Agenda — Marina City Council, June 2, 2026 (part 2 of 4)

10 features and systems shall be designed, submitted, reviewed, installed, and tested to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief or his/her designee and in accordance with the 2025 California Fire Code, including but not limited to the following:

1. Fire Apparatus Access and Site Access
a. The project shall provide and maintain fire apparatus access in accordance with CFC Chapter 5, including:
b. Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet and vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches (or as locally amended), per CFC 503.2.1 and 503.2.1.1.
c. Approved turnaround facilities shall be provided for dead-end access roads exceeding allowable lengths, per CFC 503.2.5.
d. Fire lanes shall be maintained free of obstruction at all times and shall be marked with approved signage and striping, per CFC 503.3 and 503.4. e. Security gates shall be approved by the Fire Department and equipped with approved emergency access (e.g., Knox Box system), per CFC 503.6 and 506.1.
f. Roadways shall provide adequate turning radius for fire apparatus, per CFC 503.2.4.

2. Water Supply and Fire Flow
An approved water supply for fire protection shall be provided in accordance with CFC Chapter 5 and Appendix B / MC as adopted by the City of Marina:
a. Fire flow shall be determined based on building size, construction type, and fire protection systems, per CFC 507.3. or Appendix B
b. Fire hydrants shall be located such that all portions of the building are within the required distance, per CFC 507.5.1 and Appendix C C102.1 (Number of Hydrants).

3. Fire Protection Systems (Sprinklers and Fire Department Connections) Fire protection systems shall be installed as required and approved by the Fire Department:
a. Automatic fire sprinkler systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with CFC 903.2 2025 Monterey County Fire Code Amendment (NFPA 13 standards).
11 b. Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be located in an approved, accessible location, per CFC 912.2.
c. Underground fire service lines shall be reviewed and approved prior to installation.
d. Plans for all fire protection systems shall be submitted for review and approval prior to installation, per CFC 901.2, and systems shall be tested and accepted prior to occupancy, per CFC 901.4.

4. Hazardous Materials and Operations
The use, storage, and handling of hazardous materials shall comply with CFC Chapter 50 and applicable specialty chapters, including:
a. Flammable and combustible liquids, per CFC Chapter 57 b. Compressed gases, per CFC Chapter 53
c. Motor fuel storage and dispensing, per CFC Chapter 23 All systems shall be properly permitted, installed, and inspected prior to operation.

5. Emergency Responder Radio Coverage (ERCES)
Buildings shall provide adequate radio coverage for emergency responders in accordance with CFC 510:
a. All areas of the building shall maintain required radio signal strength, per CFC 510.4.1.1.
b. Where required, an Emergency Responder Communication Enhancement System (ERCES) shall be installed, including BDA systems and donor antennas, per CFC 510.4.
c. A radio coverage survey shall be conducted, and system design shall be approved prior to installation, per CFC 510.4.1.
d. Acceptance testing shall be completed by a qualified technician prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, per CFC 510.5.1.

6. Inspections, Testing, and Final Approval
a. All required fire and life safety systems shall be subject to inspection and approval by the Marina Fire Department.
b. Acceptance testing shall be completed for all applicable systems prior to occupancy.
12 c. No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until all fire department requirements have been satisfied and approved.

44. Tree Removal. The removal of forty four (44) trees, subject to Chapter 17.62 of the Marina Municipal Code and University Villages Specific Plan requirements, per the arborist reports submitted by Denise Duffy and Associates on April 18, 2025, May 12, 2025, and February 2026 incorporated by reference into this resolution is authorized with the approval of this project. Of the forty-four trees requested to be removed, twenty-two (22) are in good to fair condition and require replacement at a 2:1 ratio based upon the combined diameter at breast height (DBH) of the healthy trees to be removed. If said replacement trees will not be planted at Opportunity Area 3.2 (Car Dealership Site) the applicant (Mercedes Benz) shall submit a written plan for planting replacement trees within another property within University Village Specific Plan Dunes Development with written consent from Marina Community Partners for approval by the Community Development Director.

45. Replacement Planting. Replacement trees shall be fifteen-gallon trees in locations with the greatest openings to minimize competition and maximum sunlight. (If fifteen-gallon sizes are unavailable, smaller sizes may be substituted.) The spacing between trees shall be at least eight (8) feet. Watering for establishment within the first two (2) months shall be at least once (1) per week, then every two (2) weeks during the late spring, summer, and fall for two (2) years.

46. Trees #712/752. That trees #712 and #752 shall be retained to the extent feasible per the draft site plan provided by the applicant in the revised arborist report. If said trees cannot be retained the applicant shall submit documentation for review by the Community Development Director for why removal is required.

47. Native Species. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall demonstrate that a majority of the plants are native species per input from the Tree Committee on May 15, 2025.

48. Special Surveys. Prior to the removal of trees, a qualified biologist shall survey the trees for presence of roosting bats consistent with Mitigation Measure BR-5. If special-status bat species are present, the following measures shall be implemented:
a. Tree removal shall not occur if maternity bat roosts are present (between April 15 and August 1) in the trees to be removed.
b. No tree removal may occur within 300 feet of the maternity roost until all young bats have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist. c. If special-status bats are present but there is not an active maternity roost, a 13 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) must be obtained in order to remove the animals prior to tree removal. Alternate habitat may need to be provided if bats are to be excluded from maternity roosts. A roost with comparable spatial and thermal characteristics must be constructed as directed by a qualified biologist. In the event that adult bats need to be handled and relocated, a qualified biologist shall prepare and implement a relocation plan subject to approval by CDFW that includes relocating all bats found on-site to an alternate suitable habitat. A Mitigation and Monitoring Plan that mitigates for loss of bat roosting habitat must be prepared by a qualified biologist and approved by CDFW prior to tree removal.

In addition to the bat surveys above, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction nesting bird surveys within 250 feet of proposed construction activities no more than 30 days prior to construction, consistent with Mitigation Measure BR-4.1 of the University Village EIR. If active nests are found and the biologist determines that construction activities would adversely affect the nest or cause nest abandonment, those activities shall be avoided until the young have fledged, as determined by nest monitoring through the breeding season.

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

50. Site Restoration Plan. The ground surface shall be restored in the vicinity of the tree removals. Restoration shall include but not be limited to the removal of tree stumps and filling of any holes left by the removal.

51. New Trees. Tree starts that are less than six inches in diameter and that grow larger than six inches in diameter prior to the grading of the site must be replaced at 2:1 ratio, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director.

52. Permit Authorization and Signature. The planning permits are not valid, and construction shall not commence until the below affidavit is signed and the approved Conditions are returned to the Community Development Department.

a. I attest to the truth and correctness of all the facts, exhibits, maps, and attachments presented with and made a part of the application for the Mercedes Benz Project. b. I understand and agree to implement all conditions throughout the duration of the project.
c. I acknowledge that any changes to the conditions of approval would require modification of the conditional use permit by the approval authority.

14 Permittee’s Name:

Permittee’s Signature: Date:

d. I am the owner of the property involved in this project, and I authorize the person named above to act on my behalf throughout the duration of the project.

Property Owner’s Name:

Property Owner’s Signature: Date:

53. Prior to occupying the building, Shea Homes shall demonstrate compliance with City standards for curb, gutter, paving and striping. The applicant (Unstoppable Group) is responsible for improvements behind the curb. These improvements shall include but are not to limited to be off street bicycle facilities (Class 1 Pathway) as shown on the Dunes Phase 3 Off Site Improvement Plans approved by the City on February 20, 2025 in conformance with the Dunes Specific Plan and plan check comments sent to the applicant (Unstoppable Group) on March 26, 2026.

54. Additional events may occur on the property pursuant to the City’s Special Event Permit Ordinance per approvals from the City Manager or his/her designee.

55. To mitigation the project noise impacts the following conditions of approval are recommended for this project:
a. Vehicle deliveries (car carriers, parts trucks) restricted to between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., Monday through Saturday; no Sunday or holiday deliveries. b. All service bay doors shall be closed during operations producing noise audible at the northern property line, including air-tool use, impact wrench use, and engine running.
c. Outdoor PA systems and paging prohibited; all internal communications via silent paging only.
d. Backup alarms on all dealership-owned and -leased vehicles operating on-site shall use broadband (white-noise) technology rather than tonal beepers, consistent with OSHA-recognized alternatives.
e. Outdoor detailing operations (pressure washing, blowing, vacuuming), if any, limited to between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.
f. No exterior alarm horns, sirens, or audible signaling devices except for code- required fire alarms.
g. All rooftop HVAC equipment shall be acoustically screened and rated such that noise at the nearest residential property line does not exceed the applicable Marina General Plan Table 4.2 standard for the time of day.

15 56. Acoustical Analysis-Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a project-specific acoustical analysis prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer demonstrating compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and General Plan Table 4.2.

The analysis shall evaluate operational noise associated with tunnel equipment, blower dryers, vacuum stations, vehicle circulation, and any proposed outdoor mechanical equipment.

a. Noise Attenuation Measures
The project applicant shall implement all noise attenuation measures identified in the approved acoustical analysis, which may include, but are not limited to:

1. installation of acoustical barriers or masonry walls;

2. enclosure of blower and mechanical equipment;

3. use of low-noise vacuum and dryer equipment;

4. acoustical insulation and sound-absorbing materials;

5. increased setbacks from sensitive receptors, such as residential; and

6. orientation of noise-generating equipment away from residential uses.

b. Vacuum Station Restrictions- Outdoor vacuum stations, if any, shall be located as far as feasible from adjacent residential properties and shall incorporate noise-reducing equipment and acoustical shielding. Vacuum station operations shall be limited to 10 a.m. to 6pm.

c. Operational Noise Limits- Project operations shall comply with the City’s adopted noise standards at all property lines of the Project. If noise complaints are substantiated by the City following project occupancy, the applicant/operator shall implement additional corrective measures identified by a qualified acoustical consultant to achieve compliance.
d. Post-Construction Verification- Prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall provide verification from a qualified acoustical consultant confirming that all required noise mitigation measures have been installed and that operational noise levels comply with applicable City standards
LEVEL 02
14' - 0"
SHOWROOM - B.O. FASCIA
28' - 0"

PARTS MEZZANINE
12' - 0"
K QLGED FC JH H.7H.3E.9 F.9F.3 P
11' - 0"
SHOWROOM - T.O. FASCIA
31' - 0"
3' - 0"
4' - 0"
24' - 0"
28' - 0"
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
14' - 0"
SHOWROOM - B.O. FASCIA
28' - 0"

PARTS MEZZANINE
12' - 0"
SHOWROOM - T.O. FASCIA
31' - 0"
LEVEL 02
14' - 0"
SHOWROOM - B.O. FASCIA
28' - 0"

PARTS MEZZANINE
12' - 0"
10 7 3 27.911 7.1 1899.2
SHOWROOM - T.O. FASCIA
31' - 0"
6 5.8 5
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
14' - 0"
SHOWROOM - B.O. FASCIA
28' - 0"

PARTS MEZZANINE
12' - 0"
28' - 0"
B AA1.2A1.1
SHOWROOM - T.O. FASCIA
31' - 0"

THESE DOCUMENTS ARE INCOMPLETE AND NOT FOR REGULATORY

APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
CALIFORNIA REGISTERED ARCHITECT:

SHEET NOTES

GENERAL NOTES
© Gensler
Date Description
Project Name
Project Number
Description
Scale
Seal / Signature
2024
Tel 214.273.1500
Fax 214.273.1505
5005 Greenville Avenue
Dallas, TX 75206
United States
ERIC A. JAMES
LICENSE #
C-24187

P R E L I M I N A R Y
1/16" = 1'-0"
A2.00

OVERALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS

27.8360.000

MERCEDES-BENZ OF

MONTEREY

MERCEDES-BENZ

OF MONTEREY
xxxx
Marina, California
02/09/2024
SCALE: / REF: 1/16" = 1'-0"
OVERALL EXTERIOR ELEVATION - SOUTH01
SCALE: / REF: 1/16" = 1'-0" 01 A1.11A
OVERALL EXTERIOR ELEVATION - WEST02
SCALE: / REF: 1/16" = 1'-0"
OVERALL ELEVATION 05 - EAST04
SCALE: / REF: 1/16" = 1'-0" 01 A1.11A
OVERALL EXTERIOR ELEVATION - NORTH03

EXHIBIT C
32 42
LEVEL 02
14' - 0"
SHOWROOM - B.O. FASCIA
28' - 0"

PARTS MEZZANINE
12' - 0"
10 7
2' - 0"
GL10 CW01*

7.9 MT10* MT10*
MT10*
11 3' - 4 1/2" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 6' - 11" 6' - 2" 6' - 11" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 2' - 2 1/8" 4' - 0"
TYP.
4' - 0"

EQ EQ EQ EQ

89.2 SHOWROOM - T.O. FASCIA
31' - 0"
6 5.8 5
SHOWROOM - B.O. FASCIA
28' - 0"

PARTS MEZZANINE
12' - 0"
GL10 CW01*
GED
MT10*
GL10 CW01*
FC HE.9 F.9F.3
SHOWROOM - T.O. FASCIA
31' - 0"

EE DE CE AE
HE
TYP
2' - 0" 2' - 0" 1' - 5 1/2"
TYP
2' - 0"
3' - 1" 4' - 9 1/2"
TYP
4' - 9 1/2" 4' - 9 1/2" 4' - 9 1/2" 1' - 7 1/8"
TYP
4' - 9 1/2"4' - 9 1/2"
1' - 6"
2' - 0"
TYP
2' - 0"
1' - 0"
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
14' - 0"
SHOWROOM - B.O. FASCIA
28' - 0"
GL10CW01*

