects under SB 743 insofar as they have commercial uses with a FAR below 0.75. The DVSP does not appear to contain any such restrictions, and the General Plan allows for multiple-use commercial developments with a maximum FAR of 0.90. (General Plan, Community Land Use Element, Table 2.4.) Please note the EIR project description must clarify minimum and maximum FARs.
EXHIBIT H
85 City of Marina
June 25, 2021
c. Impacts to Scenic Resources, Including but Not Limited to, Trees, Rock Outcroppings, and Historic Buildings
The Initial Study concludes that impacts to scenic resources will be less than significant because “overall scenic quality of views from SR 1 would not be substantially or negatively altered by the project.” (Initial Study at pp. 18-20). The Initial Study completely omits any analysis of potential impacts to scenic resources from other vantage points in the Specific Plan Area or surrounding locations. The EIR should assess potential impacts from a broad range of potential vantage points, and it should assess potential impacts to all potential scenic resources in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. For example, this analysis should include an assessment of potential impacts to views of Locke-Paddon Wetland Community Park from within the Specific Area Plan. (See Initial Study at p. 19 [showing view of Locke-Paddon Wetland Community Park]). The EIR should also assess potential obstructions of public views of special status trees within the Specific Plan Area, including the coast live oak trees that were observed to the north of Reservation Road. (See Biological Resources Assessment at pp. 9-10).
d. Degradation of the Existing Visual Character or Quality of Public Views of the Site and Its Surroundings and Potential Conflicts with Zoning and Other Regulations Governing Scenic Quality
Preliminarily, the Initial Study concludes that the Specific Plan Area is “already urbanized” and, therefore, the City’s CEQA analysis “focuses on whether the project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.” (Initial Study at p. 24).
Conflict with land use regulations is more appropriately dealt with in the EIR's land use section, and there is nothing in CEQA that exempts an aesthetic analysis of changes to an urban area.
The project under review here would increase the City's population by 35 percent, more than double building heights, and situate millions of new square feet into a fairly discrete portion of the City.
2 Accordingly, the EIR should provide a detailed analysis of the extent to which the visual quality of the area will be affected by the much denser urbanization that is contemplated as part of the Specific Plan Area buildout.
To this end, the EIR should provide visual simulations and other evidence to show how the scale, massing, and architectural features of the various types of proposed development in the Specific Plan Area will be consistent with the Marina Municipal Code, City of Marina Downtown Vision, Downtown Design Guidelines, and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. (See Initial Study at p. 20; see also See Santiago County Water Dist., supra, 118 Cal.App.3d at p. 831). In doing so, the EIR should provide specific descriptions and illustrations that show how landscaping, streetscapes, building facades, and other design elements will conform to Design Guidelines and the City of Marina Downtown Vision. Special emphasis should be placed on the analysis of changes to the overall character of the existing low-rise community that will result
2 The Initial Study asserts that “implementation of the Specific Plan would change the character of the project area substantially, but these changes would be in keeping with applicable plans for revitalizing the Downtown area and creating a sense of place for visitors and residents, in connection with multiple modes of transportation.” (Initial Study at p. 24). Respectfully, this statement does not appropriately contemplate the scale of urbanization envisioned under the DVSP, which is not in keeping with applicable plans; if such were the case, the DVSP would not be necessary in the first place.
EXHIBIT H
86 City of Marina
June 25, 2021
from the construction of 2,904 new residential units and the addition of up to 1,385,197 square feet of retail and office space.
e. Light and Glare
The Initial Study asserts that “effects on daytime or nighttime views due to new sources of light and glare would be less than significant” because “the Plan Area already makes up a developed downtown area [and] conditions would not be substantially altered from existing conditions.” (Initial Study at pp. 25-26). As noted above, the proposed buildout of the Specific Plan Area will substantially change the character of the existing built environment. The construction of 2,904 new residential units and the addition of up to 1,385,197 square feet of retail and office space will produce many new sources of light and glare. In fact, the Initial Study concedes that the substantial size and scope of the new development will cause “[n]ew sources of nighttime light and daytime glare [to] be introduced and could intensify the effects of illumination and glare over existing levels.” (Id. at p. 25). It is imperative that the EIR provide a detailed assessment of these new sources of light and glare and, if necessary, adequately mitigate any significant environmental effects associated with light and glare.
4. Biological Resources
Protection of biological resources is a fundamental policy incorporated in CEQA. Under Section 21001(c) it is the policy of the state to “[p]revent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to [human] activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities.” In addition to its analysis of direct effects on biological resources, an EIR must identify and describe the significant indirect environmental impacts that will result from the project. (Guidelines, §15126.2(a)). Both short-term and long-term effects should be included in the analysis. (Id.). In other words, a CEQA analysis must “take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.” (Guidelines, Appendix G, emphasis added).
Here, the Initial Study (including the July 2019 Biological Resources Assessment conducted by Rincon Consultants) only assessed direct impacts on biological resources within the Specific Plan Area. There is no analysis of indirect or cumulative impacts to potentially sensitive biological resources at off-site locations. (Cf. Initial Study at p. 52 [noting, in passing, the existence of “higher quality chaparral habitat to the north of Reservation Road and within the Fort Ord National Monument”]). A large undeveloped area is located immediately northwest of the Specific Plan area, but there is no discussion of impacts to potentially sensitive resources at that location, nor is there any discussion of potential impacts to resources at the Locke-Paddon Wetland Community Park. This substantial omission should be corrected through the release of a revised initial study or, at the very least, in the EIR. (See Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296 [initial study’s conclusions must be supported by evidence]; accord Citizens Ass’n for Sensible Dev. v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 171).
a. Habitat Modification and Effects on Protected Species The Initial Study discloses that impacts to biological resources would be potentially significant because “construction activity associated with individual projects developed under the Specific Plan could include demolition, grading, vegetation removal, equipment and vehicle staging,
EXHIBIT H
87 City of Marina
June 25, 2021
parking.” (Initial Study at p. 46). However, according to the Initial Study, “[i]mplementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(h) would reduce these impacts to less than significant level.” (Id.).
As noted above, because the Initial Study fails to analyze potential indirect, off-site impacts, it is impossible to determine the full extent of potential impacts associated with habitat modification.
Likewise, it is impossible to determine whether Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(h) will actually mitigate those indirect, off-site effects to a less than significant level. Further, the Initial Study only defines and classifies vegetation communities and land cover types for a small fraction of the Specific Plan Area. (See Biological Survey at p. 10, Figure 3; see also Initial Study at p. 47, Figure 10 [screening for sensitive resources will only occur in a small fraction of the entire Specific Plan Area]). It is quite possible that sensitive species could occur in undeveloped portions of properties in the Specific Plan Area (e.g., in yards, setbacks, or parkways), but there is no classification or survey of potential habitat that evaluates whether sensitive species could potentially occur at those locations. These deficiencies should be remedied in a revised initial study or in the EIR. Moreover, the proposed mitigation measures will need to be revised to ensure that the entirety of the Specific Plan Area is screened for potentially sensitive resources.
b. Adverse Effects on Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Communities and Related Effects on Protected Species
Here, the Initial Study’s analysis of potential impacts is limited solely to potential effects on the sandmat manzanita that occurs in the eastern portion of the Specific Plan Area. (Initial Study at pp. 52-53). According to the Initial Study, “given the higher quality chaparral habitat to the north of Reservation Road and within the Fort Ord National Monument, removal of a small patch of sandmat manzanita would not represent a significant impact to this vegetation community.” (Id.).
However, this conclusion does not address the severity or extent of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with the loss of sensitive and protected species that were observed at the sandmat manzanita, including coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). (See Biological Survey at p. 9). Trees cannot migrate to the chaparral to the north, and impacts to any coast live oak at the site should be disclosed and mitigated.
The Initial Study also fails to disclose, analyze, and mitigate potential impacts associated with the loss of willow riparian habitat and other potentially sensitive habitat within the Specific Plan Area. (See Biological Survey at p. 10, Figure 3). Furthermore, as noted above, because the Initial Study fails to analyze potential indirect off-site impacts, it is impossible to determine the full extent of potential impacts associated with impacts to riparian habitat.
c. Adverse Effects on Wetlands and Related Effects on Protected Species The Initial Study states that “[n]o CDFW or USACE jurisdictional wetlands or waters are present in the Specific Plan Area.” (Initial Study at p. 53). But the Biological Resources Assessment discloses that “[t]he edge of riparian vegetation at Locke-Paddon Park also falls within the Specific Plan and is likely to be jurisdictional under CDFW.” (Biological Resources Assessment at p. 15). This inconsistency should be addressed and clarified in the EIR.
Again, because the Initial Study fails to analyze potential indirect, off-site impacts, it is impossible to determine the full extent of potential impacts associated with impacts to riparian
EXHIBIT H
88 City of Marina
June 25, 2021
habitat and sensitive species that may occur at those off site locations. Potential indirect and cumulative impacts to off-site wetlands should be disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in a revised initial study or in the EIR. (Guidelines, §15126.2(a)).
d. Effects on Wildlife Movement and Nursery Sites
The Initial Study concludes that “[t]here would be no impacts to wildlife movement from development under the Specific Plan.” (Initial Study at p. 54). Again, this analysis fails to consider potential off-site impacts, including potential impacts to species that may migrate through coastal dunes or other coastal areas to the west of the Specific Plan Area. The Initial Study also includes no analysis of potential impacts that could potentially “impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.” (See Guidelines, Appendix G, § IV(d)).
e. Conflicts with Local Policies Protecting Biological Resources Here, the Initial Study’s analysis is limited to Project consistency with urban forestry standards. (Initial Study at p. 54). In the EIR, the City should expand this analysis to disclose, analyze, and mitigate direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that may be subject to other local policies, including policies that protect sensitive biological resources in coastal areas.
5. Cultural Resources
CEQA defines a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as a significant effect on the environment. (§ 21084.1; Guidelines, § 15064.5(b)). A substantial adverse change means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings resulting in the significance of the resource being materially impaired. (Id. at subd. (b)(1)). The significance of a resource is materially impaired when the physical characteristics that convey its historical significance and that justify its designation as a historical resource are demolished or materially altered in an adverse manner. (Id. at subd. (b)(2)).
The Initial Study cites “28 cultural resources studies conducted within a 0.5-mile radius of the Plan Area,” 16 of which “included all or portions of the Plan Area.” (Initial Study at pp. 56- 59). But none of those studies conducted a systematic, lot-by-lot or building-by-building analysis of all potentially historic structures or sites within the Specific Plan Area. Without this systematic analysis, it will be impossible for members of the public and City decisionmakers to determine the full scope of potential environmental effects. (See Guidelines, § 15150 [“An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.”]).
The Initial Study discloses that a full inventory of potential sensitive historic resources in the Specific Plan Are will not be conducted until after CEQA review is complete. (See Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-4). But the Initial Study and the EIR cannot insist the impact will be insignificant and defer the development of specific mitigation measures to some future time. (Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(B)). Here, the construction of 2,904 new residential units and the addition of up to 1,385,197 square feet of retail and office space could have substantial direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the historic character of resources that could potentially be
EXHIBIT H
89 City of Marina
June 25, 2021
demolished by the new development or resources located in close proximity to new development. These potential impacts should be disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in the EIR.
Deferring analysis to a later stage is unlawful, as it leaves the public with no real idea as to the severity and extent of environmental impacts. Where, as here, an initial study fails to fully and accurately inform decisionmakers and the public of the environmental consequences of proposed actions, it does not satisfy the basic goals of CEQA and its Guidelines. (See § 21061 [“The purpose of an environmental impact report is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment . . . .”]). The evaluation of a proposed project’s environmental impacts is the core purpose of an EIR. (See Guidelines, § 15126.2(a) [“An EIR shall identify and focus on the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment.”]). It is well-established that the City cannot defer its assessment of important environmental impacts until after the project is approved. (Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at pp. 306-07).
6. Energy
a. Failure to Compare to the Project to a Threshold
In evaluating whether the Project would result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of resources, the Initial Study quantifies the amount of gasoline and diesel fuel to be used in demolition and construction of the DVSP, the amount of gasoline and diesel fuel to be used by net new VMT, and the kilowatt hours of electricity and British thermal units of natural gas to be used in residential and non- residential buildings. However, there is no comparison of these figures to a threshold. The Initial Study does not provide any comparison to average energy usage for similar developments, or assess the energy demands of the Project in relation to regional energy production or capacity.
Without such a comparison, the Initial Study’s conclusion that the Project will not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of resources is not supported by evidence. The Project must undergo further evaluation and analysis to determine whether it will result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of resources in a manner that fully complies with Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256.
b. Failure to Account for Increased VMT Due to Displacement The quantification of gasoline and diesel fuel to be used by automobiles relies on a VMT calculation that fails to account for an increase in VMT due to displacement of existing downtown businesses, as summarized above in the Air Quality section.
Furthermore, the determination that the Project is consistent with Community Goal 1.18 relies on the claim that “the DVSP would create a balanced land/use transportation system that would minimize excessive energy consumption.” (Initial Study at p. 73). In fact, displacement of existing downtown businesses under the DVSP would potentially lead to greater energy consumption by automobiles than would occur without the DVSP. The Project must undergo further evaluation and analysis to determine impacts due to increased automobile energy use from trips generated or lengthened by the displacement of existing downtown businesses.
EXHIBIT H
90 City of Marina
June 25, 2021
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Reliance on Flawed Emissions Calculations
The Initial Study’s methodology to analyze greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions relies on flawed assumptions and calculations elsewhere in the Initial Study, which render its GHG analysis incomplete. When modeling construction emissions, the GHG analysis uses the emissions assumptions from the Air Quality Section, which fail to account for all emissions as discussed in the above Air Quality section. The calculation of GHG emissions from mobile sources uses the VMT calculation used in the Air Quality section, which fails to account for trip length and generation associated with the displacement of existing downtown businesses, as discussed in the above Air Quality section.
The Initial Study’s GHG analysis also makes a series of unsupported assumptions about energy usage of the Project. First, the Initial Study assumes that residential unit energy use will produce no GHG emissions due to “the fact that the project would include solar photovoltaic systems on all low-rise residential buildings (i.e. single-and multi-family residential buildings that are three stories or less) with annual electrical output equal to or greater than the dwellings annual electrical usage […].” (Initial Study at p. 89). The Initial Study makes no effort to quantify the residential dwelling’s electrical usage, or demonstrate that it is feasible for building-localized solar photovoltaic systems to provide for all of such a dwelling’s projected usage. Furthermore, it is not clear that all residential units will be covered by the Project’s low-rise solar mandate, including units in multi-story mixed use buildings with residential units above commercial uses.
The Initial Study also assumes that 97 percent of the electricity demanded in its analysis (meaning 97 percent of electricity demanded by commercial or office tenants, as the analysis assumes no residential demands from the grid) will be provided by MBCP’s carbon free electricity. The claimed basis for this assumption is that “according to MBCP, approximately 97 percent of accounts in their service area maintain their enrollment […] the remaining 3 percent of accounts op out and connect to PG&E.” (Initial Study at p. 89). However, this 97 percent figure includes all current MBCP accounts, including residential. Since the GHG analysis assumes grid usage and associated GHG emissions will come from only commercial and office tenants, the Initial Study should apply the proportion of MBCP’s commercial and office accounts that opt out and connect to PG&E. This figure may be significantly greater than 3 percent, as commercial and office accounts may demand electric service that they perceive to be more stable and responsive.
The Project must undergo further evaluation and analysis to fully account for all GHG emissions attributable to the DVSP, and determine whether there are potentially significant effects from such emissions.
b. I mproper Threshold
As the Initial Study notes, CEQA Guidelines and interpretative GHG case law require a local, project-specific threshold to evaluate GHG effects. (Initial Study at p. 91). While consistency with Statewide reductions goals set forth in documents like CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan can be used as the basis to develop such a threshold, the threshold itself must take into account localized-GHG data and the Project’s individual features. (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204 as modified on denial of reh'g (Feb. 17, 2016).). A proper
EXHIBIT H
91 City of Marina
June 25, 2021
localized threshold should not rely entirely on statewide GHG data or statewide population data to develop the threshold. (Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Cty. of San Diego (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 892).
Though the Initial Study describes its calculated threshold of 3.2 MT of CO 2 per Service
Population as a “locally-appropriate” threshold, in reality it is based entirely on state-level emissions and population data. To develop this threshold, the Initial Study looks at statewide emissions targets regarding GHG emissions (in MMT CO
2e) for particular emission sectors
delineated by CARB. (Initial Study at p. 92). The Initial Study then excludes emissions sectors that are not present in Marina, and sums the statewide targets of the remaining emissions sectors to get a total of 213,000,000 MT of CO2, the statewide emissions limit for all sectors present in Marina. (Id.) Then, the Initial Study divides this sector-limited statewide emissions limit by the statewide service population of 65,723,654 to derive its threshold of 3.2 MT of CO2 per Service Population. (Initial Study at p. 93).
This threshold is based entirely on the application of statewide data and numbers. There is no attempt to take into account local or regional GHG data to determine whether Marina or the Monterey region already contribute a larger proportional share of GHGs or have a proportionally higher population density than other state regions, which would require a proportionally larger reduction in GHG emissions to reach state goals. Nor is there an attempt to explain why the use of a statewide service population metric and statewide GHG emissions target numbers are appropriate for a project specifically within Marina. (See Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Cty. of San Diego (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 892).