7.2 9.1 10.1 11.311.17.47.3
SHOWROOM - T.O. FASCIA
31' - 0"
1' - 6"
TYP
2' - 6"

EQ EQ EQ
1'-9" MIN 7' - 0" 1'-9" MIN
TYP
2' - 6"1' - 6" EE DEFE
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
14' - 0"
SHOWROOM - B.O. FASCIA
28' - 0"
GL10 CW01*
B
MT10*
AA1.2 A1.1
SHOWROOM - T.O. FASCIA
31' - 0"
IE FE
4' - 8 1/2"
TYP
4' - 8 1/2"
TYP
2' - 0"

THESE DOCUMENTS ARE INCOMPLETE AND NOT FOR REGULATORY

APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
CALIFORNIA REGISTERED ARCHITECT:

SHEET NOTES

GENERAL NOTES

KEY PLAN
© Gensler
Date Description
Project Name
Project Number
Description
Scale
Seal / Signature
2024
Tel 214.273.1500
Fax 214.273.1505
5005 Greenville Avenue
Dallas, TX 75206
United States
ERIC A. JAMES
LICENSE #
C-24187

P R E L I M I N A R Y
1/8" = 1'-0"
A2.01

BUILDING ELEVATIONS - AREA A

27.8360.000

MERCEDES-BENZ OF

MONTEREY

MERCEDES-BENZ

OF MONTEREY
xxxx
Marina, California
02/09/2024
SCALE: / REF: 1/8" = 1'-0" 01 A1.11A
EXTERIOR ELEVATION - AREA A EAST04
SCALE: / REF: 1/8" = 1'-0"
EXTERIOR ELEVATION - AREA A SOUTH01
SCALE: / REF: 1/8" = 1'-0" 01 A1.11A
EXTERIOR ELEVATION - AREA A WEST02
SCALE: / REF: 1/8" = 1'-0" 01 A1.11A
EXTERIOR ELEVATION - AREA A NORTH03

EXHIBIT C
33 43
LEVEL 02
14' - 0"
SHOWROOM - B.O. FASCIA
28' - 0"

PARTS MEZZANINE
12' - 0"
10732 7.97.1 9 9.2
SHOWROOM - T.O. FASCIA
31' - 0"

65.8 LEVEL 02
14' - 0"
SHOWROOM - B.O. FASCIA
28' - 0"

PARTS MEZZANINE
12' - 0"
K
Q
L
MT10*
EP01* SC01
JH H.7H.3 P
SHOWROOM - T.O. FASCIA
31' - 0"
LEVEL 02
14' - 0"
SHOWROOM - B.O. FASCIA
28' - 0"

PARTS MEZZANINE
12' - 0"
KL J H.7 H.3P
SHOWROOM - T.O. FASCIA
31' - 0"
LEVEL 02
14' - 0"
SHOWROOM - B.O. FASCIA
28' - 0"

PARTS MEZZANINE
12' - 0"
3 2
EP01*
MT10*
SC01

7.19 SHOWROOM - T.O. FASCIA
31' - 0"
SCALE: / REF: 1/8" = 1'-0" 01 A1.11A
EXTERIOR ELEVATION - AREA B WEST02

THESE DOCUMENTS ARE INCOMPLETE AND NOT FOR REGULATORY

APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
CALIFORNIA REGISTERED ARCHITECT:

SHEET NOTES

GENERAL NOTES

P R E L I M I N A R Y
1/8" = 1'-0"
A2.02

BUILDING ELEVATIONS - AREA B

27.8360.000

MERCEDES-BENZ OF

MONTEREY

MERCEDES-BENZ

OF MONTEREY
xxxx
Marina, California
02/09/2024
SCALE: / REF: 1/8" = 1'-0" 01 A1.11A
EXTERIOR ELEVATION - AREA B SOUTH01
SCALE: / REF: 1/8" = 1'-0" 01 A1.11B
EXTERIOR ELEVATION - AREA B NORTH03
SCALE: / REF: 1/8" = 1'-0"
EXTERIOR ELEVATION - AREA B EAST04

EXHIBIT C
34 44
unstoppablegroup.com 40910 Temecula Center Drive
Building Relationships One Guest at a Time Temecula, CA 92951 Submitted via Email and On-line Portal
February 27, 2026
Guido Persicone
Community Development Director
City of Marina
RE: Submittal of Site Plan and Design Review Application Mercedes-Benz of Monterey Dealership
Applicant/Owner: Unstoppable Automotive MBMCA, LLC , a California limited liability company dba Mercedes-Benz of Monterey
Architect: Gensler
Ass essor Parcel Number: A PN for parcel OP-3.2 is 031-221-025 Dear Mr. Persicone,
Attached to this letter is the submittal of a Site Plan and Design Review Application (SADRA) for development of the Mercedes-Benz dealership in the City of Marina. This application has been prepared by a team of architects, engineers, arborists and other consultants and is intended to be as responsive and complete relating to the City’s requirements. I ncluded in this submittal are 16 exhibits, including site plans, landscape plans, tree removal plans and other information necessary to support the application. This application does contain the arborist report and necessary ﬁndings for issuance of the tree removal permit as well.

It is our understanding that this application is subject to review and approval by the Planning Commi ssion, with review and ﬁnal approval by the City Council, per their previous request last year. W e appreciate the timely review by staff and opportunity to clarify and provide additional information as necessary to present the application for approval to the Planning Commi ssion and City Coun cil in an expeditious manner. S eparate and apart

EXHIBIT D
35 45

unstoppablegroup.com 40910 Temecula Center Drive
Building Relationships One Guest at a Time Temecula, CA 92951

from this application, will be a submittal for the proposed south City monument or gateway sign, as the City Coun cil had requested previously.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this application, and our team and I look forward to meeting with the City’s review team.

Unstoppable Automotive MBMCA, LLC.

By:

Name: Garth Blumenthal
Title: Owner
36 46
Mercedes SADRA Submittal Page 1

SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (SADRA)

Project Summary
The project consists of site development for a new ground-up construction of a Mercedes- Benz of Monterey dealership (Project). The Project will include a sales showroom for vehicles and Sprinter vans, Service Shop with attached car wash, and a standalone detail building for the Sprinter Vans.

The Commercial Development Standards Worksheet (Exhibit 1), Project Description form (Exhibit 2), Environmental Setting form (Exhibit 3) are all attached for reference.

Project Team
Developer/Owner – Garth Blumenthal, [email protected], Ken Roycroft, [email protected], 949-521-0000

Building and Lead Architect – Gensler, Deeg Synder, [email protected] , Abbey Teeters, [email protected], 214-273-1543

Civil Engineer – Whitson Engineering, Andy Whitson,
[email protected] , Carrie Wright, [email protected] 831-649-5225

Landscape Architect – VTA, Byron Williams, [email protected] 707-224- 2299

Arborist – DDA, Patric Krabacher, [email protected] 831-373-4341x29

Entitlements/Planning – Doug Yount, [email protected], 831-277-3918

Site Plan
To illustrate the site design of the Project, please refer to the Preliminary Site Plan (Exhibit 4), Preliminary Drainage and Grading Plan (Exhibit 5), Preliminary Utility Plan (Exhibit 6).

Traffic/Circulation
Auto-turn analysis has been performed for a fire apparatus truck and a vehicle hauler, illustrating compatible turning radii throughout the Project site. Exhibits illustrating this access/turning have been included in the submission: Fire Vehicle Turning (Exhibit 7), Auto Carrier Turning (Exhibit 8). Project site design has been carefully planned so that no auto 37 47
Mercedes SADRA Submittal Page 2
carrier truck traffic will conflict with the Dunes neighborhoods to the north east, allowing trucks to enter and exit into the Project site for loading and unloading.

Off-site traffic to and from the site is assumed to follow patterns and volumes as anticipated within the traffic analyses of the certified EIR for the Specific Plan, as originally performed, and through subsequent addendums, as appropriate. Commute traffic to the Project for dealership workforce could be further mitigated by the forthcoming large MST transit center just to the north on First Avenue. As the Dunes master plan project is developing within the parameters of the Specific Plan, including the Project site, and that surrounding developments, including Campus Town, Sea Haven, etc, are developing within intensities and densities well within the Base Reuse Plan EIR and Specific Plan EIR cumulative analyses, no additional traffic analysis is anticipated to be needed or required.

Additionally, First Avenue has been recently redesigned and improved to the standards of the City of Marina for commercial and office development uses, particularly within the Specific Plan area surrounding the Project site. Ideally, First Avenue to the south of the Project site would remain two-way from Divarty to LIghtfighter, but this improvement is within the City of Seaside, and outside control of the Project developer, and possibly the City of Marina.

Landscaping
There is significant landscaping planned for the Project as illustrated on Exhibit 9 Preliminary Landscape Plan. Careful attention has been given to the planting palette to maximize the success of the plant and tree species in the marine climate of Marina. The preliminary concepts proposed for this Project include a variety of landscape features throughout, including 5 varieties of trees, 15 +/- species of shrubs and ground cover, all providing rich diversity, seasonal color and textural interest to the landscape design.

These landscaping features also front the facility along First Avenue, enhancing visual intrigue for public view, and are consistent with the modern, open format architectural design of the primary building.

Noise compliance
All noise compliance requirements will be met in accordance with the standards of the Specific Plan and City of Marina’s Municipal Code. There will be no outdoor speaker use on the site. Service of vehicles will be conducted in enclosed service bays, with access doors closed. Washing of vehicles will be on the north side of the Project site, facing future commercial uses, and away from the residential uses to the east. Site design allows for 38 48
Mercedes SADRA Submittal Page 3
the loading and unloading of vehicles on the Project site, not in the street, nor in adjacent streets (ie 3rd Street).

Lighting and Dark Sky Compliance
All dark sky’s regulations of the Specific Plan will be met. The lighting design is a compliment to the significant architectural quality of the Project, but also provides functionality of the property for both indoor and outdoor automotive sales. High efficiency fixtures and sophisticated optics are proposed which direct light where needed, without excessive glare. Dark sky principles are adhered to throughout the site, with uplighting of buildings and trees discouraged, and shielding of high intensity lighting fixtures. Particular attention is provided in lighting to minimize the effect of light dispersion to adjacent residential neighborhoods to the northeast. The lighting fixtures adhere to a consistent design theme throughout that compliments the high quality architecture of the buildings.

The specific lighting plan, photometrics, and fixture design to meet these requirements will be included in the building permit application.

Parking
Provided in Exhibit 4, Project Site Plan, is a parking analysis with all the relevant parking allocations identified. The table from this exhibit is replicated below:

39 49
Mercedes SADRA Submittal Page 4
As illustrated, the Project site exceeds the parking requirements as provided for in the Specific Plan and building code. All customer, service, delivery, and employee parking is conducted on-site. It is anticipated that some customers may park on First Avenue adjacent to the dealership, as is customary in any automobile dealership use. The site plan, however, allows for all anticipated customer parking on-site.

Building Design Elevations
Provided in Exhibit 10 are the Building Elevations for the Project. This exhibit includes four- sided elevations. Additionally, a video simulation flyby is provided in the following link:

https://vimeo.com/1168245102/6053e8e725?share=copy&fl=cl&fe=ci

As seen in the video and on the site plan, a significant amount of screening from Highway 1 will still exist on the site from the existing Cal Trans tree line adjacent to the Project.

Additionally, the landscape plan provides significant additional trees throughout the Project.

Sign concepts
Preliminary building signage has been identified on the building elevations, provided in Exhibit 10, Building Elevations. The specific site signage design will be addressed in a separate submission to the City, coordinating with the City’s signage requirements of the Specific Plan Master Sign Program, as amended.

General and Specific Plan Compatibility/Consistency
The Project is fully compliant and consistent with the University Villages Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and the City of Marina’s General Plan (General Plan), as it relates to land use and zoning designation, design principles relating to commercial landscaping, site design, architecture, and lighting.

Zoning/Land Use Compatibility
The Project, as an automobile sales and service facility is compatible with both the General Plan and Specific Plan use designations. Provided in Exhibit 11 is a letter from the City Manager, dated December 1, 2023, confirming the determination of specific zoning compatibility with the Specific Plan use categories.

On a broader sense, this Project meets many of the overall goals and objectives of the General Plan (GP), under Section 1.18, as follows:
40 50
Mercedes SADRA Submittal Page 5
• GP Goal D, creating significant jobs to help create a favorable jobs/housing balance to create opportunities to both work and live in Marina; • GP Goal I, by creating a diversified and sound economic base through creation of significant sales tax revenue to assist Marina in funding high -quality public services to residents and businesses;
• GP Goal O, creating an attractive and distinctive commercial district contributing to the overall vitality, image and identity of Marina.

Additionally, the Project as proposed conforms with goals from the Base Reuse Plan (BRP)for the former Fort Ord (as has been incorporated into the City’s General Plan and Specific Plan), examples as follows:
• BRP Community Design Vision, Chapter 3, General Development Character and Design Objectives, Objective 4, protecting the visual quality for the State Highway 1 scenic corridor through: 1) maintaining the minimum 100 ft development setback; 2) maintaining the maximum building height for the corridor aiding in the massing and orientation of the building; 3) maintaining the natural view from Highway 1 to the Project through preservation of the trees within the Caltrans right of way adjacent to the Project.
• BRP Community Design Vision, Chapter 3, General Development Character and Design Objectives, Objective 8, create uses which encourage the use and compliment the Fort Ord Transportation Center at First Avenue: the Project will create significant jobs within walking distance of the new MST transit facility on First Avenue within the overall Dunes master plan area.

Compatibility with Primary Specific Plan Design Principles The Project meets the intent of the primary Specific Plan design principles as noted below:

Commercial Landscaping
(Page 82)
The preliminary concepts proposed for this Project include a variety of landscape features throughout, including 5
varieties of trees, 15 +/- species of shrubs and ground cover, all providing rich diversity, seasonal color and textural interest to the landscape design. These landscaping
features also front the facility along First Avenue, enhancing visual intrigue for public view, and are consistent with the modern, open format architectural design of the primary building. Planting materials are highly adapted and
compatible with the marine environment in Marina.

Site Design (Page 65) The Site Plan for the Project is compatible with the Business Park design principles for the Specific Plan, namely,
providing a positive visual identity from the surrounding 41 51
Mercedes SADRA Submittal Page 6
properties, building entrances are clearly articulated with distinct architectural elements, with signage that create strong simple orientation for employees, visitors, and
deliveries. Landscape is positioned to screen loading and utilitarian portions of the site on the north and northwest end of the Project. Pedestrian paths fronting First Avenue and near the primary sales building are lined with trees to provide a comfortable walking environment.

Architecture (Page 65-66) The architecture of the buildings for the Project is both aesthetically pleasing and functionally efficient. The design quality of the sales and showroom facility is of significant aesthetic character, reflecting the quality stature of the automotive brand in the market, and likely will be a signature building for Marina. The design is a composition of distinct but related forms, without flat unarticulated wall planes, unique roof and glass panel construction. Rooftop
mechanical equipment is screened from ground level view.

Materials are of superior quality, including ample use of glass throughout.

Lighting Plan (Page 72) The lighting design is a compliment to the significant architectural quality of the Project, but also provides functionality of the property for both indoor and outdoor automotive sales. High efficiency fixtures and sophisticated optics are proposed which direct light where needed,
without excessive glare. Dark sky principles are adhered to throughout the site, with uplighting of buildings and trees discouraged, and shielding of high intensity lighting fixtures.

Particular attention is provided in lighting to minimize the effect of light dispersion to adjacent residential
neighborhoods to the north east. The lighting fixtures adhere to a consistent design theme throughout that
compliments the high quality architecture of the buildings.

Tree Preservation and Removal/Replacement Plan
Summary
Development of the Project site will entail the removal of 41 Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) trees under the approval of a tree removal permit specifically for this Project development. This removal will be mitigated by the replacement of these trees at the required mitigation of replacing every healthy (good or fair) tree at a 2:1 ratio per the UVSP , plus additional trees at the Project Applicant’s discretion, for a total of 44 replacement trees (3 trees surveyed are dead, and 16 are in poor condition, leaving 22 42 52
Mercedes SADRA Submittal Page 7
trees eligible for replacement mitigation). A total of 67 trees will be planted on the Project site overall.

Tree Survey/Arborist Report
The Project site was surveyed by a professional arborist/environmental scientist, Patric Krabacher, of Denise Duffey & Associates, Inc. The tree survey (Survey) is provided in Exhibit 12, along with the findings and detail, constituting the arborists report per the requirements of the UVSP and MMC. The Survey identified a total of 42 Monterey cypress trees, wherein, 52% are in healthy (good or fair) condition or better and eligible under the criteria for tree replacement. As a result of the proposed project, 41 Monterey cypress trees would require removal for the construction of the project pursuant to existing plans. Three (3) trees proposed for removal are dead; therefore, a tree removal permit is required for the remaining 38 live trees. Tree removal must incorporate the mitigation measures and regulatory requirements of the FEIR, the MMRP , and the UVSP Tree Standards.

Efforts were made to retain two (2) additional Monterey cypress trees (Tree Nos. 712 and 752) through design modifications; however, these efforts were determined to be infeasible. Meetings with the project’s Civil Engineer (Whitson Engineers) explored options to preserve Tree Nos. 712 and 752, but it was ultimately concluded that preservation would require the construction of extensive retaining walls. The retaining walls would significantly impact > 30% of the CRZ of these trees and the ultimate survival of the two (2) trees cannot be guaranteed.

Tree Committee and Planning Commission Direction
The Tree Committee initially met on April 30, 2025, for consideration of the tree removal application for Phase 3 commercial development areas of the Dunes, which incorporated the Project site (as to site delivery only, not development nor tree removal). The tree committee met for a tour of the site and affected trees specifically for the Project site as well. Subsequently, the Tree Committee reviewed the application at their meeting on May 15, 2025. In addition to the standard findings for tree removal permit application approval, the following specific recommendations were made by the Tree Committee regarding a future application for development of the Project Site (beyond the site delivery tree removal permit approved):

5. That trees #712 and #752 shall be retained to the extent feasible, per the draft site plan provided by the applicant in the revised arborist report. If said trees cannot be retained the applicant shall submit documentation for review by the Community Development Director for why removal is required.
43 53
Mercedes SADRA Submittal Page 8

Removal is required because the construction of retaining walls to preserve these two trees would impact >30% of the critical root zone of both trees, these impacts were discussed over multiple design changes/meetings, and it was determined that a more natural slope and planting is recommended. Additional information can be provided here from the engineering and site design analysis that concluded that it was infeasible to retain these two trees.

6. Staff to work with the applicant on the recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding incorporating more California native species on the site. (taken from the recommendation slide for the Tree Committee)

The Planning Commission, on June 12, 2025, approved resolution 2025-08 for the Dunes Phase 3 tree removal permit (but specifically not approving tree removal for the Project site), and in doing so, incorporated the above recommendations (See Exhibit 13 attached for a copy of the resolution). Attached to the resolution are standard conditions of approval for tree removal per the UVSP and MMC which will also be required for the application for this Project site development, specifically conditions: 1. Arborist Report, 2.

Special Surveys, 3. Display of Tree Removal Permit, 4. Replacement Trees, 5 Replacement planting, 6. Site Restoration Plan, 7. New Trees. The Applicant intends to meet those conditions in the development of the site.

The Applicant engineers and architects have reviewed this request from the Tree Committee/Planning Commission and have preliminarily concluded that Tree No. 732 could be saved by modifying the Site Plan parking on the west side. This conclusion is based on a preliminary determination of grading, slopes, and retaining walls, but final determination will come during the preparation of improvement plans specific for the civil improvements on the site, including final grading and preparation of the site paving and landscaping improvements.

Required Findings for Issuance of a Tree Removal Permit Per MMC 17.62.060 C, the following is the response to the required findings for a tree removal permit (response to findings in italics):

1. The tree is in poor condition and is in danger of falling within proximity to existing structures, high pedestrian traffic areas such as parking lots, playgrounds and pedestrian walkways, or interference with utility services that cannot be controlled 44 54
Mercedes SADRA Submittal Page 9
or remedies through reasonable preservation and/ or preventive procedures and practices: or

2. The tree is host to a plant, or insect, or other parasitic organism which endangers other adjacent healthy trees; or

A certified arborist assessed the 41 trees proposed for removal and did not find any invasive insects nor parasitic organisms which endanger other adjacent healthy trees.

3. The location of more than three (3) trees conflict with the construction of street or sidewalk improvements, storm drain, traffic signals or signs;

Infrastructure and development of the Project Site conflicts with the health of trees on the site. The location of multiple trees proposed for removal would interfere with these improvements, as documented on the Site Plan and in the Arborists Report. As a result of the proposed project, 41 Monterey cypress trees would require removal for the construction of the project pursuant to existing plans. The removal of the 41 trees would impact on the existing windbreak; however, a majority of the windbreak would be retained within the California Department of Transportation right-of-way adjacent to the western project boundary. Therefore, the removal of these trees is not anticipated to completely remove the windbreak. A tree removal permit from the City is required for all living trees.

Three (3) trees proposed for removal are dead; therefore, a tree removal permit is required for the remaining 38 live trees. Tree removal must incorporate the mitigation measures and regulatory requirements of the FEIR, the MMRP , and the UVSP Tree Standards.

4. The number of trees on the site is in excess of the number of health trees the site is able to support, based on such consideration as tree species, growth characteristics, general health of the stand, tree age, solar orientation and soil condition; or

A certified arborist assessed the health of individual trees within the project area and this does not apply.

5. The applicant outlines other clearly documented and compelling reasons for the removal or relocation of a tree which do not include the elimination of falling leaves or shade, or improving a view; and

45 55
Mercedes SADRA Submittal Page 10
Trees within contiguous forest are not recommended for transplanting due to the intertwining of roots with adjacent trees and lack of reaction wood. These trees are not typically capable of supporting themselves without the structural support of the surrounding forest. Mass damping is a natural mechanism where branches and foliage sway to absorb and dissipate wind energy, allowing trees to minimize structural loads on the trunk and roots and increase mechanical stability during storms. Mass damping is vital to the structural stability of trees and forests and when you have a contiguous forest like the one on the western portion of the project all these trees work together against the natural elements.

6. The tree does not serve as a windbreak system, or assist in drainage or in the avoidance of soil erosion, or serve as a component of wildlife habitat, or otherwise play a prominent role in maintaining the existing urban forest; and

The removal of the 41 trees would impact on the existing windbreak; however, a majority of the windbreak would be retained within the California Department of Transportation right- of-way adjacent to the western project boundary. Therefore, the removal of these trees is not anticipated to completely remove the windbreak.

7. Due to the tree’s aesthetic contribution to the area, the removal would not have a substantial detrimental effect on neighboring property values; and

The determination of a trees value to property is difficult to assess; however, removal of these trees would not interrupt adjacent property’s views of the substantial tree line on the Cal Trans property to the west of the Project site, as those trees remain. Trees to be removed on the western boundary abut the trees on the Cal Trans property to the west, and thus, that tree line would remain as an aesthetic buffer from adjacent properties to the Project site with views to the highway.

8. If the removal is concurrent with development plans for the property and the development plans indicate it is necessary to remove or relocate the tree to enable reasonable and conforming use of the property, which is otherwise prevented by the location of the tree.

This applies to all 41 trees proposed for removal. Please reference Exhibit 14 Tree Removal Plan, and the Site Plan, Exhibit 4.

46 56
Mercedes SADRA Submittal Page 11
Project Site Tree Removal Plan
Provided in Exhibit 14 is the tree removal plan prepared for the applicant by DD&A which illustrates the 41 trees to be removed.

Tree Replanting/Replacement Plan
Provided in Exhibit 9 is the Project preliminary tree planting plan (part of the Landscape Plan exhibit) prepared by VTA illustrating the variety of trees to be planted as part of the landscaping for the Project. As noted previously, the Applicant intends to plant approximately 44 total trees on the Project Site, replacing the 22 healthy trees required pursuant to MMC at a ratio of 2:1 mitigation (44 required plantings) plus an estimated additional 23 trees, for a total of approximately 67 onsite replacement plantings, pending preparation of Final Landscape Improvement Plans.

Exhibits

1. Project Description

2. Commercial Development Standards Worksheet

3. Environmental Information

4. Preliminary Site Plan

5. Preliminary Grading and Drainage plan

6. Preliminary Utility Plan

7. Fire Vehicle Turning

8. Auto Carrier Turning

9. Preliminary Landscaping Plan (and Tree Replacement Plan)

10. Building Elevations

11. Letter from the City Manager, dated December 1, 2003, Confirming the Determination of Specific Zoning Compatibility

12. Arborist Report and Tree Assessment Survey

13. June 12, 2025, Resolution 2025-08 of the Planning Commission

14. Tree Removal Plan
47 57

PROJECT DESCRIPTION FORM

Name of Project Applicant:

Mailing Address: _______________________
Phone: ___ Email:__________________________________________________ Name of the project:

Project location (address and/or Assessor’s Parcel Number(s):

Size of project site (acreage):

Existing General Plan Land Use Designation:

Existing Zoning Designation:

Describe the existing land use(s) of the site:

Describe the existing land use of properties surrounding the site:

Describe the proposed land use(s)/Project:

48 58

For residential uses, indicate the number, type, and size of the units, and the estimated range of the sale and rental prices:

For commercial uses, indicate the type (neighborhood, city, or regional orientation), the total square footage, the estimated number of employees, and the hours of operation:

For industrial uses, indicate the type, the total square footage, the estimated number of employees, and the hours of operation:

For other uses, indicate the major function, the total square footage, the estimated number of employees, and the hours of operation:

List and describe any other permits or public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state, and federal agencies:

Are there water, sewer, gas, electric, and telecommunication facilities available to the project site? ( ) Yes ( ) No If no, are connections to these facilities proposed?

49 59

Please describe any odor, noise, smoke, or dust which will result from the proposed development or use:

Will there be any potentially hazardous materials, toxic substances, or flammable materials used, stored, manufactured, or disposed of at the project site? ( ) yes ( ) no If yes, please explain:

Please describe the proposed scheduling and phasing of the project’s construction:

If the project involves demolition or removal through alteration of an existing dwelling unit or units; indicate if unit(s) have been rented in the past five (5) years and if they are occupied if the tenants are considered lower income households as defined by CA Health & Safety Code Section 50079.5:
___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________

Please provide any additional relevant information that can assist in the processing of this application:

50 60
Community Development Department | 209 Cypress Ave | Mail: 211 Hillcrest Ave, Marina, CA 93933 Tel: 831.884.1220 | Email: [email protected]

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKSHEET

Applicant’s Name:

Zoning District:

Please fill in the following numerical information for your permit application:

Existing Proposed Permitted /
Require d
Units, & Parking Spaces
Number of Commercial Units (#)

Number of Dwelling Units (#)
Mixed-use projects only

Number of Parking Spaces (#)
Yards and Height
Front Yard Setback (Feet)

Side Yard Setbacks:
(facing property) Left: (Feet)

Right: (Feet)

Rear Yard Setback (Feet)
Building Height (# Stories)

Maximum Height (Feet)
Areas
Lot Area (Square-Feet)

Gross Floor Area (Square- Feet)
Total Area Covered by All Floors

Building Footprint (Square- Feet)
Total of All Structures

Floor Area Ratio

Project Address: Date:

51 61

PLANNING DIVISION  209 Cypress Avenue  Mail: 211 Hillcrest Ave. Marina CA 93933 Telephone (831) 884-1220  Fax (831) 884-9654  www.ci.marina.ca.us

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Please provide the following information on a separate piece of paper:

 Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, cultural and historic resources, and any scenic aspects of the sites.