Without such an analysis, the GHG threshold is not localized or project-specific as required by CEQA Guidelines and well-established GHG case law.
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Initial Study provides an incomplete summary of all potential hazardous and contaminated sites in (and in the vicinity of) the Specific Plan Area. (See Initial Study at pp. 105-109). It does not identify, for example, potential hazards associated with gas stations on Reservation Road and Del Monte Boulevard. Nor does it discuss the potential presence of certain site-specific contaminants such as lead or asbestos, which will need to be remediated during the redevelopment of properties within the Specific Plan Area.
The Initial Study concludes that potential impacts will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by implementing project-specific hazardous materials assessments (Mitigation Measure HAZ-1), which will include “measures that ensure the safe transport, use, and disposal of contaminated soil removed from the site.” (Initial Study at p. 108). To ensure that all impacts are adequately mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the EIR should incorporate additional mitigation to prevent the intrusion of potentially hazardous materials into groundwater, soil, and air in the Specific Plan Area. For example, if new development associated with the Specific Plan buildout could foreseeably disturb contaminated sites, then it may be necessary to preemptively remediate contaminants that could potentially infiltrate locations within the Project site or other off-site locations.
Furthermore, CEQA requires that initial studies and EIRs provide accurate and complete information pertaining to the setting of the Project and surrounding area. (San Joaquin
EXHIBIT H
92 City of Marina
June 25, 2021
Raptor/Wildlife Center v. Stanislaus County (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 728-29 ; see also Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 875 [incomplete description of the Project’s environmental setting fails to set the stage for a discussion of significant effects]). Here, the Initial Study provides an incomplete and inadequate description of the history of wildfire hazards in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area, and the initial study fails to discuss how the effects of climate change might exacerbate such risks. (See also Initial Study Chapter 20).
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
The Initial Study states that “[t]he proposed project would result in an increase in water demand in the Plan Area, which could result in a potentially significant impact related to groundwater supplies and sustainable groundwater management.” (Initial Study at p. 112). The Initial Study then states that such impacts will be studied in the EIR, but no further information is provided.
Id. It is crucial that the EIR provide a complete and thorough analysis of all potential direct, indirect, and cumulative demands on groundwater supplies, including demands from related projects that share the same groundwater basin. It is also crucial for this analysis to evaluate all future development that is contemplated as part of the Specific Area Plan buildout. (See Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 441).
The Initial Study also concludes that “the Plan Area is developed and consists mostly of impervious surface area” and that the development of new structures “pursuant to the Specific Plan would not substantially alter the amount of impervious surface area.” (Initial Study at p. 112). However, other portions of the Initial Study note that there are substantial portions of the Specific Plan Area that remain undeveloped. (See Biological Resources Assessment at p. 10, Figure 3). The Initial Study does not clarify whether these undeveloped areas consist of impervious or pervious surface, but review of satellite imagery demonstrates a significant portion of the DVSP planning area does consist of pervious surfaces. The conversion of those undeveloped lots (and the redevelopment of existing lots with potentially larger development footprints) through the construction of 2,904 new residential units and the addition of up to 1,385,197 square feet of retail and office space will likely lead to the introduction of a substantial amount of new impervious surfaces relative to baseline conditions. The EIR should provide specific calculations that show the amount of new impervious surfaces that will be introduced to the Specific Plan Area as a result of anticipated new development. Please also see the section below regarding impacts on recreation; any analysis of hydrology should also account for the City’s strategy in dealing with potential shortages in open space.
The EIR should also carefully examine the effects of saltwater intrusion into the groundwater table that may occur as a result of climate change, as well as the effects of less-frequent groundwater recharge that will occur as a result of less-frequent precipitation. (See Safi, et al. (2018) Synergy of climate change and local pressures on saltwater intrusion in coastal urban areas: effective adaptation for policy planning, Water International, available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02508060.2018.1434957 ).
EXHIBIT H
93 City of Marina
June 25, 2021
10. Noise
The goal of providing Californians with “freedom from excessive noise” is included among CEQA’s basic policies. (§ 21001(b)). Under the definition of the term “environment” in Section 21060.5, noise is included as a physical condition that may be affected by a proposed project.
According to the Initial Study, “[o]perational impacts, including traffic-related exterior and interior noise impacts to DVSP uses and stationary noise from HVAC units, [will] be potentially significant and require mitigation.” (Initial Study at p. 137). “Specific Plan-generated traffic noise impacts to existing land uses would be less than significant, as would operational impacts related to truck deliveries. Mitigation would not be required for these specific impacts.” (Id). Both of these conclusions are premised upon the assumption that increased automobile traffic and increased noise from stationary sources (i.e., HVAC units) can be modeled into existing topographic conditions. As it exists today, the Specific Plan area is predominantly occupied by low-rise buildings and undeveloped lots. Under current conditions, noise is more likely to be dispersed as sound waves moves away from a source. Modifying development standards to allow for the construction of five-story buildings, substantially increased massing, and modifications to development standards that allow for increased parcel coverage will substantially change the way in which noise travels through the Specific Plan Area. The EIR will need to account for increased reverberation, echoing, and other site-specific conditions that may lead to more significant effects. Additional mitigation may be necessary to address these conditions.
Furthermore, the Initial Study fails to account for indirect and off-site noise impacts that will occur as a result of increased traffic traveling through streets in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. Potential indirect and cumulative impacts to off-site receptors and wetlands should be disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in a revised initial study or in the EIR. (See Guidelines, §15126.2(a)).
11. Population and Housing
According to the Initial Study, “full buildout of the Specific Plan would result in an estimated 7,957 new residents in the Plan Area.” (Initial Study at p. 143). However, the Initial Study also reveals inconsistencies between the Project and AMBAG’s long-term growth projections. As of 2019, the City was estimated to have a population of 22,535 people. (See Initial Study at p. 2).
The buildout of the Specific Plan Area would exceed the AMBAG’s 2025 population projections of 28,515 by 2030 and 29,554 by 2035. (Initial Study at p. 143). The EIR should disclose and analyze the implications of these inconsistencies, including the ability of region-wide infrastructure to accommodate greater-than-expected population growth.
CEQA requires agencies to evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of housing displacement. (See Guidelines Appendix G, § XIV(b) [Requiring agencies to answer the question of whether a project will "[d]isplace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere"].) Likewise, CEQA mandates disclosure of a project’s direct and cumulative environmental effects on “human beings, either directly or indirectly.” (§ 21083, subd. (b)(3); Guidelines, § 15065, subd. (a)(4); see also San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1372 [human health is among the many “environmental values” protected by CEQA and the Guidelines].)
EXHIBIT H
94 City of Marina
June 25, 2021
The adverse environmental and human health impacts of gentrification and housing displacement are well understood by scholars and urban planners. Introducing 2,904 new homes to the Specific Plan Area will significantly increase rents and the cost of living for existing residents, thereby increasing the risk that existing residents will be priced-out of the City. There is a substantial risk that low-income families and historically disadvantaged community members will be disproportionately impacted by these conditions. However, the DVSP provides no guarantee that existing residents will be given an opportunity to move into new market-rate or affordable housing that will be developed as part of the DVSP, and the Initial Study provides no analysis or mitigation of the short-term and long-term effects of housing displacement. (See Initial Study at p. 144). It is critical for the EIR to analyze and mitigate these impacts.
12. Public Services
a. Police and Fire Services
The Initial Study fails to provide any analysis of whether the Project would require new fire or police facilities in order to maintain acceptable response times. The Marina General Plan Community Land Use Element 2.106 sets forth clear response time standards: “As the population of Marina grows, the police force should be sufficiently staffed and deployed to maintain an average emergency response time of four minutes. Similarly, a maximum response time for fire protection of three to four minutes should be maintained.” Community Land Use Element 2.106 continues: “Where new development would be located beyond a three-to-four- minute response time, consideration should be given to the need for Class A fire-resistant roofing.”
While the analysis of fire services concludes that one new fire station will likely be required to maintain service ratios, it does not analyze where this station would need to be located in order to maintain a maximum response time of three to four minutes, or whether even further infrastructure would be required to comply with the response time standard. The analysis of police service is entirely deferred, stating that “service ratios and response time would be reassessed and adjusted as the population grows in an ongoing process over the course of DVSP buildout.” (Initial Study at p. 146). No attempt is made to assess whether further police resources would be needed to maintain an average response time of four minutes.
Deferring analysis to a later stage is unlawful, as it leaves the public with no real idea as to the severity and extent of environmental impacts. Where, as here, an initial study fails to fully and accurately inform decisionmakers and the public of the environmental consequences of proposed actions, it does not satisfy the basic goals of CEQA and its Guidelines. (See § 21061 [“The purpose of an environmental impact report is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment . . . .”]). The evaluation of a proposed project’s environmental impacts is the core purpose of an EIR. (See Guidelines, § 15126.2(a) [“An EIR shall identify and focus on the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment.”]). It is well-established that the City cannot defer its assessment of important environmental impacts until after the project is approved. (Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at pp. 306-07).
The Project must undergo further evaluation and analysis to determine whether further construction or expansion of fire and police facilities would be needed to maintain mandated
EXHIBIT H
95 City of Marina
June 25, 2021
response times, and whether such construction or expansion will have potentially significant impacts.
b. Indirect Effects of Increased Demand For School Facilities The Initial Study, citing California Government Section 65996, concludes that payment of school impact fees will constitute full and complete mitigation for potential impacts to schools caused by developments. However, a Project's indirect impacts on parts of the physical environment that are not school facilities, but that result from increased demand for schools, are not excused from being considered and mitigated. (Chawanakee Unified Sch. Dist. v. Cty. of Madera (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016, 1028, as modified on denial of reh’g (July 19, 2011)). Such indirect impacts include impacts on traffic and VMT from new students residing in the residential portions of the Project taking trips to and from school, and any impacts on the surrounding environment from school-related construction to expand existing facilities or develop new facilities. Per the Initial Study, existing public schools in Marina have capacity for only 500 additional students above current enrollment, meaning that full buildout of the DVSP will require expansion of existing schools, construction of new schools, or for students to travel outside of Marina for schooling.
The Project must undergo further evaluation and analysis to determine the indirect effects of the Project exceeding existing Marina public school capacity, including potential effects from additional construction and new or increased VMT.
13. Recreation
As the Initial Study notes, the DVSP does not specify new park sites within the Plan Area. (Initial Study at p. 147). However, the Initial Study fails to account for the effect of the Project on existing parks, or the effects of construction of the known amount of acreage of new parks needed to satisfy City standards. The City of Marina General Plan establishes a standard of 5.3 acres of City park and recreation land for every 1,000 residents, while the Marina Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies an even higher standard of 10 acres per 1,000 residents. (Initial Study at p. 149). Currently, the existing ratio is 5.3 acres per 1,000 residents. (Id.). The current population of Marina is estimated to be 22,535 people, and full buildout of the DVSP projects adding 7,957 new residents. In order to maintain the 5.3 acres per 1,000 residents ratio, the City would need to construct an additional 42 acres of parks. In order to meet the goals of the Marina Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the City would need to construct an additional 185 acres.
The DVSP should include specific provisions for the construction of parks and green spaces in order to adequately serve the Project’s new residents. The environmental review of the Project should also study the potential effects of new park construction on the surrounding environment.
If the DVSP proceeds without such provisions, then the effect of an increase of nearly 8,000 residents on the City’s already strained public park system must be analyzed.
14. Tribal Cultural Resources
As noted above, an EIR must identify and describe the significant indirect environmental impacts that will result from the project. (Guidelines, §15126.2(a)). A CEQA analysis must “take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as
EXHIBIT H
96 City of Marina
June 25, 2021
project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.” (Guidelines, Appendix G, emphasis added). Here, the Initial study analyzes potential impacts within the Specific Plan Area, but it does not mention potential impacts to sensitive resources in off-site areas. The EIR should carefully analyze and mitigate potential indirect Project effects that could disturb tribal cultural resources at off-site locations.
15. Utilities & Service
The Initial Study states that “[t]he project could result in potentially significant impacts related to water supply.” (Initial Study at p. 156). The Initial Study then states that such impacts will be studied in the EIR, but no further information is provided. (Id.). It is crucial that the EIR provide a complete and thorough analysis of all potential direct, indirect, and cumulative demands on water supplies, including demands from related projects that share the same groundwater basin and other municipal water sources. It is also crucial for this analysis to evaluate all future development that is contemplated as part of the Specific Area Plan buildout. (See Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 441). A similar cumulative demand analysis is required for other utilities, including wastewater and electricity.
16. Wildfire
As noted above, CEQA requires that initial studies and EIRs provide accurate and complete information pertaining to the setting of the Project and surrounding area. (San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Center, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at pp. 728-29). Here, the Initial Study provides an incomplete and inadequate description of the history of wildfire hazards in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area, and the initial study fails to discuss how the effects of climate change may exacerbate such risks. (See Initial Study at p. 160). Multiple urbanized areas within the State of California have been decimated by wildfires in the past few years, demonstrating that an “urban character” does not exempt a community from risk. Here, the DVSP planning area is located adjacent to significant open space, potentially heightening risks.
Without key contextual information regarding wildfires and associated risks, it is impossible to meaningfully assess the full extent of potential environmental impacts. * * *
The City, in proposing the DVSP, is contemplating a massive change to the community — 8,000 new residents, more than 3,000 new employees, and associated construction to accommodate these new community members. Sierra Pacific Properties Inc. has been a member of the Marina community for years and appreciates the City’s commitment to innovation. As a member of the business community, however, our client has concerns about the DVSP’s environmental impacts on its tenants and their customers, and concerns that the grandiosity of the DVSP does not account for economic realities facing the downtown commercial sector. To this end, we have concerns that the commercial land use provisions of the DVSP might rest on assumptions and determinations located in economic studies that are many years out of date. Sierra Pacific Properties Inc. welcomes further discussion on these issues.
EXHIBIT H
97 City of Marina
June 25, 2021
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions or would like to arrange a meeting with our client team, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Very truly yours,
Niran S. Somasundaram
Attorney
Ellis F. Raskin
Attorney
CC: Sean Marciniak, Hanson Bridgett LLP
Client
EXHIBIT H
98 October 1, 2024 Item No. 13b
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Marina City Council of October 15, 2024
CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 202 4-,
RECEIVING A FOLLOW-UP PRESENTATION AND, PROVIDING
APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLANTING PALETTE SELECTION FOR
THE DEL MONTE BOULEVARD MEDIAN LANDSCAPING, PHASE 1
PROJECT
REQUEST:
It is requested that the City Council consider approving and adopting Resolution No. 20 24-, for the following actions:
1. Receiving a follow-up presentation, EXHIBIT A (highlight of the presentation) , for the Del Monte Boulevard Landscaping, Multi-Modal Improvements, and Downtown Marina Streetscape, and
2. Providing input and approval of final planting palette selection for the Del Monte Boulevard Median Landscape project, Phase 1.
BACKGROUND:
The Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan has an implementation section that identifies various strategies to move the plan forward which will require investment from both the public and private sector. This Del Monte Boulevard Medians & Downtown Marina Streetscape Project represents a major public investment that will transform the medians into a welcoming and identifying place maker for the Downtown Business District and will begin the streetscape transformation towards safer streets. By mitigating automobile speeds and enhancing pedestrian and bike improvements envisioned in 2005 by reducing the travel lines from four to two and building key roundabouts that will better serve the City’s needs and transition away from what originally functioned as a state highway.
On December 5th, 2023, and February 6,2024 City Council meetings, BEK Collective and Kimley Horn presented landscaping concept and traffic simulation for the multi-modal improvements for the Del Monte Boulevard. The traffic simulation showed that the road diet meets the city’s standards for level of service for the intersections. Additionally, it showed that the northbound and southbound travel times along Del Monte from Highway 1 to Reservation Road did not increase from today’s traffic volume and the traf fic volume projected at 2040 with the road diet and two roundabouts. The two roundabouts are instrumental in maintaining or improving travel times and meeting the goals for the road diet.
The proposed median improvements include hard scape of stamped concrete and cobble stones to match the existing decorative concrete and cobble stone paving to remain. The landscaping includes low, precast concrete modular walls scalloping along the median. Decorative and interactive lights will be incorporated on the walls and can be programmed to change colors for City events. Flag holders will be re-established along with the medians. Balance of hard scape and planting of trees, shrubs and ornamental plants will be used throughout the median for year-round interest.
1 On September 4, 2024, t he City Council adopted Resolution 2024 -102, See EXHIBIT B (September 4th Staff Report, Resolution and Exhibits A & B), for the Del Monte Boulevard Median landscaping and Downtown Marina Streetscape for the following actions:
• Received an updated presentation for the Del Monte Boulevard Landscaping, Multi-Modal Improvements, and Downtown Marina Streetscape project.
• Approved phasing the delivery of the Del Monte Boulevard Median Landscaping project • Authorized the call for bids for the Del Monte Boulevard Median Landscaping Phase 1 Project • Provided input and approval of the final concept and formed Ad -Hoc Subcommittee (Mayor Delgado, Council Member McCarthy, and Project Landscape Architect, Bianca Koenig) to discuss landscaping expectations and plant palette.