Describe any existing structures on the site and the uses of those structures.

 Describe the surrounding properties, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, cultural and historic resources, and any scenic aspects of the area. Indicate the type and intensity of land uses, and the scale of the development.

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST:

Would the Project result in the following (provide a brief description for each item checked “yes”):

Change in existing features of any streams, creeks, lakes, or wetlands: ( )Yes ( ) No

Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public land or roads: ( ) Yes ( ) No

Use or disposal of hazardous, toxic or flammable materials or explosives: ( ) Yes ( ) No

Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream, or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns: ( ) Yes ( ) No

Change in pattern, scale, or character of surrounding area of project: ( ) Yes ( ) No

52 62

PLANNING DIVISION  209 Cypress Avenue  Mail: 211 Hillcrest Ave. Marina CA 93933 Telephone (831) 884-1220  Fax (831) 884-9654  www.ci.marina.ca.us

Significant amounts of solid waste or litter: ( ) Yes ( ) No

Substantial alteration to topography or ground contours: ( ) Yes ( ) No

Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes, or odors in the vicinity of the project: ( ) Yes( ) No

Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity: ( ) Yes ( ) No

Building on filled land or on a slope of 10 percent or more: ( ) Yes ( ) No

Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewer, etc.): ( ) Yes ( ) No

Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc): ( ) Yes ( ) No

Relationship to a larger project or a series of projects: ( ) Yes ( ) No

Substantial change or increase of traffic on surrounding roads and highways: ( ) Yes ( ) No

53 63
UP
OZONE
UNIT
FILTER
STAND

RECLAIM
UNIT
∅4'
1ST
TANK
∅4'
2ND
TANK
∅4'
3RD
TANK
30"
R.O. UNIT JET
PUMP
∅22"
BRINE
TANK
∅19"
∅3'
R.O.

TANK
∅3'
R.O.

TANK
10"
55"
DRYING
AGENT
∅2'
SOAP
BLOWER
PANEL

VEHICLE

RECOMMENDED

FLOOR DRAIN

RECOMMENDED

FLOOR DRAIN
3'X3'X3'

CATCH BASIN
R
L R
L L R
LR
CITY
IN
CITY
IN
REC
OUT
REC
OUT
01 11
24 8
8 8
3 19
12 CABRILLO HWY

DIVARTY ST
1ST AVENUE
________ ________ 02
A0.21
________ ________ 01
A0.25
R 52' - 0"
R 52' - 0"
08 9
9 24
24 24
24 16
6 12
88 12
12 18
12 10
7 8
412
10 3
1210
PARKING TOTAL: 366 SPACES
24' FIRELANE

CONCRETE

LANDSCAPE

THESE DOCUMENTS ARE INCOMPLETE AND NOT FOR REGULATORY

APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
CALIFORNIA REGISTERED ARCHITECT:

A
B

SHEET NOTES

GENERAL NOTES

P R E L I M I N A R Y
As indicated
A0.10

ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN

27.8360.000

MERCEDES-BENZ OF

MONTEREY

MERCEDES-BENZ

OF MONTEREY
xxxx
Marina, California
05/10/2024
SCALE: / REF: 1" = 30'-0" 02 A2.00
SITE PLAN - LEVEL 0101

PARKING CALCULATIONS

PARKING SUMMARY PROVIDED REQUIRED
STANDARD STALLS (9 X 19')* 227
ADA STALLS (9' X 19') 9
TOTAL 366 236
INVENTORY STALLS (8.5'X17')* 163 TBD BY OWNER
SERVICE STALLS 100 88
PUBLIC 100 100
*2.5' MAX LANDSCAPE OVERHANG WHERE APPLICABLE
01 PROPERTY LINE
02 CUSTOMER ENTRANCE
3 FUTURE EV CAPABLE PARKING (2 SHARED

SPACES)
03 ADA CROSS ACCESS STRIPING
4 EV CHARGING STATION (2 SHARED SPACES)
04 ROOF CANOPY OVERHEAD
05 DETECTABLE WARNING STRIP; CONTRACTOR TO

PROVIDE A DETECTABLE WARNING PRODUCT

SAMPLE TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR

APPROVAL OF COLOR CONTRAST WITH FINISH

SURFACE
6 EV CHARGING STATION (2 SHARED SPACES)
06 TRASH ENCLOSURE, REF ARCH DRAWINGS
7 EV CHARGING STATION (2 SHARED SPACES)
07 FLUSH MOUNTED KNOX BOX
8 <varies>
08 BENCH AS SPECIFIED
9 FUTURE EV CAPABLE PARKING (2 SHARED

SPACES)
09 ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL
10 <varies>
11 <varies>
12 <varies>
13 ADA PARKING SPACE WITH PAVEMENT MARKING,

LOADING ZONE, WHEEL STOP, AND ADA

SIGNAGE
14 EV CHARGING STATION (2 SHARED SPACES)
15 FUTURE EV CAPABLE PARKING (2 SHARED

SPACES)
16 <varies>
17 RETACTABLE ROLLING SECTURITY GATE WITH

CONTROL BOX, REF ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS
18 <varies>
19 EXTERIOR RAMP WITH WALL MOUNTED
HANDRAILS; REF ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS
20 SECURITY FENCE
21 SCREEN WALL AS SPECIFIED
22 CONCRETE COLOR TRANSITION; CONFIRM

COLORS WITH ARCHITECT
24 <varies>
25 BIKE RACK
26 MAIN SWITCHBOARD; REF ELECTRICAL
27 MAIN SWITCHBOARD; REF ELECTRICAL
9 357

PARKING REQUIREMENTS
(PER MARINA MUNICIPAL ZONIG CODE, CHAPTER 10 & 17)
AUTOMOTIVE USERS:

SERVICE AND REPAIR - 4 SPACES/BAY
22 SERVICE BAYS X 4 = 88 SPACES
COMMERCIAL USERS - RETAIL AND SERVICE & BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL:
(PER CH. 17.44 PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF MARINA MUNICIPAL CODE) 1 SPACES / 275 GSF
62,300 / 275 = 227 SPACES
LOADING / INVENTORY SPACES REQUIRED:

DIVARTY STREET
PARCEL OP-3.2

6.168 AC
TRACT 1569
24-C&T-93

EARTHWORK SUMMARY
SHEET
OF
SCALE:

DRAWN:

JOB No.:

SUBMITTAL / REVISION

NOT VALID

WITHOUT

SIGNATURE
Civil Engineering
Land Surveying
6 Harris Court
Monterey, California
831.649.5225
whitsonengineers.com
1"=30'
CW
3140.62
XB 5 MERCEDES-BENZ OF MARINA

GROUND-UP CAR DEALERSHIP FACILITY
EXHIBIT 5

PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
NW CORNER 1ST AVE AND DIVARTY STREET
Marina, California
APN

PRELIMINARY DESIGN
2/13/2026
CW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL COORDINATION SET

GENERAL NOTES

CONSTRUCTION KEYNOTES
E INE
S
ON
W
E
N
IT
H
S
GR

PROPOSEDLEGENDEXISTING

ABBREVIATIONS
55 65
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STATE HIGHWAY 1
1ST AVENUE
62' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
(A CITY STREET)

DIVARTY STREET
PARCEL OP-3.2

6.168 AC
TRACT 1569
24-C&T-93
SHEET
OF
SCALE:

DRAWN:

JOB No.:

SUBMITTAL / REVISION

NOT VALID

WITHOUT

SIGNATURE
Civil Engineering
Land Surveying
6 Harris Court
Monterey, California
831.649.5225
whitsonengineers.com
1"=30'
CW
3140.62
XB 6 MERCEDES-BENZ OF MARINA

GROUND-UP CAR DEALERSHIP FACILITY
EXHIBIT 6

PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
NW CORNER 1ST AVE AND DIVARTY STREET
Marina, California
APN

PRELIMINARY DESIGN
2/13/2026
CW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL COORDINATION SET

UTILITY KEYNOTES
E INE
S
ON
W
E
N
IT
H
S
GR

STORMWATER INFORMATION
56 66
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STATE HIGHWAY 1
1ST AVENUE
62' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
(A CITY STREET)

DIVARTY STREET
PARCEL OP-3.2

6.168 AC
TRACT 1569
24-C&T-93
SHEET
OF
SCALE:

DRAWN:

JOB No.:

SUBMITTAL / REVISION

NOT VALID

WITHOUT

SIGNATURE
Civil Engineering
Land Surveying
6 Harris Court
Monterey, California
831.649.5225
whitsonengineers.com
1"=30'
CW
3140.62
XB 7 MERCEDES-BENZ OF MARINA

GROUND-UP CAR DEALERSHIP FACILITY
EXHIBIT 7

PRELIMINARY VEHICULAR TURNING
NW CORNER 1ST AVE AND DIVARTY STREET
Marina, California
APN

PRELIMINARY DESIGN
2/13/2026
CW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL COORDINATION SET
E INE
S
ON
W
E
N
IT
H
S
GR
LEGEND
57 67
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STATE HIGHWAY 1
1ST AVENUE
62' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
(A CITY STREET)

DIVARTY STREET
PARCEL OP-3.2

6.168 AC
TRACT 1569
24-C&T-93
SHEET
OF
SCALE:

DRAWN:

JOB No.:

SUBMITTAL / REVISION

NOT VALID

WITHOUT

SIGNATURE
Civil Engineering
Land Surveying
6 Harris Court
Monterey, California
831.649.5225
whitsonengineers.com
1"=30'
EPI
3140.62
XB 8 MERCEDES-BENZ OF MARINA

GROUND-UP CAR DEALERSHIP FACILITY
EXHIBIT 8

PRELIMINARY VEHICULAR TURNING
NW CORNER 1ST AVE AND DIVARTY STREET
Marina, California
APN

PRELIMINARY DESIGN
2/13/2026
CW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL COORDINATION SET
E INE
S
ON
W
E
N
IT
H
S
GR
LEGEND
58 68
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP

DIVARTY
STREET
1ST AVENUE
THIRD
STREET
HIGHWAY 1
1ST AVENUE
OP-4.2MONTEREY
COUNTY
OP-4.1
OP-3.1

CITY OF

SEASIDE

CITY OF

SEASIDE
HIGHWAY 1
Copyright 2026 vanderToolen Associates. The drawings or written materials contained herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the landscape architect. Reproduction, use or alteration in any form is strictly prohibited without the written consent of vanderToolen Associates.

L-1
Project No. 01825 Marina, California OP-3.2

MERCEDES-BENZ OF MONTEREY
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"NORTH
0'15'30'60'
vanderToolen Associates
855 Bordeaux Way
Suite 240
Napa, CA 94558
tel+ 707.224.2299
hhhvandertoolenco^
City of Marina
1ST AVENUE & DIVARTY STREET
MARINA, CALIFORNIA 93955

PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN

CONCEPTUAL PLAN EXHIBIT
FEBRUARY 27, 2026

STREET TREE

LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS
(BRISBANE BOX)
PERIMETER TREE #1

HESPEROCYPARIS MACROCARPA
(MONTEREY CYPRESS)
ACCENT TREE #1

MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 'LITTLE GEM'
(LITTLE GEM DWARF SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA)
ACCENT TREE #2

LYONOTHANMUS SPECIES
(SANTA CRUZ ISLAND IRONWOOD)

EXISTING CONDITIONS

NORTH EAST VIEW
LOOKING TOWARDS 1ST AVENUE
IMAGE (1)

REQUIRED MITIGATED REPLACEMENT TREES PER ARBORIST
REPORT DATED 1-28-2026 BY DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES,
INC.

A TOTAL OF (44) REPLACEMENT TREES ARE REQUIRED TO
MITIGATE THE REMOVAL OF 22 HEALTHY TREES.

A PRELIMINARY TOTAL OF (67) TREES ARE PROPOSED.