ANALYSIS:
On September 16, the Planting Ad-Hoc Subcommittee met in the City of Marina to review goals, preferences, and example plantings to help inform the final plant palette selections. To kick -off the meeting, we took time to understand the specific goals and desires for the Del Monte median planting design. M ayor Delgado recommends as a primarily native, locally native plant palette.
Council Member McCarthy recommends a beautiful, vibrant, and attractive landscape for residents and visitors alike. To help understand the root cause of these requests, we inquired deeper to reveal that ultimately, the two subcommittee members had a deep desire for a healthy Marina. One where bio-diversity of native plants could support non -human life that in turn supports healthy environments and healthy humans. In addition, through year -round beauty, vibrancy, and demonstrated care, the streetscape design could support human happiness and economic health.
Landscape examples were observed on foot around Marina Library, Locke -Paddon Park, and the Dunes Shopping Center. Additional areas were observed via car, including the main shopping center at Seacrest Dr. and Reservation Rd. and recent installations within the Sea Haven development. The meeting/site visit allowed for the observa tion of both native and non -native ornamental plants during the end of the California summer/dormant season and also, in some cases, we could observe how maintenance teams had recently completed dramatic pruning/shearing of various plant species. This was a true test of observing plant material performance during one of the most challenging seasons. As a result of this meeting and in accordance with the community engagement survey results, the proposed planting design has been updated for the balance of year- round aesthetics, native plants, drought tolerance, and low maintenance performance within a coastal, urban, streetscape microclimate.
This follow -up presentation for the proposed Del Monte Boulevard Median landscaping and Downtown Marina Streetscape will include the following:
• Summary of input received during the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee Planting Design meeting. • Final Concept Plant Palette with s ample planting plan , and balance of garden -tolerant native plants and reliable non-native plants.
• Request for the City Council input and approval to move forward with construction /bid documents for target bid opening in January to enable construction to begin as early as Spring of 2025.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Del Monte Boulevard Median Landscape Demonstration project (QLR 1901) and Downtown Vitalization Implementation project (EDC2126) are included in the Capital Improvement Program with a budget of $25 ,000 and $ 4,000,000, respectively funded from the General Fund . At this point, the funding may be sufficient to cover all the median landscaping improvements. The Phase 1 landscaping is estimated to cost $2.1 million . The Phase 2 landscaping portion is estimated to cost $1.9 million.
2 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The presentation a nd providing design input for Del Monte Boulevard landscaping and multi modal improvements and downtown Marina streetscape is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061.
CONCLUSION:
This request is submitted to the City Council for consideration and input.
Respectfully submitted,
Marcus Jackson, Senior Program Manager l
Project Management Services
Wallace Group
REVIEWED/CONCUR:
Layne P. Long
City Manager
City of Marina
3 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -,
RECEIVING A FOLLOW -UP PRESENTATION AND, PROVIDING
APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLANTING PALETTE SELECTION FOR THE DEL MONTE BOULEVARD MEDIAN LANDSCAPING, PHASE 1 PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Del Monte Boulevard Medians & Downtown Marina Streetscape P roject represents a major public investment that will transform the medians into a welcoming and identifying place maker for the Downtown Business District and will begin the streetscape transformation towards safer streets; and
WHEREAS, on December 5th, 2023, and February 6,2024 City Council meetings, BEK Collective and Kimley Horn presented landscaping concept and traffic simulation for the multi -modal improvements for the Del Monte Boulevard. The traffic simulation showed that the road diet meets the city’s standards for level of service for the intersections and the two roundabouts are instrumental in maintaining or improving travel times and meeting the goals for the road diet.; and
WHEREAS, the proposed median improvements include hard scape of stamped concrete and cobble stones to match the existing decorative concrete and cobble stone paving to remain. The landscaping includes low, precast concrete modular walls scalloping along the median. Decorative and interactive lights will be incorporated on the walls and can be programmed to change colors for City events. Flag holders will be re-established along with the medians. Balance of hardscape and planting of trees, shrubs and ornamen tal plants will be used throughout the median for year - round interest, and
WHEREAS, On September 4, 2024, t he City Council adopted Resolution 2024 -102 for the Del Monte Boulevard Median landscaping and Downtown Marina Streetscape for the following actions; received an updated presentation for the Del Monte Boulevard Landscaping, Multi-Modal Improvements, and Downtown Marina Streetscape project, a pproved phasing the delivery of the Del
Monte Boulevard Median Landscaping project, authorized the call for bids for the Del Monte Boulevard Median Landscaping Phase 1 Project and p rovided input and approval of the final concept and formed Ad -Hoc Subcommittee (Mayor Delgado, Council Member McCarthy, and Project Landscape Architect, Bianca Koenig) to discuss landscaping expectations and plant palette, and
WHEREAS, this follow -up presentation for the proposed Del Monte Boulevard Median landscaping and Downtown Marina Streetscape will include the following: summary of input received during the Ad -Hoc Subcommittee Planting Design meeting and proposed final plant palette with sample planting plan, and balance of garden -tolerant native plants and reliable non - native plants, and
WHEREAS, the Del Monte Boulevard Median Landscape Demonstration project (QLR 1901) and Downtown Vitalization Implementation Project (EDC2126) are included in the Capital Improvement Program with a budget of $25,000 and $4,000,000, respectively; and
WHEREAS, the presentation and providing design input for Del Monte Boulevard Landscaping and Multi Modal Improvements and Downtown Marina Streetscape Projects is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
4 Resolution No. 2024-
Page Two
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Marina that does hereby:
1. Receive a follow up presentation for the Del Monte Boulevard Landscaping and Multi-Modal Improvements and Downtown Marina Streetscape; and
2. Provide approval of final planting palette selection for the Del Monte Boulevard Median Landscape project, Phase 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Marina at a regular meeting duly held on the 15th day of October 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
5 EXHIBIT A
6 EXHIBIT A
7 EXHIBIT A
8 EXHIBIT A
9 EXHIBIT A
10 EXHIBIT A
11 EXHIBIT A
12 EXHIBIT A
13 EXHIBIT A
14 EXHIBIT A
15 EXHIBIT A
16 EXHIBIT A
17 EXHIBIT A
18 EXHIBIT A
19 EXHIBIT A
20 EXHIBIT A
21 EXHIBIT A
22 EXHIBIT A
23 EXHIBIT A
24 EXHIBIT A
25 EXHIBIT A
26 August 19, 2024 Item No. 13b
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Marina City Council of September 4, 2024
CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 202 4-, RECEIVING An UPDATE PRESENTATION AND, PROVIDING INPUT
AND APPROVAL OF FINAL CONCEPT DESIGN AND APPROVAL OF
PHASING THE PROJECT DELIVERY FOR DEL MONTE BOULEVARD
LANDSCAPING, MULTI-MODAL IMPROVEMENTS, AND DOWNTOWN
MARINA STREETSCAPE AND AUTHORIZE CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE
DEL MONTE BOULEVARD MEDIAN LANDSCAPING, PHASE 1
PROJECT
REQUEST:
It is requested that the City Council consider approving and adopting Resolution No. 20 24-, for the following actions:
1. Receiving an update presentation, EXHIBIT A , for the Del Monte Boulevard Landscaping, Multi-Modal Improvements, and Downtown Marina Streetscape, and;
2. Providing input and approval of final concept design, and;
3. Approving phasing the delivery of the Del Monte Boulevard Landscaping, Multi -Modal Improvements, and Downtown Marina Streetscape, and;
4. Authorizing Call for Bids for the Del Monte Boulevard Median Landscaping Phase 1 Project.
BACKGROUND:
Since Marina’s incorporation in 1975, the City has facilitated many surveys, public workshops, and studies to vitalize Marina’s existing commercial areas in its Central Business District. The closure of Fort Ord military base in 1995 and the loss of jobs and population associated with that further emphasized the need to vitalize the City’s downtown.
This was reiterated again with the adoption of the General Plan in 2000 and with other City Council actions in 2001 recognizing that the creation of an attractive pedestrian-friendly and visitor-serving commercial district was key to establishing Marina’s identity and image.
In 2002 an Ad Hoc Marina Downtown Committee was formed that encouraged goals to revitalize Marina’s retail commercial areas. In its report to the City Council the Committee stated:
“Revitalization of Marina’s commercial area along Del Monte Boulevard and Reservation Road was identified by the Marina City Council in 2001 as one of a number of strategic issues which the City needed to address. In its Strategic Issues Report, the Council recognized that the creation of an attractive, pedestrian friendly and visitor -serving commercial district was key to Marina’s evolving identity and image.
In 2005, the City Council adopted the Marina Downtown Vision and Downtown Design Guidelines for developing a vital downtown core. This Vision Plan illustrated design concepts for Downtown Marina. While the Plan focused on the Reservation Road corridor, it identified concepts for public streetscape right-of-way that would provide benefits of reduced automobile speeds, safe pedestrian crossings, wider sidewalks, and accommodation of multiple modes of transportation (cars, buses, bicycles, and pedestrians). Suggested concepts included:
1 27
• Reduce through-traffic travel lanes from four lanes to two lanes • Provide roundabouts at key intersections
• Provide on-street parallel parking
• Provide bicycle lanes
• Provide wider sidewalks to encourage pedestrian travel • Provide pedestrian street crossings to improve pedestrian visibility for drivers, and to reduce pedestrian crossing distance and time
• Provide landscaped medians
• Consider public art as part of the streetscape
It was then decided that to fulfill this vision a Specific Plan should be developed. The Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan was initiated in 2006. The stated goal of the Plan was to “transform Central Marina and its two major corridors, Reservation Road a nd Del Monte Boulevard, into a unique, vibrant, and pedestrian -friendly Downtown with diverse shopping venues and increased housing opportunities.”
A draft of the Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan was presented publicly in March 2011. The overall goals of the Specific Plan included:
• Create a destination center for the Marina community that accommodates a mix of commercial, retail, dining, entertainment, and residential uses served by a multi -faceted transportation system
• Establish Downtown as a place of cultural, social, economic, and civic vitality. • Maximize the City’s ability to capture economic opportunities that may otherwise be lost to competing jurisdictions.
The Final Plan was never formally approved, and due to lack of funding the project stalled again until 2017 when the City Council appointed another Ad Hoc Committee to address new issues in the Downtown and complete the long -anticipated Specific Plan. This process has been actively going on since 2018 . Draft Plans and Environmental Impact Reports have now been completed and the Final Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan is going before the Planning Commission this month, and to the City Council in October 2024 for final approval. The Vision of the Specific Plan is to establish Downtown Marina as:
“A place with a unique, small coastal town character where people can work, live, and shop in an environment that creates a feeling of cohesiveness, compactness, and individual community identity; a place with a vibrant economy that accommodates a variety of businesses, residences, and civic uses; and, a place that is architecturally pleasing and sustainable, achieved through attractive storefronts, eco -friendly design, and plentiful landscaping and pedestrian amenities to encourage people to walk along tree-lined streets and socialize in civic and public spaces.” One of the Specific Plan key goals is, “Invest in strategic infrastructure projects through the City’s Capital Improvement Program to upgrade pavement and enhance traffic circulation.” Since the City’s incorporation in 1975, it has been a desire and goal to improve and vitalize the City’s Downtown Business District. Lack of funding has been a primary deterrent to achieving this goal. The Del Monte Boulevard Medians & Downtown Marina Streetscape final concept plan before the City Council tonight is a beginning step to achieving this goal from almost 50 years ago.
2 28
The Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan has an implementation section that identifies various strategies to move the plan forward which will require investment from both the public and private sector. This Del Monte Boulevard Medians & Downtown Marina Streetscape Plan represents a major public investment that will transform the medians into a welcoming and identifying placemaker for the Downtown Business District, and will begin the streetscape transformation of reducing automobile speeds and pedestrian and bike improvements envisioned in 2005 by reducing the travel lines from four to two and building key roundabouts that will better serve the City’s needs and transition away from what originally functioned as a state highway.
To that end, the City Council included $ 4M funding within the current Capital Improvement Program (Project No. EDC2126) for landscape and right -of-way streetscape improvements to serve as a change catalyst to initiate beneficial changes in the downtown.
The City also applied for and was successful in being selected for a Regional Surface Transportation Improvement Program funding in the amount of $ 1,717,500 to implement pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements at the intersection of Del Monte Boulevard and Reservation Road.
ANALYSIS:
The City has engaged the services of Wallace Group and BEK Collective to develop median landscape plans and streetscape features for consideration . The traffic engineering firm, Kimley - Horn has modeled traffic in response to a road diet (reduction from four automobile lanes to two automobile lanes with additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities), as well as intersection roundabouts at Del Monte Boul evard/ Reindollar Avenue and Del Monte Boulevard/Palm Street intersections. The road diet addresses traffic speeds with traffic calming and multi -modal improvements for more balanced and safer vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian use.
An online survey and several well attended communities outreach events were completed to collect input and feedback. The concept plans for the Del Monte Boulevard Median landscaping, downtown streetscape, and lane reallocation, and intersection roundabouts were presented to the Public Works Commission on November 16, 2023. Input from community outreach events and the Public Works Commission was addressed and are included in the presentation.
At the December 5th, 2023, City Council meeting, BEK Collective and Kimley Horn presented landscaping concept and traffic simulation for the multi -modal improvements for the Del Monte Boulevard. The traffic simulation showed that the road diet meets the city’s standards for level of service for the intersections. Additionally, it showed that the northbound and southbound travel times along Del Monte from Highway 1 to Reservation Road did not increase from today’s traffic volume and the traffic volume projected at 2040 with the road diet and two roundabouts. The road diet does not work as far as maintaining or improving travel times without the two roundabouts.
The City Council continued the discussion of this project on February 6th, 2024, City Council meeting and provided feedback to staff regarding cultural art area, plants and shrubs, median lighting, flags, bicycle safety and maintenance of proposed improvements.
Since the last presentation, staff/consultants completed the following:
• Arborist Report, EXHIBIT B
• Tree Committee Approval, EXHIBIT B
• ATP Grant Application for $14.2 million submitted for the proposed roundabouts, road diet and streetscape. The horizontal layouts of roundabouts and road diet were refined to 3 29
address Right of Way limits and enhance traffic calming features, (Roundabout footprints and median alignments are slightly different from previous presentation). • Topographic Survey of existing conditions
The Del Monte Boulevard Landscaping, Multi -Modal Improvements, and Downtown Marina Streetscape project is recommended to be phased for delivery due to funding source and construction efficiency. The Del Monte Boulevard Landscaping, Phase 1 Project will include the installation of landscaping improvements of medians between Reservation Road and Carmel Avenue. Phase 2 of the Del Monte Boulevard Landscaping will be incorporated during the construction of the proposed roundabouts and road diet and streetscape.
The arborist identified twenty-two total existing trees in the proposed project site, Del Monte Blvd. median between Reservation Road and Highway 1 on ramp. The Tree Committee approved removal of eleven trees, one (1) Monterey cypress, four (4) paperbarks, four (4) myoporums and two (2) olive trees. All trees to be removed are in poor health condition and are located within the raised median of Del Monte Blvd. Impact of the proposed construction will exa cerbate their conditions and become a safety hazard. In the event of failure any of the trees could cause a safety issue for passing cars and their occupants.
Tree replacements shall be planted at a 2:1 ratio for a total of twenty-two new trees . Staff recommends tree replacement with Monterey cypress with accent colorful low -profile trees/large shrubs such as Arbutus ‘Marina’ and Toyon. Monterey cypress is recommended as it thrives in windy areas and blends well with the existing Monterey cypress to remain.
The planting palette is a balance of California native species and high performing, low water demand, low maintenance, non - invasive, and Marina weather /soils tolerant ornamentals. This palette includes a mix of groundcovers, ornamental grasses, small to medium shrubs and accent color for texture and movement inspired by the wind and waves of the region.
The median will include hard scape of stamped concrete and cobble stones to match existing , decorative concrete and cobble stone paving to remain. The landscaping includes low , precast concrete modular walls scalloping along the median. Decorative and interactive lights will be incorporated on the walls and can be programmed to change colors for City events. Flag holders will be re-established along the medians.
The Del Monte Boulevard Median Landscape project, Phase 1 is estimated to be in construction in Spring 2025.
The Reservation Road and Del Monte Boulevard Intersections Safety Improvements Project, a grant funded project is currently being designed and will be presented at a future City Council meeting. Construction of these two projects will be coordinated to minimize public inconvenience and maximize construction efficiencies.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Del Monte Boulevard Median Landscape Demonstration project (QLR 1901) and Downtown Vitalization Implementation project (EDC2126) are included in the Capital Improvement Program with a budget of $25 ,000 and $ 4,000,000, respectively funded from the General Fund . At this point, the funding may be sufficient to cover all the median landscaping improvements. The Phase 1 landscaping is estimated to cost $2.1 million . The Phase 2 landscaping portion is estimated to cost $1.9 million.
4 30
The Del Monte Boulevard improvement portion of this project from Reservation Road to Hwy 1 consisting of the road diet reduction from four to two lanes, roundabouts, bike and pedestrian facilities, and streetscape improvements is estimated to cost $16.2 mi llion dollars. The City has applied for a $14.2 million dollar transportation grant for the design and construction of the Del Monte Boulevard improvements . This grant will require a $2.0 million dollar match (not yet funded) from the city if approved.