TREE MITIGATION NARRATIVE
PERIMETER TREE #2

QUERCUS SUBER
(CORK OAK)

SYMBOLEXAMPLE IMAGE

PRELIMINARY PLANT LEGEND
C.C.N.-CALIFORNIA COASTAL NATIVE

BOTANICAL NAME & SIZE & WULCOLS

ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM
'SONOMA COAST'
(1'-2' HEIGHT)LOW

ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PUMILA
(2'-5' HEIGHT)LOW

ARCTOSTAPHYLOS TOMENTOSA
(3'-8' HEIGHT)LOW

ARCTOSTAPHYLOS
‘PACIFIC MIST’
(2'-3' HEIGHT)LOW

ARMERIA MARITIMA
'ALBA'
(6"-12" HEIGHT)MOD

ARTEMISIA PYCNOCEPHALA
‘DAVID’S CHOICE’
(6"-24" HEIGHT)LOW

BACCHARIS PILULARIS
‘PIGEON POINT’
(2'-3' HEIGHT)LOW

CARPENTERIA CALIFORNICA
‘ELIZABETH’
(5'-7' HEIGHT)LOW

CEANOTHUS DENTATUS
(2'-5' HEIGHT)LOW

CEANOTHUS RIGIDUS
(4'-6' HEIGHT)LOW
CEANOTHUS G. HORIZONTALIS
‘DIAMOND HEIGHTS’
(1'-2' HEIGHT)LOW

DIPLACUS AURANTIACUS
(4'-5' HEIGHT) V.LOW

DIPLACUS 'CHANGELING'
(2'-3' HEIGHT)LOW

ERIGERON GLAUCUS
‘SEA BREEZE’
(6"-12" HEIGHT)LOW

ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM
(2'-4' HEIGHT) V.LOW

ERIOGONUM LATIFOLIUM
(1'-2' HEIGHT)LOW

ERIOGONUM PARVIFOLIUM
(2'-3' HEIGHT)LOW

FRANGULA CALIFORNICA
‘MOUND SAN BRUNO’
(3'-6' HEIGHT)LOW

FRAGARIA CHILOENSIS
(4"-8" HEIGHT)MOD

HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA
(6'-10' HEIGHT)LOW

LEYMUS CONDENSATUS
'CANYON PRINCE’
(2'-3' HEIGHT)LOW

MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS
(3'-5' HEIGHT)LOW

SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS

LAEVIGATUS
(3'-6' HEIGHT)LOW
(C.C.N)
(C.C.N)
(C.C.N)
(C.C.N)
(C.C.N)
(C.C.N)
(C.C.N)
(C.C.N)
(C.C.N)
(C.C.N)
(C.C.N)
(C.C.N)
(C.C.N)
(C.C.N)
(C.C.N)
(C.C.N)
(C.C.N)

IRRIGATION NOTES

1. THE IRRIGATION DESIGN WILL BE FROM

RECYCLED WATER FOR THE SITE AND

SHALL COMPLY WITH THE STATE

MANDATED MODEL WATER EFFICIENT
LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (MWELO).

2. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS WILL BE

AUTOMATICALLY CONTROLLED BY AN

ET/'SMART' IRRIGATION CONTROLLER

CAPABLE OF MULTIPLE PROGRAMMING

AND INDEPENDENT TIMING OF INDIVIDUAL
IRRIGATION SYSTEMS. THE CONTROLLER
WILL HAVE A 24-HOUR CLOCK TO ALLOW

MULTIPLE START TIMES AND REPEAT

CYCLES TO ADJUST FOR SOIL
PERCOLATION RATES.

3. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS WILL CONSIST

PRIMARILY OF LOW VOLUME, LOW FLOW

BUBBLERS FOR TREES, AND POINT

SOURCE DRIP IRRIGATION FOR SHRUBS

AND SUBSURFACE DRIPLINE FOR
PARKROW GROUNDCOVERS.

4. PLANTS WILL BE GROUPED ONTO

SEPARATE VALVES ACCORDING TO SUN

EXPOSURE AND WATER USE TO ALLOW

FOR IRRIGATION APPLICATION BY
HYDROZONE. THE IRRIGATION

SCHEDULING WILL REFLECT THE
REGIONAL EVAPO-TRANSPIRATION RATES.

THE ENTIRE SITE WILL BE DESIGNED TO

RUN DURING NIGHTTIME HOURS WHEN
IRRIGATION IS MOST EFFICIENT.

5. ALL MWELO DOCUMENTATION INCLUDING

IRRIGATION PLANS, WATER USE

CALCULATIONS AND CERTIFICATES SHALL

BE SUBMITTED WITH THE LANDSCAPE

IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR REVIEW AND
APPROVAL.

CALTRANS HIGHWAY 1 - R.O.W.

PRELIMINARY TREE LEGEND
SYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEMIN. SIZEWULCOLSQTY
TREES

HESPEROCYPARIS MACROCARPA
(C.C.N)MONTEREY CYPRESS24" BOX MOD8
LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUSBRISBANE BOX15 GAL MOD 17
LYONOTHANMUS FLORIBUNDUS SSP.

ASPLENIIFOLIUS
(C.C.N)
SANTA CRUZ ISLAND IRONWOOD 15 GAL LOW 22

MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 'LITTLE GEM'LITTLE GEM DWARF SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA15 GAL MOD13
QUERCUS SUBERCORK OAK24" BOX LOW 7
TOTAL TREES: 24" BOX 15
15 GAL 52
67 C.C.N. - CALIFORNIA COASTAL NATIVE
EX. VEGETATION
30' O.C. STREET TREE:

LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS
(BRISBANE BOX)
PERIMETER TREE #1:

HESPEROCYPARIS MACROCARPA
(MONTEREY CYPRESS)

FRONT ENTRY DRIVEWAY

BOUNDARY

GAS EASEMENT
EX. CYPRESS
TREE #732
(PROTECT IN
PLACE)
PLANT AREA, TYP.

SLOPE PLANT AREA, TYP.

ACCENT TREE #1:

MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 'LITTLE GEM'
(LITTE GEM DWARF SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA)

GRADING LIMIT

SCREENING HEDGE
PERIMETER TREE #2:

QUERCUS SUBER
(CORK OAK)
SIGHT VISION TRIANGLE, TYP.

FIRE LANE
PLANT AREA, TYP.

BIKE LANE

BIKE LANE
CENTER
LINE
R.O.W.

EASEMENT
IMAGE (1)VIEW ANGLE
EX. CYPRESS TREE
(CALTRANS R.O.W., TYP.)
EX. TREE
(REMOVE, TYP.)
ACCENT TREE #2:

LYONOTHAMNUS SPECIES
(SANTA CRUZ ISLAND IRONWOOD)

MONUMENT SIGN AT

RETAINING WALL,

PER ARCHITECT

NO PLANTING OR

DISTURBANCE WITHIN
12' CRZ ROOT ZONE
RECYCLE IRRIGATION P.O.C
59 69
LEVEL 02
14' - 0"
SHOWROOM - B.O. FASCIA
28' - 0"

PARTS MEZZANINE
12' - 0"
10 7
2' - 0"
GL10 CW01*

7.9 MT10* MT10*
MT10*
11 3' - 4 1/2" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 6' - 11" 6' - 2" 6' - 11" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 4' - 0" 2' - 2 1/8" 4' - 0"
TYP.
4' - 0"

EQ EQ EQ EQ

89.2 SHOWROOM - T.O. FASCIA
31' - 0"
6 5.8 5
SHOWROOM - B.O. FASCIA
28' - 0"

PARTS MEZZANINE
12' - 0"
GL10 CW01*
GED
MT10*
GL10 CW01*
FC HE.9 F.9F.3
SHOWROOM - T.O. FASCIA
31' - 0"

7.2 9.1 10.1 11.311.17.47.3
SHOWROOM - T.O. FASCIA
31' - 0"
1' - 6"
TYP
2' - 6"

THESE DOCUMENTS ARE INCOMPLETE AND NOT FOR REGULATORY

APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
CALIFORNIA REGISTERED ARCHITECT:

A
B

SHEET NOTES

GENERAL NOTES

P R E L I M I N A R Y
1/8" = 1'-0"
A2.01

BUILDING ELEVATIONS - AREA A

27.8360.000

MERCEDES-BENZ OF

MONTEREY

MERCEDES-BENZ

PARTS MEZZANINE
12' - 0"
10732 7.97.1 9 9.2
SHOWROOM - T.O. FASCIA
31' - 0"

65.8 LEVEL 02
14' - 0"
SHOWROOM - B.O. FASCIA
28' - 0"

PARTS MEZZANINE
12' - 0"
K
Q
L
MT10*
EP01* SC01
JH H.7H.3 P
SHOWROOM - T.O. FASCIA
31' - 0"
LEVEL 02
14' - 0"
SHOWROOM - B.O. FASCIA
28' - 0"

PARTS MEZZANINE
12' - 0"
KL J H.7 H.3P
SHOWROOM - T.O. FASCIA
31' - 0"
LEVEL 02
14' - 0"
SHOWROOM - B.O. FASCIA
28' - 0"

PARTS MEZZANINE
12' - 0"
3 2
EP01*
MT10*
SC01

7.1 19
SHOWROOM - T.O. FASCIA
31' - 0"
SCALE: / REF: 1/8" = 1'-0" 01 A1.11A
EXTERIOR ELEVATION - AREA B WEST02

THESE DOCUMENTS ARE INCOMPLETE AND NOT FOR REGULATORY

APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
CALIFORNIA REGISTERED ARCHITECT:

A
B

SHEET NOTES

GENERAL NOTES

P R E L I M I N A R Y
1/8" = 1'-0"
A2.02

BUILDING ELEVATIONS - AREA B

27.8360.000

MERCEDES-BENZ OF

MONTEREY

MERCEDES-BENZ

Memorandum
To: Marina Community Partners, LLC
From: Layne Long, City Manager
Date: 12/1/2023
Re: Administrative Modifications to Project Approvals for The Dunes Development Project (formerly The University Villages Project)

The City of Marina (“City”) and Marina Community Partners, LLC (“MCP”) entered into a Development Agreement dated as of July 8, 2005 (“Development Agreement”) related to the Dunes Development Project (formerly The University Villages Project and referred to herein as the “Project”). Section 3.1 of the Development Agreement addresses amendments to the Development Agreement and to the Project Approvals. For purposes of the Development Agreement, Project Approvals means the permits and approvals granted or to be granted to MCP by the City for the Project including the University Villages Specific Plan approved by the City Council of Marina by Resolution No. 2005-130 adopted on May 31, 2005 (“Specific Plan”).

Section 3.1.4 of the Development Agreement grants the Strategic Development Director authority to make minor modifications to the Project Approvals as an administrative amendment, without notice, hearing, CEQA review or formal action by any commission or board or the City Council including lot line and parcel adjustments, changes in density, intensity, scale and scope of the Project. The City previously eliminated the position of Strategic Development Director and vested the City Manager with the authority and job duties previously assigned to the Strategic Development Director.

The Specific Plan designates certain parcels in the Specific Plan Area as Office/Research and Development/Light Industrial, including Opportunity Site 3.

The Office/Research designation permits a variety of uses including boat sales and recreational vehicle sales. However, the Specific Plan does not currently permit 62 72
December 1, 2023
2 automobile sales in the Office/Research and Development/Light Industrial land use areas but does allow automobile sales in other areas including the Multiple Use designation.

Based on the authority granted in Section 3.1.4 for the Strategic Development Director, now the City Manager, to approve minor modifications to Project Approvals, including the Specific Plan, I am approving a minor modification to the Specific Plan to designate automobile sales as a permitted use in areas designated as Office/Research and Development/Light Industrial.

63 73
Tree Assessment and
Arborist Report
for the
Mercedes Benz Project

February 2026

Prepared for

Ken Roycroft
Unstoppable Automotive Group, LLC
40910 Temecula Center Drive
Temecula, CA 92591

Prepared by

Patric Krabacher, ISA Certified Arborist #11759 TRAQ
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #887
400 Cass Street, Suite 5
Monterey, California 93940
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
64 74
Mercedes Benz Tree Assessment and Arborist Report
February 2026

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2

1.1. Project Location ........................................................................................................................ 2

1.2. Project Description .................................................................................................................... 2

2. Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................ 4

2.2.1 City of Marina Municipal Code ........................................................................................ 4

2.2.2 UVSP Tree Standards ....................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Survey Methods ............................................................................................................................ 4

3. Results .................................................................................................................................................... 5

4. Discussion/Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Tree Preservation .......................................................................................................................... 8

4.2 Tree Removal ................................................................................................................................ 8

4.3 Transplanting ................................................................................................................................ 9

5. Tree Replacement Plan ......................................................................................................................... 10

5.1. Planting Locations................................................................................................................... 10

5.2. Planting Methods .................................................................................................................... 10

6. Tree Protection Plan ............................................................................................................................. 11

7. References ............................................................................................................................................ 13

8. Glossary ................................................................................................................................................ 13

ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A. Project Civil Plans and Landscaping Plans ATTACHMENT B. Tree Table
ATTACHMENT C. Photo Log
65 75
Mercedes Benz Project Tree Assessment and Arborist Report

February 2026

1. INTRODUCTION
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. (DD&A) is contracted by Unstoppable Automotive Group, LLC (UAG) to provide environmental consulting services for the Mercedes Benz Project (project or proposed project), located in the City of Marina (City) in Monterey County, California. The project is located in the City of Marina (City) on Assessor ’s Parcel Number (APN) 031 -221-022-000 (Parcel OP 3.2, Figure 1 ). Tree removal within the project site is regulated by the University Villages Specific Plan (UVSP) Existing Tree Removal, Relocation, and Replacement Standards (Tree Standards), approved on May 31, 2005; the UVSP Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Resolution; the UVSP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); and Marina Municipal Code (MMC or City Code) Chapter 17.62 (Tree Removal, Preservation, and Protection). Tree removal within the project site will require approval from the City prior to construction of the project.

This report was prepared to satisfy the requirements of MMC Chapter 17.62 and assist in the design phase to avoid as many healthy tree as practicable. This tree assessment and arborist report recommends trees for retention or removal pursuant to the proposed project. This report also outlines measures to protect all other trees within the vicinity of the project, identifies the amount of native trees to be removed, and the final number of recommended replacement trees. This report also recommends mitigation, where necessary, to avoid, reduce, or mitigate potential project impacts to trees and other biological resources (i.e., nesting birds) which may result from tree removal.

1.1. Project Location
The project is located within the southwestern corner of the City, directly northwest of the corner of 1 st
Avenue and Divarty Street, on APN 031-221-022-000, in the County of Monterey, California.

1.2. Project Description
The project consists of the construction of new dealership and automotive facilities , including parking, buildings, and associated utility infrastructure (Attachment A).

2. METHODS

2.1 Limitations
It is not the intent of this report to provide a monetary valuation of the trees or provide risk assessment for any tree, as any tree can fail at any time. The inspection of these trees consisted solely of a visual inspection from the ground. While more thorough techniques are available for inspection and evaluation, they were neither requested nor considered necessary or appropriate at this time. No clinical diagnosis was performed on any pest or pathogen that may or may not be present within the site. In addition to an inspection of the property, DD&A relied on information provided by the project proponent (e.g., survey boundaries, property boundaries, project description) to prepare this report, and must reasonably rely on the accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed but not controlled. To live near trees, regardless of their condition, is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risks associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. DD&A shall not be responsible for another's means, methods, techniques, schedules, or procedures, or for contractor safety or any other related programs, or for another's failure to complete work in accordance with approved plans and specifications.
66 76
67 77
Mercedes Benz Project Tree Assessment and Arborist Report

February 2026

2.2 Regulatory Setting

2.2.1 City of Marina Municipal Code
City of Marina Municipal Code (MMC) Section 17.62.030 requires a tree removal permit to remove, damage, or relocate, or cause to be removed, damaged, or relocated any tree on any property within City limits, unless exempted by MMC Sections 17.62.040 or 17.62.050. MMC Section 17.62.030 also prohibits construction activities within the dripline of any tree, unless these activities are conducted in compliance with tree protection guidelines adopted by resolution of the planning commission.

MMC defines “tree” as any living woody perennial plant having a single stem of six (6) inches or more diameter at breast height (DBH; measured at 4.5 feet above ground) or a multi -stemmed plant having an aggregate diameter of ten inches or more measured at DBH, and any living woody perennial plant which was planted in accordance with requirements of an approved compensation plan or was planted as part of a landscaping plan approved by the City. MMC defines “Dripline” as the greater of the outermost edge of the tree’s canopy, or fifteen times DBH measured from the center point of the tree.

2.2.2 UVSP Tree Standards
UVSP Tree Standards call for the preservation of as many healthy Monterey cypress trees and oak trees as practicable. In accordance with the UVSP Tree Standards, Monterey cypress trees and oak trees that are in good or fair condition must be protected duri ng construction and preserved wherever practicable. If relocation is possible, Monterey cypress and oak trees shall be removed by machinery, be immediately replanted at a new site, and be watered and fertilized. Existing healthy trees determined to be in g ood or fair condition that are removed shall be replaced on- site at a ratio of two (2) replacement trees for every one (1) removed (2:1).

2.3 Survey Methods
DD&A biologists, led by Certified Arborist Patric Krabacher, conducted a tree survey of the project site on January 27, 2025. The survey area encompassed the project’s construction limits. Protected trees (trees that require a tree removal permit from the City and/or are defined in the UVSP) were inventoried in accordance with the following protocol, which was designed to meet the requirements of both MMC Chapter 17.62 and USVP Tree Standards:
• Excluding acacias (Acacia sp.)
1, all trees (including dead snags) 6” DBH or greater were tagged with a GPS location and a numbered aluminum marker (on the most feasible/visible location possible). Tree diameter was recorded at breast height (54 inches or 4.5 feet above native grade) or (for multi-stemmed trees) at the most representable location. • Species, size, and health class were recorded for each tree. Tree health was recorded based on the UVSP health classifications, as follows:
o Good. Tree is healthy and vigorous as indicated by color of foliage and density, has no apparent signs of insect, disease, structural defects or mechanical injury. Tree has good form and structure.

1 Per UVSP Tree Standards, page 118, acacias (6” DBH or greater) were mapped with a GPS location but were not tagged or inventoried. 68 78
Mercedes Benz Project Tree Assessment and Arborist Report

February 2026
o Fair. Tree is in average condition and vigor for the area, but may show minor insect, disease, or physiological problems. Trees rated as fair may be improved with correctional pruning.
o Poor. Tree that is in a general state of decline and may show severe structural or mechanical defects which may lead to failure, may have insect or disease damage, but is not dead. o Dead/Snag. Dead standing tree.
• Multi-stemmed trees were recorded as one (1) tree if the root crown (the point where the trunk meets natural grade) was contiguous. Multi-stemmed tree DBH was calculated by taking the square root of the squared sum of all stems measured (√[Stem 1 DBH2+ Stem 2 DBH2+ Stem 3 DBH2...]).

This equation returns to the diameter at the base of the tree (Chojnacky, 1999). • Tree dripline (also known as the “tree protection zone” [TPZ]) was calculated as 1.5 feet for every one (1) inch DBH.
• Critical root zone (CRZ) was calculated as one (1) foot for every one (1) inch DBH in accordance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Part 8 & Part 5 (ANSI, 2023).

3. RESULTS
DD&A inventoried 44 Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) trees within or directly adjacent to the project site (Figure 2; Appendix A) 2. DD&A inventoried three (3) dead trees, 17 trees in poor health, and the remaining 24 in fair health. Fifty-two percent of the trees inventoried are in fair condition; they are in average vigor for the area but are showing signs of diseases and insect infestations, including pitch canker, foamy bark canker, beetle evidence (i.e. saw dust and small symmetrical holes), sooty mold, and Phytophthora root and crown rot. (Figure 3). The remaining 48% of trees inventoried were determined to be either in a state of decline, in poor condition, or dead due to biotic and abiotic stressors including but not limited to neglect, fire (homeless encampments), sooty mold, and Phytophthora root and crown rot , or boring beetles. No symptoms of sudden oak death were observed.

2 Two (2) trees (Trees 728 and 730) were included in this calculation due to their proximity to the project site. 69 79
70 80
71 81
Mercedes Benz Project Tree Assessment and Arborist Report

February 2026

4. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

4.1 Tree Preservation
The project proposes to retain one (1) Monterey cypress (Tree No. 732). Efforts were made to retain two (2) additional Monterey cypress trees (Tree Nos. 712 and 752) through design modifications; however, these efforts were determined to be infeasible. Meetings with the project’s Civil Engineer (Whitson Engineers) explored options to preserve Tree Nos. 712 and 752, but it was ultimately concluded that preservation would require the construction of extensive retaining walls. T he retaining walls would significantly impact over 30% of the CRZ of these trees and the ultimate survival of the two (2) trees cannot be guaranteed.

Alternatively, DD&A, Whitson, as well as the project landscape architect (vanderToolen Associates Inc.) recommend the removal of Tree Nos. 712 and 752 in order to grade the area to a more natural slope. This would allow the area to be revegetated with native plant species which would provide long term beneficial erosion control and restoring and revegetating a more natural slope was determined to be the more feasible and sustainable approach.

4.2 Tree Removal
As a result of the proposed project, 41 Monterey cypress trees would require removal for the construction of the project pursuant to existing plans (Figure 2, Appendices C & D). The removal of the 41 trees would impact the existing windbreak; however, a majority of the windbreak would be retained within the California Department of Transportation right-of-way adjacent to the western project boundary. Therefore, the removal of these trees is not anticipated to completely remove the windbreak. A tree removal permit from the City is required for all living trees. Three (3) trees proposed for removal are dead; therefore, a tree removal permit is required for the remaining 38 live trees. Tree removal must incorporate the mitigation measures and regulatory requirements of the FEIR, the MMRP, and the UVSP Tree Standards, as follows:
• Pre-construction surveys for active [bird] nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 250 feet of proposed construction activities no more than 30 days prior to construction. If active nests are found and the biologist determines that construction activities would adversely affect the nest or cause nest abandonment, then those activities shall be avoided in these areas until the young have fledged, as by the qualified biologist. Once the young have fledged, construction activities may resume in the vicinity and no further mitigation measures shall be required. • Prior to the removal of large trees, a qualified biologist shall survey the trees for presence of roosting bats. If special-status bat species are present, the following measures shall be implemented:
− Tree removal should not occur if maternity bat roosts are present (between April 15 and August 1) in the trees to be removed.
− No tree removal should occur within 300 feet of the maternity roost until all young bats have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist.
− If special -status bats are present but there is not an active maternity roost, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) should be obtained in order to remove the animals prior to tree removal. Alternate habitat may need to be provided if bats are to be excluded from 72 82
Mercedes Benz Project Tree Assessment and Arborist Report

February 2026
maternity roosts. A roost with comparable spatial and thermal characteristics should be constructed as directed by a qualified biologist. In the event that adult bats need to be handled and relocated, a qualified biologist shall prepare and implement a rel ocation plan subject to approval by CDFW that includes relocating all bats found on- site to an alternate suitable habitat. A Mitigation and Monitoring Plan that mitigates for loss of bat roosting habitat should be prepared by a qualified biologist and approved by CDFW prior to tree removal.
• Existing trees in good or fair condition which are removed shall be replaced on site at a ratio of two replacement trees for each tree removed (2:1) in compliance with MMC and UVSP Standards.

DD&A also recommends trees to be retained, and replanting’s follow the Tree Replacement Plan outlined in Section 5 and Tree Protection Plan outlined in Section 6 below.

4.3 Transplanting
Transplanting trees within this parcel was also explored and discussed. Tree No. 691 was relocated from this parcel to a roundabout located within the Dunes community at the intersection of 8 th Street and Ocean
Bluffs Ave; however, this was a free-standing tree. Free standing trees do not have the same transplanting limitations as those located within a contiguous forest environment. These limitations are described further below.

Transplanting several larger trees was considered to mitigate the loss of tree removal; however, this was determined to be infeasible due to the contiguous forest present along the western project boundary. Trees within a contiguous forest are not recommended for transplanting due to the intertwining of roots with adjacent trees and lack of reaction wood. These trees are not typically capable of supporting themse lves without the stru ctural support of the surrounding forest . Mass damping is a natural mechanism where branches and foliage sway to absorb and dissipate wind energy, allowing trees to minimize structural loads on the trunk and roots and increase mechanical stability during storms. Mass damping is vital to the structural stability of trees and forests and when you have a contiguous forest like the one on the western portion of the project all these trees work together against the natural elements.

Mass damping can be critically disrupted when trees are transplanted , causing the tree to sway more and increasing failure risk. Transplanted trees f rom a contiguous forest do not have the reaction wood and are not resistant to natural elements lik e single standing trees. Additionally, transplanting causes stress (transplant shock), often resulting from significant root mass reduction and associated water stress . Therefore, it is not recommended to transplant any trees from the survey area as they are located within a contiguous forest and are unlikely to survive.

73 83
Mercedes Benz Project Tree Assessment and Arborist Report

February 2026

5. TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN
Per UVSP Tree Standards, mitigation (i.e., tree replacement) is only required for the removal of healthy trees. Of the 38 living trees planned for removal, 22 are in fair condition and 16 are in poor condition (Appendix A). As a result, a total of 44 replacement plantings are required to mitigate for the removal of 22 healthy trees. Tree replacement shall follow the specifications outlined below.

5.1. Planting Locations
Planting locations for replacement trees shall be as follows:

1. Spacing replacement plantings shall be approximately ten (10) feet from any adjacent established tree or replacement planting or in the most appropriate offset feasible for the site. This spacing allows for efficient early growth and establishment.

2. Any compacted soil shall be scarified to an approximate depth of six (6) inches using hand tools, a rototiller, or similar equipment. Based on site observations , the need for soil decompaction is expected to be minimal. Soil decompaction shall not be performed within ten (10) feet of any existing tree to avoid impacting the root system or trunk.

5.2. Planting Methods
Planting methods for replacement trees shall be as follows:

1. Planting shall occur during the cool season after several winter rain events have moistened the soil to a depth of at least six (6) inches and shorter photoperiods and cooler daily temperatures reduce the stress on new plants (typically November – February). When feasible, planting will be scheduled during periods of cool weather when precipitation is forecasted. Installing container stock during the winter when soil is moist maximizes the odds of success.

2. Following the determination of tree location by the restoration practitioner or arborist, a planting pit shall be excavated at each location that is equal to the depth of the container and approximately twice the width of the container. Each tree shall be carefully removed from the container and placed upright in the planting pit so that the stem is vertical and the root crown is level with existing grade.

Each pit shall be backfilled with existing native soil. Soils shall be compressed around the rootball to remove air pockets, and a water retention basin of at least two (2) feet diameter shall be constructed around each tree. Following planting, each tree shall be watered with approximately five (5) gallons of water.

3. Mulch shall be placed approximately 2-4-inches deep around container stock plantings to improve retention of soil moisture and suppress weed growth around new plantings. Mulch shall be placed six (6) inches away from the base of the plantings to allow the tree to respire and avoid the propagation of root rot. Mulch products may include clean wood chips (placed to a thickness of two inches) from a known source, coir weed mats, or similar biodegradable natural products. Mulch with plastic or other non-biodegradable materials shall be prohibited.

4. Tree plantings shall be watered for at least one (1) year after planting to promote successful establishment. Irrigation may be completed by hand or by a drip irrigation system. Irrigation is expected to be required primarily during the dry months between May and early October and during periods of prolonged dry conditions (i.e., >2 weeks) during the winter. 74 84
Mercedes Benz Project Tree Assessment and Arborist Report

February 2026

5. A qualified arborist shall inspect replacement plantings for the first two (2) years to monitor survivability and growth progress. If the arborist determines replacement plantings are declining, they shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio in compliance with measures outlined in this report, and the monitoring period will be reset.

6. TREE PROTECTION PLAN

6.1 Protective Fencing
All trees which will be retained during construction but whose Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) lies within or partially within the project site shall be protected prior to and during construction per the following specifications:

1. Fencing or barricades shall be installed along the entire perimeter of a tree’s TPZ to the extent feasible; generally, no less than 75 percent of a tree’s TPZ shall be within the fenced area. However, fencing location may be adjusted or omitted in coordination with a certified arborist.