The project competes for a share of $568M in funding available through the Active Transportation Program Grants (ATP). Award and certification are anticipated to be announced in December of 2024 or January 2025. Design and construction of this phase of work is contingent on successful grant selection of the project
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The presentation a nd providing design input for Del Monte Boulevard landscaping and multi modal improvements and downtown Marina streetscape is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061.
CONCLUSION:
This request is submitted to the City Council for consideration and input.
Respectfully submitted,
Elvira Morla-Camacho, P.E., QSD
Project Management Services
Wallace Group
REVIEWED/CONCUR:
Layne P. Long
City Manager
City of Marina
5 31
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA
RECEIVING AN UPDATE PRESENTATION AND, PROVIDING INPUT AND
APPROVAL OF FINAL CONCEPT DESIGN AND APPROVAL OF PHASING
THE PROJECT DELIVERY FOR DEL MONTE BOULEVARD LANDSCAPING,
MULTI-MODAL IMPROVEMENTS, AND DOWNTOWN MARINA
STREETSCAPE AND AUTHORIZE CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE DE L MONTE BOULEVARD MEDIAN LANDSCAPING, PHASE 1 PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Marina is in the process of developing a Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan. One aspect of this plan is changing the right -of-way to better serve the City’s needs and transition away from what originally functioned as a state highway; and
WHEREAS, the Del Monte Boulevard Median Landscape Demonstration project (QLR 1901) and Downtown Vitalization Implementation Project (EDC2126) are included in the Capital Improvement Program with a budget of $25,000 and $4,000,000, respectively; and
WHEREAS, staff have engaged the services of the Wallace Group and BEK Collective to develop median landscape plans and streetscape features for consideration . The traffic engineering firm, Kimley-Horn has modeled traffic in response to a road diet (reduction from four automobile lanes to two automobile lanes with additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities), as well as possible intersection roundabouts on Del Monte Boulevard between Highway 1 and Reservation Road. The road diet addresses traffic calming an d multi-modal improvements for a more balance and safer vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian use; and
WHEREAS, an online survey and several well attended community outreaches were completed to collect input and feedback. The concept plans for the Del Monte Boulevard Median landscaping, downtown streetscape, and lane reallocation and intersection roundabouts were presented to the Public Works Commission on November 16, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on December 5th, 2023, the City Council Meeting, BEK and Kimly Horm presented landscaping concept and traffic simulation for the multi -modal improvements for the Del Monte Boulevard. The City Council continued the discussion of this project on February 6th, 2024, City Council meeting an d provided feedback to staff regarding cultural art area, plants and shrubs, median lighting, flags, bicycle safety and maintenance of proposed improvements.; and
WHEREAS, since the last presentation, staff completed the following: Arborist Report, EXHIBIT B, Tree Committee Approval, EXHIBIT B and ATP Grant Application submitted for the proposed roundabouts, road diet and streetscape. The horizontal layouts of roundabouts and road diet were refined to address Right of Way limits and enhance traffic calming features, (Roundabout footprints and median alignments are slightly different from previous presentation); and
WHEREAS, the presentation and providing design input for Del Monte Boulevard Landscaping and Multi Modal Improvements and Downtown Marina Streetscape Projects is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
6 32
Resolution No. 2024-
Page Two
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Marina that does hereby:
1. Received an update presentation for the Del Monte Boulevard Landscaping and Multi-Modal Improvements and Downtown Marina Streetscape; and
2. Provided input and approval of final concept design; and
3. Approved phasing the delivery of the Del Monte Boulevard Landscaping, Multi -Modal Improvements, and Downtown Marina Streetscape; and
4. Authorized Call for Bids for the Del Monte Boulevard Median Landscaping Phase 1 Project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Marina at a regular meeting duly held on the 4th day of September 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
7 33
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
& DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
City Council Meeting
September 4, 2024
34 DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
EXISTING
2 35
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
6’’
sidewalk
7’
parkway
6’
bike lane
8’
buffer
12’
travel lane
8’-30’
median
12’
travel lane
Conceptual, artistic representation, not for construction 6’
bike lane
(width varies
8’-12’)
buffer
Monterey
Rec Trail
(existing)
(width varies)
parkway
3 36
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
A beautiful and safe place
for residents and visitors of Marina
to linger,
to feel at home,
to connect with diverse people (both familiar and new), to support local businesses,
to walk and move with wellness,
to delight in art, culture, and play.
4 37
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
TREE COMMITTEE REVIEW
Trees for Removal*:
Tree Replacement
Required (2:1):
*Tree removal due to
poor/declining tree
health and potential for
disease.
11 22
5 38
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
TREE COMMITTEE REVIEW
1 4
4 0
2 11
Total Trees for
removal:
6 39
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
TRAFFIC SAFETY
Updates:
● ATP Grant Submitted
● Property/ROW limits
● Final Curve Design
7 40
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
8 41
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
PROJECT PHASING
PHASE 1
Landscape Median from
Carmel to Reservation
PHASE 2
PHASE 2
PHASE 1
9 42
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
10 43
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
11 44
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
12 45
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
Wind shapes Waves.
Waves shape Stone.
Water shapes Light.
DESIGN
CONCEPT
=
Coastal habitats and
the land that makes
Marina unique.
13 46
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
Wind Waves Breakers Swash
DESIGN CONCEPT
14 47
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
Breakers
(Medium
Shrubs and
Color)
Wind Waves
(Color and
Grasses)
Swash
(Groundcovers)
MEDIAN DESIGN - DOWNHILL VIEW
Pre-cast
Concrete
Feature Wall
With Lighting
Stamped
Concrete
Beachcomber
Cobbles
Large Trees
Accent Trees
Conceptual, artistic representation, not for construction 15 48
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
Breakers
(Medium
Shrubs and
Color)
Wind Waves
(Color and
Grasses)
Swash
(Groundcovers)
MEDIAN DESIGN - UPHILL VIEW
Pre-cast
Concrete
Feature Wall Stamped
Concrete
Maintenance
Path
Large Trees
Accent Trees
Conceptual, artistic representation, not for construction 16 49
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
Conceptual, artistic representation, not for construction Extg. Trees
Decorative
Paving
Feature Wall
With Lighting
New
Plantings
DETAILED DESIGN
17 50
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
DECORATIVE PAVING
“Sandy
Beach”
Concrete
“Beachcomber”
Cobble
18 51
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
FEATURE WALL
19 52
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
FEATURE WALL - LIGHTING
20 53
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
FEATURE WALL - LIGHTING
Conceptual, artistic representation, not for construction 21 54
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
✅ Drought-t olerant/water -wise
✅ Weed-su ppressing plants
✅ Proven winners in Marina
✅ Look good year-ro und
PLANTING DESIGN
22 55
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
PLANTING DESIGN
23 56
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
PLANTING DESIGN
24 57
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
PLANTING DESIGN
25 58
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
TREE PALETTE
Large TreesExisting Trees Accent Trees and Large Shrubs 26 59
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
PHASE ONE MEDIANS - Carmel to Reservation
27 60
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
CARMEL MORTIMER
MORTIMER
RESERVATION
PHASE ONE MEDIANS - Carmel to Reservation
28 61
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
MAINTENANCE
ACCESS
Temporary
Maintenance
Parking/Access
Temporary Turning
Lane Closure
29 62
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
Maintenance activities:
● Weed control
● Pest/rodent control
● Prevention/repair erosion control
● Trash collection
● Tree pruning
● Landscape/irrigation (3-1 0x more than hardscape)
~ $18,000 - 20,000/year
Installation:
22,000 square feet (0.5 acres)
~ $2.1 million estimated
Conceptual budget assumptions, subject to change.
DEL MONTE MEDIANS: PHASE ONE
Carmel to Reservation
30 63
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
PHASE ONE: DEL MONTE MEDIAN AND
DEL MONTE/RESERVATION INTERSECTION
PHASE TWO: DEL MONTE BLVD. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
NEXT STEPS
December 2024
January 2025
Spring 2025
2024-2025
● Final Design Documents and Permitting (Phase 1)
● Call for bids
● Start Construction
● Coordinate with grant/funding opportunities
31 64
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
City of Marina
Layne Long, City Manager
City Project Manager
Elvie Camacho, Wallace Group
Landscape Architecture
Bianca Koenig, BEK Collective
Matt Wilkins, Wallace Group
Traffic Engineering
Frederik Venter, Kimley Horn
Derek Wu, Kimley Horn
Arborist
Patric Krabacher, DD&A, Inc.
CONTACT PROJECT TEAM:
Email:
[email protected]
32 65
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
Questions?