2. Fencing shall consist of either chain link, supported snowdrift or plastic mesh, hay bales, or field fence. Fencing shall have cross bracing (typically 2x4 material) on both the top and lower edges of the fencing material to prevent sagging and provide lateral support. Fencing shall stand a minimum height of five (5) feet above grade.

3. Fenced areas and the trunk protection materials shall remain in place during the entire construction period. Torn or damaged roots shall be cleanly cut to sound wood wherever possible to minimize decay entry points. Any root found that must be cut should be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a saw, vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other approved root pruning equipment. No tree seals shall be used as seal material promotes decay.

6.2 Soil Related Construction Activities
All activities within the CRZ shall be coordinated with the project arborist prior to entering if changes from this plan are proposed . All recommended measured below shall only be modified with coordination with the project arborist and/or the city.

Prohibited Activities within TPZ

4. No parking of vehicles or equipment, or storage of materials shall be permitted with.in the dripline of the trees designated to remain.

5. Staging areas and access routes shall be designed to avoid trees and tree canopies.

6. Soil compaction, parking of vehicles or heavy equipment, stockpiling of construction materials, and/or dumping of materials is not permitted within the CRZ for trees on the property.

Permitted Activities Under Direct Supervision of the Project Arborist

7. Soil disturbance (e.g., over excavation, sub excavation, grading, compaction or trenching) beyond a feature to be built within or near a TPZ shall be reduced to a maximum extent possible to reduce or avoid soil related impacts within TPZ. In no instance should disturbance exceed the following distances towards a tree's trunk: 12 inches for a curb, gutter, walkway or 24 inches for retaining walls, foundations and concrete pads.
75 85
Mercedes Benz Project Tree Assessment and Arborist Report

February 2026

8. For protected trees where the TPZ was reduced from the dripline at the direction of the project forester or arborist, a mulch layer up to approximately four (4) inches deep shall be applied to the ground following construction. Only one (1) to two (2) inches of mulch should be applied within one (1) to two (2) feet of the trunk, and under no circumstances should any soil or mulch be placed against the root crown (base) of trees. The best source of mulch would be from chipped material generated on-site.

9. All trenching, soil scraping, over excavation, and grading (soil cuts, over excavation, fill, and finish-grading) shall be avoided within the TPZ, as feasible or under the direct supervision of the project arborist.

6.3 Root Pruning and Protection
Pursuant to ANSI A300 Standards for Root Pruning and Tree Protection the following measures shall be implemented throughout construction:

10. If roots must be left exposed for more than eight (8) hours, cover them with wet burlap and mist with water to prevent them from drying out.

11. Roots greater than two (2) inch will be inspected and evaluated by the project arborist. If necessary, the root will be retained, wrapped in protective material (foam pipe wrap) and avoided.

12. Never cut roots over two (2) inches diameter without prior consultation from the project arborist, as these are typically structural roots and critical to the tree's health and stability.

13. Roots shall be cut clean with a sharp saw or loppers to encourage wound closure and discourage decay.

14. Fill the area where root was exposed or pruned with quality topsoil. A layer of mulch helps retain moisture and encourages new root growth.

15. Water the area thoroughly and monitor the tree for signs of stress or pests, especially if rainfall is inadequate.

16. All pruning shall be following the Tree Pruning Guidelines (International Society of Arboriculture) and/or the ANSI A300 Pruning Standard (American National Standard for Tree Care Operations) and adhere to the most recent edition of ANSI Z133.1.

76 86
Mercedes Benz Project Tree Assessment and Arborist Report

February 2026

7. REFERENCES
Chojnacky, David C. 1999. Converting Tree Diameter Measured at Root Collar to Diameter at Breast Height.

City of Marina Municipal Code, 2026. Chapter 17.62 – Tree Removal, Preservation, and Protection.

Dunster and Dunster, 1996. Dictionary of Natural Resource Management, Dunster and Dunster.

8. GLOSSARY
Definitions provided by Dunster and Dunster, 1996. Dictionary of Natural Resource Management Critical Root Zone (CRZ) – The area of soil around a tree's trunk that contains the majority of its important, fine, and absorbing roots—vital for water and nutrient uptake. This zone is essential for the tree's health and stability.

Mass Dampening – The process by which smaller, flexible branches sway at different frequencies than the main trunk, absorbing and dissipating wind energy rather than transferring it all to the trunk and roots.

Reaction Wood – Specialized wood produced by trees to correct structural imbalances caused by leaning, wind, or heavy snow, acting as a gravitational response to restore verticality.

Root Zone – refers to the area of soil surrounding a tree's roots that is critical for water and nutrient uptake.

This zone typically extends beyond the tree's drip line—the outermost edge of the canopy. The critical root zone, often defined as the area within the drip line, is vital for the tree's stability and health; damaging roots in this area can cause significant dieback or even death.

Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) – a designated area surrounding a tree, established during construction or development, that must be kept free from disturbance to protect the tree's health and structural stability.

77 87
Mercedes Benz Project Tree Assessment and Arborist Report February 2026

ATTACHMENT A
Project Civil Plans
and
Landscaping Plans
78 88
Mercedes Benz Project Tree Assessment and Arborist Report

February 2026

ATTACHMENT B
Tree Table

79 89
Mercedes Benz Project Appendix B

1 Appendix B – Tree Table for the Mercedes Benz Project Tree
Number
Species Common DBH per Stem Total
DBH
Dripline per
MMC (ft)
CRZ (ft) Health Status Comment
696 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 9 9 11 3 Fair Remove 697 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 8

8 10 3 Fair Remove

698 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 58 30 29 18 74 92 25 Poor Remove Sooty mold, Structural 699 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 12

12 15 4 Fair Remove

700 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 11

11 14 4 Poor Remove

701 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 14

14 18 5 Poor Remove

702 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 30

30 38 10 Poor Remove Sooty mold, Structural
703 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 7

7 9 2 Fair Remove

704 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 22

22 28 7 Fair Remove

705 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 18

18 23 6 Fair Remove

706 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 16

16 20 5 Fair Remove

707 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 30

30 38 10 Fair Remove

708 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 10

10 13 3 Fair Remove

709 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 16

16 20 5 Fair Remove

710 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 19

19 24 6 Poor Remove Sooty mold, Structural
711 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 20

20 25 7 Fair Remove

712 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 68

68 85 23 Fair Remove

713 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 20

20 25 7 Poor Remove Sooty mold
714 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 12

12 15 4 Poor Remove Sooty mold
715 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 14

14 18 5 Fair Remove

731 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 17

17 21 6 Fair Remove

732 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 36

36 45 12 Fair Retain

733 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 18

18 23 6 Poor Remove Sooty mold, Structural
734 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 12

12 15 4 Poor Remove Sooty mold
735 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 29

29 36 10 Fair Remove

736 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 21 21

30 37 10 Fair Remove

737 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 30

30 38 10 Fair Remove

738 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 31

31 39 10 Poor Remove Sooty mold, Structural
739 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 33

33 41 11 Poor Remove Sooty mold, Structural
740 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 28

28 35 9 Poor Remove Sooty mold, Structural
80 90
Mercedes Benz Project Appendix B

2 Tree
Number
Species Common DBH per Stem Total
DBH
Dripline per
MMC (ft)
CRZ (ft) Health Status Comment
741 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 50

50 63 17 Fair Remove

742 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 21

21 26 7 Poor Remove Sooty mold, Structural
743 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 62

62 78 21 Fair Remove

744 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 28

28 35 9 Poor Remove Sooty mold, Structural
746 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 37

37 46 12 Poor Remove Sooty mold, Structural
747 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 17

17 21 6 Dead Remove

748 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 16

16 20 5 Dead Remove Burned
749 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 19

19 24 6 Dead Remove Burned
750 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 9

9 11 3 Poor Remove Canker
751 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 18

18 23 6 Fair Remove

752 Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 60

60 75 20 Fair Remove

745b Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey Cypress 20

20 25 7 Fair Remove

81 91
Mercedes Benz Project Tree Assessment and Arborist Report February 2026

ATTACHMENT C
Photo Log
82 92
Tree 696. Tree 697.

Tree 698. Tree 699.
83 93
Tree 700. Tree 701.

Tree 702. Tree 703 .
84 94
Tree 7 04 . Tree 705.

Tree 706. Tree 707.
85 95
Tree 708. Tree 709.

Tree 710 . Tree 711.
86 96
Tree 712 . Tree 713 .

Tree 714. Tree 715.
87 97
Tree 731. Tree 732.

Tree 733. Tree 734.
88 98
Tree 735. Tree 736.

Tree 737. Tree 738.
89 99
Tree 739. Tree 740.

Tree 741. Tree 742.
90 100
Tree 743. Tree 7 44 .

Tree 745b. Tree 746.
91 101
Tree 747. Tree 748.

Tree 749. Tree 750.
92 102
Tree 751. Tree 752.
93 103
94 104
95 105
96 106
97 107
98 108
99 109
100
110
Exhibit E-Car Dealership Arborist Reports:
https://www.cityofmarina.org/1198/Current-Development-Projects 101
111
April 23, 2026
Marina Planning Commission
211 Hillcrest Avenue
Marina, CA 93933
RE: Item 7A – 2101 1st Mercedes Benz Car Dealership
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:

Monterey-Salinas Transit District (MST) provides public transportation throughout Monterey County and provides an extensive transit network including at the Marina Transit Exchange in the City of Marina.

MST currently serves two (2) bus stops within the vicinity of the proposed Mercedes Benz Car Dealership along 2nd Avenue. These bus stops are served daily by Line 18, which provides hourly service between Sand City and Marina via Monterey Road and CSU Monterey Bay.

The proposed Mercedes Benz Car Dealership site is also located within close proximity to MST’s future SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project at the 5th Street Station, currently under construction.

Previous coordination between the City of Marina and MST resulted in MST constructing a sidewalk and a Class I bike lane along the west side of 1st Avenue (Attachment 1). The intention is for future developments to connect to this Class I multiuse trail along 1st Avenue all the way from 8th Street to Divarty. The multiuse trail is an important connection to State Parks at the 8th Street bridge and at Divarty. MST is pleased to see the applicant has included an extension of the bike lane along its project frontage, so there will be a seamless connection to the infrastructure MST installed.

If at any point during construction, access to MST facilities must be temporarily blocked or modified, MST requests that City staff or contractors coordinate with MST prior to construction to ensure appropriate arrangements can be made for the temporary closure and restoration of MST facilities.

Advanced notification should be sent to [email protected]. If you have any questions about the above, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or 831-264-5877.

Sincerely,
Michelle Overmeyer
Director of Planning and Innovation
CC: Liesbeth Visscher, Mayor Pro-Tem & MST Board Member Guido F. Persicone, Marina Community Development Director

EXHIBIT F
102
112

Attachment 1: 1st Avenue West Class I Bikeway

EXHIBIT F
103
113
STOP

FIRST AVE
8TH ST
A
A
STOP

FIRST AVE

DIVARTY ST
A
A
1ST AVENUE WEST CLASS I BIKEWAY December 22
MST SURF! BRT PROJECT
NORTH
5TH STREET

TRANSIT
CENTER
DUNES

DEVELOPMENT

FIRST AVENUE

DIVARTY
STREET
5TH STREET

TRANSIT
CENTER
DUNES

DEVELOPMENT
DUNES

DEVELOPMENT
3RD
STREET
J
STREET
I
STREET
6TH
STREET
7TH
STREET
8TH
STREET

SECTION A-A
A
A

CITY OF MARINA PARCEL
A
A
CLASS 1

BIKEWAY

PARKWAY STRIP

SIDEWALK

PARKWAY STRIP
CLASS 1

BIKEWAY

PARKWAY STRIP

SIDEWALK

PARKWAY STRIP

EXHIBIT F
104
114
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-45

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

AMENDMENT TO THE SALES TAX REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF MARINA AND UNSTOPPABLE AUTOMOTIVE MBMCA LLC TO ASSIST

WITH THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND SITE DEVELOPMENT OF AN AUTOMOBILE

DEALERSHIP AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AMEN
DMENT SUBJECT TO FINAL REVIEW BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

WHEREAS, on May 20, 2025, the City Council approved a Sales Tax Revenue Sharing Agreement between the City of Marina and Unstoppable Automotive MBMCA LLC including an Economic Development Subsidy Report pursuant to Government Code Section 53803 (AB 562 Report); and, WHEREAS, on July 18, 2025, the City Council approved an amendment to the Sales Tax Revenue Sharing Agreement allowing the dealership signage to be changed from “Mercedes-Benz of Marina” to “Mercedes-Benz of Monterey; and,
WHEREAS, there is no change in subsidy amount to the approve d Sales Tax Revenue Sharing Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the amendment changes the commencement of construction date from January 1, 2026, to September 10, 2026, and changes the completion of construction from no later than fifteen (15) months after commencement of construction to no later than eighteen (18) months after commencement of c
onstruction.

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

1. Adopting Resolution No. 2026- approving an amendment to the construction timelines in the approved Sales Tax Revenue Sharing Agreement between the City of Marina and Unstoppable Automotive MBMCA LLC to assist with the construction costs and site development of an automobile dealership; and

2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute the amendment subject to review by the City Attorney.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Marina at a regular meeting duly held on the 21st day of April 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: McAdams, McCarthy, Biala, Delgado, Visscher NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
__________________________
Liesbeth Visscher, Mayor Pro Tem
ATTEST:
___________________________
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk

EXHIBIT G
105
115
1 661\05\3982867.7

SALES TAX REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT
This Sales Tax Revenue Sharing Agreement (this “ Agreement”) is entered into on __________, 20 25 by and between the City of Marina, a California municipal corporation ( the “City”), and Unstoppable Automotive MBMCA LLC, a California limited liability company (“Developer”). The City and Developer are collectively referred to herein as the “ Parties” and individually as a Party.