66 DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
FULL BUILD-OUT
34 67
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
EVERGREEN TREE
Cupressus macrocarpa / Monterey Cypress
MULTI-STEM TREE
Arbutus x 'Marina’ /
Marina Strawberry Tree Multi-Trunk
Heteromeles arbutifolia / Toyon
SWASH (Groundcovers)
Arctostaphylos x 'John Dourley’ /
John Dourley Manzanita
Arctostaphylos x 'Pacific Mist’ /
Pacific Mist Manzanita
Ceanothus dentatus / Monterey Ceanothus
Ceanothus hearstiorum / Hearst's Ceanothus
Cistus salviifolius 'Prostratus’ /
Sageleaf Rockrose
Convolvulus sabatius 'Compacta’ /
Ground Morning Glory
Erigeron glaucus / Seaside Daisy
Senecio serpens / Blue Chalksticks
WIND WAVES
(Medium Shrubs, Accent Plants)
Achillea x 'Moonshine' / Moonshine Yarrow
Arctostaphylos pumila /
Sandmat Manzanita
Arctostaphylos tomentosa /
Woolly Manzanita
Bulbine frutescens / Bulbine
Ceanothus griseus horizontalis 'Yankee
Point' / Yankee Point Carmel Creeper
Cistus x pulverulentus 'Sunset’ /
Sunset Rockrose
Diplacus aurantiacus /
Sticky Monkeyflower
Festuca idahoensis 'Siskiyou Blue' /
Siskiyou Blue Fescue
Festuca mairei / Atlas Fescue
Limonium perezii / Statice
Lomandra longifolia 'Breeze' /
Breeze\U+2122 Mat Rush
Muhlenbergia dubia / Pine Muhly
Pennisetum 'Fairy Tales’ /
Evergreen Fountain Grass
Phormium tenax 'Jack Spratt’ /
Jack Spratt New Zealand Flax
Sesleria autumnalis / Autumn Moor Grass
BREAKING WAVES
(Large Shrubs, Accent Plants)
Arctostaphylos hookeri / Hooker's Manzanita
Arctostaphylos tomentosa /
Woollyleaf Manzanita
Arctostaphylos manzanita 'Dr. Hurd’ /
Dr. Hurd Common Manzanita
Arctostaphylos manzanita 'Sebastopol White' /
Sebastopol White Manzanita
Frangula californica / California Coffeeberry
Leucadendron salignum 'Chief’ /
Chief Conebush
Leucadendron x 'Safari Goldstrike’ /
Safari Goldstrike Conebush
Phormium x 'Rainbow Warrior’ /
Rainbow Warrior New Zealand Flax
Phormium x 'Yellow Wave’ /
Yellow Wave New Zealand Flax
Salvia mellifera / Black Sage
PLANT LIST
35 68
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
FULL BUILD-OUT –
Art Opportunities
Feature Wall
With Lighting
36 69
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
VEHICLE LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
37 70
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SUMMARY
38 71
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
39 DOWNTOWN GOALS SUMMARY
72 DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
40 NORTHBOUND TRAVEL TIMES
73 DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
SOUTHBOUND TRAVEL TIMES
41 74
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
CASE STUDY: LA JOLLA, SAN DIEGO, CA
42 75
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
CASE STUDY: LA JOLLA, SAN DIEGO, CA
43 76
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
TREES TO REMAIN
44 77
DEL MONTE BLVD MEDIANS
DOWNTOWN MARINA STREETSCAPE
TREES FOR REMOVAL
1 4
4 0
2 45
78 35
79 36
80 37
81 38
82 39
83 40
84 41
85 42
86 43
87 44
88 45
89 46
90 47
91 48
92 49
93 50
94 51
95 52
96 53
97 54
98 55
99 56
100
57 101
September 25, 2024 Item No. 13c
Mayor and Members of the
City Council
City Council Meeting
of October 15, 2024
CITY COUNCIL TO RECEIVE AN INFORMATIONAL UPDATE ON THE
MOBILE VENDING ORDINANCE. THE UPDATE IS NOT A PROJECT
UNDER CEQA PER SECTION 15378 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
REQUEST:
That the City Council receive a brief informational update on the status of the Mobile Vending Ordinance adopted on December 5, 2023. No action is required at this time.
BACKGROUND:
On September 28, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2023 -18 recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance to codify regulations for mobile food vending and sidewalk vending. On December 5, 2023, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2023 -15 to the Marina Municipal Code (MMC) adding Chapter 10.46 1 – Mobile Food Vending and Sidewalk Vending to Title 10 of the MMC.
UPDATE:
Applications for New Licenses. After adoption of the ordinance, staff sent an email to each of the 70± food businesses with active business licenses to let them know this service was now available. The Community Development Dept. (CDD) has issued two (2) sidewalk vending licenses for the sale of strawberries and flowers in the public right -of-way (ROW) and two (2) mobile food vending licenses in the ROW. One is for the sale of ice cream and another is a mobile taco truck.
Sidewalk Vending Enforcement. There are, from time to time, unlicensed sidewalk vendors operating in parking lots and on sidewalks throughout the City. They are contacted by our Code Enforcement Officer, who is bilingual in Spanish and English, and notified that both a City business license and a sidewalk vending license are required for them to operate; the two (2) strawberry and flower vendors that we have licensed are a direct result of this contact . When contacted, they typically pack up and leave that location only to relocate somewhere else. Per the Code, unlicensed operators are subject to enforcement under MMC Chapters 1.08, 1.10 and 1.12.
Our code enforcement officer provides each sidewalk vendor with a handout in English and Spanish with a QR code link to the City’s website. 23 The Community Development Department (CDD) has not received any complaints from residents or store management (including Walmart) about sidewalk vending.
Given the nature and low number of licenses issued, there is no update on the specific items that the Council stated that it would like to track at its December 2023 approval hearing:
- Require mobile vendors to put a “No Smoking Sign” on their trucks - Notify all brick-and-mortar restaurants of this new ordinance (done) 1 https://marina.municipal.codes/Code/10.46
2 https://www.cityofmarina.org/DocumentCenter/View/14476/Sidewalk-Vendor-Application?bidId= 3 https://www.cityofmarina.org/DocumentCenter/View/14477/Sidewalk-Vendor-Application---Spanish---05-14- 2024?bidId=
1 - Monitor if there is an over concentration of the vendors in one section of the community - Conduct outreach to interested vendors (ongoing through web/social media posts) - Examine impact of regulations on brick and mortar businesses - Allow mobile vendors in the south park area of the Dunes
Restrictions/Constraints in Ordinance Inhibiting Applications . Council members have expressed concern that the ordinance may be too complicated or burdensome for applicants.
Although staff have received a low number of inquiries from potential applicants, it is difficult to gauge whether or not this is a barrier. The food service licensing through the County is very complicated and is likely more of a burden to prospective mobile food vendors. The City’s ordinance is very similar to the City of Monterey’s and staff considered several other jurisdictions’ ordinances. The City’s application to locate within the public road right -of-way is inexpensive and simple, but all require several food safety and service license from the County’s Environmental Health, Consumer Health Protection Division4.
CONCLUSION:
Staff will continue to advertise on the City’s website, social media, and other available platforms that mobile food vending is allowed in the City of Marina and monitor establishments for the items of interest above.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________
Alyson Hunter, AICP
Planning Services Manager
City of Marina
REVIEWED/CONCUR:
______________________
Guido Persicone, AICP
CDD Director
City of Marina
Layne Long
City Manager
City of Marina
4 https://www.countyofmonterey.gov/government/departments-a-h/health/environmental-health/consumer-health- protection
2 Mobile Food & Sidewalk
Vending Follow-Up
October 1, 2024
City Council
EXHIBIT A
Background
• Spring/Summer 2023 – s taff conducted direct mailing and online outreach to existing food service providers to gauge interest • Dec. 13, 2023 – C ity Council adopts Reso. 2023-15 adding Ch. 10.46 to the Marina Municipal Code (MMC) and requests a 6-mo. Update • Winter/Spring 2024 – a fter additional outreach letting food-related business license holders know of new opportunities.
Background (con’t)
• Spring 2024 – C DD Code Enforcement Officer began contacting sidewalk vendors (English/Spanish) letting them know of requirements • May/June 2024– E nglish/Spanish sidewalk vending, ROW food truck, and private property food truck applications available online • Summer/Fall 2024 – s taff sends updated direct email to licensed food service businesses. We have issued four (4) licenses in summer/fall of 2024
Resources
• City Applications
• Link to sidewalk and mobile food applications:
• https://www.cityofmarina.org/175/Forms-Applications-and-Handouts • City Ordinance
• https://marina.municipal.codes/Code/10.46
• County of Monterey
• https://www.countyofmonterey.gov/government/departments-a- h/health/environmental-health/consumer-health-protection
Questions?