RECITALS
A. The City and Marina Community Partners (“ MCP”) entered into that certain Development Agreement dated July 8, 2005 and recorded in the Official Records of Monterey County as Document No. 2005080655 on August 5, 2005 , as modified by that Administrative Modification to Development Agreement dated May 28, 2010 and that Second Administrative Modification to Development Agreement dated March 29, 2013 (collectively, the "Development Agreement") with regards to that certain development commonly referred to as the Dunes on Monterey Bay. The Dunes development is a mixed -use development including retail, office, hotel and residential uses.

B. MCP entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement with the former Redevelopment Agency of the City of Marina dated as of May 31, 2005 as modified by that certain Implementation Agreement Regarding University Village dated September 6, 2006 and that certain Second Implementation Agreement dated August 5, 2008, that certain Operating Agreement Clarifying and Modifying Certain Project Approvals for the Specific Plan for the Dunes on Monterey Bay dated December 17, 2019, that certain University Villages Settlement Agreement between MCP, the City of Marina and Save Our Peninsula Committee and that certain Order of The Court of Appeal dismissing appeal filed September 20, 2006 and that certain Stipulation Between Plaintiffs Monterey/Santa Cruz County Building And Construction Trades Council; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 234; Mechanical Contractors Council of Central California and Ranae and William Gary Martin and Defendants Marina Community Partners, LLC ; Shea Properties LLC; W.L. Butler Construction, Inc.; City of Marina Redevelopment Agency and Board of the City of Marina Redevelopment Agency; Cypress Marina Heights LP and East Garrison Partners I LLC and Order of Approval filed October 9, 2008 (collectively, the “DDA”) setting forth rights, terms, conditions and requirements for the acquisition and development of certain real property described therein (the “Site”) and referred to originally as University Villages and currently referred to as the Dunes. The City has succeeded to the former Redevelopment Agency’s rights and obligations under the DDA.

C. Developer is proposing to acquire certain property consisting of a portion of the Site and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (“ Property”) upon which Developer proposes to develop and operate an approximately 60,000 square foot automobile dealership for the sale and service of Mercedes Benz automobiles and Sprinter Vans and AMG service department (“Development”). Developer, as a condition of acquiring the automobile dealership to be located in the Development is required by the car ma nufacturer to develop the Development consistent with the manufacturer’s standards resulting in development costs that exceed the amount Developer can reasonably be expected to recover from operation of the Development.

EXHIBIT G
106
116
2 661\05\3982867.7
D. The City has determined that the Development is an important catalyst for the continued development of the Dunes Project and that development of the Development will provide substantial direct and indirect benefits to the City and economic opportunities, including sales tax revenues, increased property tax revenues and increased jobs in the region , will enhance the City’s position as a regional retail and commercial destination and serve as a catalyst for additional retail and commercial development.

E. The City has determined that the development and operation of the Development in accordance with this Agreement is in the best interest of the City and will provide significant benefits to the City and the community and therefore is willing to enter into this Agreement to provide financial assistance to the Developer in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth below and in exchange for the Developer’s agreement to develop and operate the Development.

F. The City has determined that an economic development subsidy to the Developer as set forth in this Agreement is appropriate because of the costs associated with the construction of the Development, the sales tax and property tax benefits to the City, and the increased employment expecte d from the Development all as more specifically described in the Economic Impact Analysis attached as Exhibit C and incorporated herein.

G. City is a Charter City. The subject matter of this Agreement is a municipal affair and, therefore, except for those provisions of state law expressly adopted by City, the provisions of state law applicable to general law cities do not apply to this Agreement.

H. City Council of the City approved this Agreement on May 20, 2025 pursuant to Resolution No. 2025-48, as amended by Resolution No. 2025 -83 adopted on adopted on July 18, 2025 attached as Exhibit D and incorporated herein (collectively “City Resolutions”).

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the mutual covenants contained in this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

ARTICLE 1.

DEFINITIONS
Section 1.1 Definitions. In addition to the terms defined elsewhere in this Agreement, the following capitalized words shall have the following meanings:
(a) "Agreement" means this Sales Tax Revenue Sharing Agreement. (b) “City” is defined in the preamble.
(c) “Conditions Precedent” means all of the following: (i) the Developer has completed the Development within the time set forth in Section 3.2 below; (ii) the Developer has submitted a cost certification pursuant to Section 3.3 below to the City that the Development Costs are not less than Forty Million Dollars ($40,000,000); and (iii) no Developer Event of Default shall have occurred.

EXHIBIT G
107
117
3 661\05\3982867.7
(d) “Developer” is defined in the preamble.
(e) “Developer Event of Default” is defined in Section 4.3. (f) “Developer Sales Tax Share” means fifty percent ( 50%) of the Sales Tax generated by the Development during the Term of this Agreement. (g) “Effective Date” is defined in Section 2.1.
(h) “Fiscal Year” means the fiscal year of City beginning on July 1 and ending on June 30 of each year.
(i) “Fiscal Year Quarter” means each three month period of a Fiscal Year commencing with July 1 of each Fiscal Year.
(j) “Force Majeure Event” is defined in Section 3.8.
(k) “Indemnitees” means City and its councilmembers, officers, officials, employees, volunteers, representatives, attorneys, and consultants. (l) “Opening” means the date that the Development opens for business for sales and services to Developer’s customers during normal business hours. (m) “Party” means either the City or Developer.
(n) “Parties” means collectively the City and Developer. (o) “Sales Tax Law” means the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law (California Revenue and Taxation Code section 7200, et seq.). If the Bradley -Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law is further amended, terminated or rescinded, and Sales Taxes are calculated in an alternate manner or are replaced by an alternate revenue stream (i) arising from the retail sale, use or other consumption of tangible personal property from or on the Property, or (ii) designated as being a replacement for Sales Tax es previously generated by the retail sale, use or other consumption of tangible personal property on or from the Property, then “Sales Taxes” shall also mean those revenues attributable to sales, services or consumption of tangible personal property on or from the Property, collected for City in the alternate manner of calculation, so long as City receives its portion of such revenues and has the legal right under California and/or federal Law to retain and control the disposition of all of its portion thereof. (p) “Sales Taxes ” means for each Fiscal Year Quarter during the Term, that portion of taxes actually received by City from the imposition of Sales Tax Law attributable to the sales, services or business activities of Developer at the Development to the extent allocated and paid by the State Board of Equalization to City for its use, in a particular Fiscal Year Quarter. The defined term “Sales Taxes” shall not include any of the following: (i) any sales tax levied by, collected for or allocated to the State of California, the County, or any district or entity (including an allocation to a statewide or Countywide pool) other than City; (ii) any administrative fee charged by the State Board of Equalization or the County; (iii) any sales tax subject to any sharing, rebate, offset or other charge imposed pursuant to any applicable Law; (iv) any sales tax (or other funds measured as sales tax) required by the State of California to be paid over to another public entity (including the State) or set aside and/or pledged to a specific use other than for deposit into City’s general fund; (v) the district sales tax imposed by the City of Marina currently set at 1.5%; (vi) any other sales tax that is imposed

EXHIBIT G
108
118
4 661\05\3982867.7
within the boundaries of City and which is intended to fund a specific activity or project, rather than to be used by City as general fund revenues, or which has specific voter approved limitations on its uses. No Sales Taxes shall be considered to have been received by City until City is able to confirm the amount of City’s actual receipt thereof from the State Board of Equalization. (q) “Term” is defined in Section 2.2.

ARTICLE 2.

EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM
Section 2.1 Effective Date. This Agreement shall take effect the date this Agreement is signed by both Parties (the “Effective Date”).

Section 2.2 Term. The term of this Agreement begins on the Effective Date and ends on the later of (i) the October 1st immediately following the fifth (5th) anniversary of the Opening of the Development, subject to a year-for-year tolling in the event of a Force Majeure Event, or (ii) the date on which the Developer shall have received $5,000,000 in City Payments under this Agreement, unless terminated pursuant to the express provisions of this Agreement (the “Term”).

ARTICLE 3.

DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT
Section 3.1 Payment of Development Costs . Developer shall be responsible for the payment of all costs associated with the Development, including, but not limited to costs of construction, permit and impact fees, costs of any off -site improvements required as a condition of approval of the Development and any other costs.

Section 3.2 Development. Developer shall commence construction of the Development no later than September 1, 2026, and complete construction no later than eighteen (18) months after commencement as evidenced by a certificate of occupancy or final permit sign off by the City . The time frames for commencement and completion are subject to extension pursuant to Section 3.8. The Development shall be constructed consistent with the concept design plan submitted by the Developer to the City and attached hereto as Exhibit B and any City approvals including, but not limited to the City Resolutions.

Section 3.3 Development Costs. The City payments provided herein are being provided because the costs of the Development exceed the amounts that the Developer can reasonably expect to recover from the operation of the Development. In order to verify the costs of the Development, the Developer shall provide the City within thirty (30) days of completion of construction of the Development a cost certification showing all costs associated with the acquisition, entitlement, construction and marketing of the Development, together with fixtures, furnishings and equipment, including, but not limited to all land costs, design and engineering costs, hard and soft costs, permit and impact fees and all other costs to complete the Development and open for business (collectively, “Development Costs”). Upon receipt of the Developer’s cost certification, the City may request additional information and supporting documentation including but not limited to construction contracts, contractor payment applications, invoices and other evidence of payments. Submission of a cost certification along with such evidence as the City may require to verify costs documenting that at least Forty Million Dollars ($40,000,000) was spent on the Development Costs is a Condition Precedent to the City payments set forth in Section 3.6.

EXHIBIT G
109
119
5 661\05\3982867.7
Section 3.4 Developer Annual Report. No later than sixty (60) days following the end of each Fiscal Year, commencing upon the end of the first Fiscal Year after the Opening the Developer shall provide the City with a report on the performance of the Development, including, but not limited to, annual gross sales, total number of employees as well as the total full time equivalent employees with a breakdown of the job types and the number of employees that are Marina resi dents. The City may from time to time request additional information to be included in the annual reports. The City shall have the right by written notice to the Developer to review Developer’s books and records to confirm information provided in the annual report.

Section 3.5 City Business License. Developer shall maintain a City Business License at all times that the Development is open for business.

Section 3.6 City Payments.
(a) Subject to satisfaction of all Conditions Precedent, commencing on the date that is ninety (90) days following the end of the first full Fiscal Year Quarter after the Development Opening occurs and ninety (90) days following the end of each Fiscal Year Quarter thereafter throughout the Term, the City shall pay to Developer the Developer Sales Tax Share of the Sales Tax based on the Sales Tax actually received by the City during the immediately previous Fiscal Year Quarter, along with a certification by the City’s Finance Director specifying the total amount of Sales Tax received from the operation of the Development during the previous Fiscal Year Quarter (“City Payment(s)”).

Nothing contained in this Agreement shall obligate or otherwise commit the City to pay any amount to Developer unless and until the City receives the Sales Tax es attributable to sales, services or business activities of Developer at the Development.
(b) Developer shall, at the request of the City, provide the City with its Sales Tax reporting forms submitted to the State Board of Equalization to verify the Sales Tax reported to the Board of Equalization. Developer shall designate the Property as the point of sale for sales tax purposes for all goods and services sold or leased on the Property, whose sales or leases origina te from the Property.
(c) Following receipt of the City’s certification of the Sales Tax for the prior Fiscal Year Quarter, Developer shall review the amount of Sales Tax determined by the City’s Finance Director and shall either approve or disapprove the amount within thirty (30) days of receipt. Failure to notify the City of Developer’s disapproval within thirty (30) days of receipt shall be deemed Developer’s approval of the City Finance Director’s calculations. Any disapproval shall state in writing the reasons for disapprov al and the requested changes and shall provide any additional information or documentation available to Developer to support Developer’s determination of the Sales Tax. The City, upon receipt of a disapproval by Developer and the additional information, shall review all information provided by Developer and either re-determine the Sales Tax for the previous Fiscal Year Quarter or provide Developer with a statement of disagreement with regards to the Sales Tax received by the City. In the event the City an d Developer cannot agree on any item of the certification, the City and Developer shall submit the item mediation pursuant to Section 4.5 below.

Section 3.7 Failure to Operate. If the Development ceases to operate for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days absent a Force Majeure E vent, the City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement, and the City shall have no obligation to make any further payments to Developer. Any expansion, renovation, repair or restoration of damage by Developer shall not be deemed a discontinuance of operations under this Section.

EXHIBIT G
110
120
6 661\05\3982867.7
Section 3.8 Force Majeure . In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, performance by any Party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in default where delays or defaults are due to war; insurrection; riots; pandemics, floods; earthquakes; fires; or casualties (a “Force Majeure Event”). An extension of time for Force Majeure Event shall only be for the period of the enforced delay, which period shall commence to run from the time of the notification of the delay by the Party requesting the extension to the ot her Party. The Party requesting an extension of time under this Section 3.8 shall give notice promptly following knowledge of the delay to the other Party. If, however, notice by the Party claiming such extension is sent to the other Party more than thirty (30) days after knowledge of the commencement of the delay, the period shall commence to run upon the earliest of (i) thirty (30) days prior to the giving of such notice ; (ii) the date that the other Party received knowledge of the events giving rise to the delay or (iii) if the Force Majeure Event is one that results in the temporary closure of the Developer Store, the date of such closure.

Section 3.9 Limited City Obligation. The obligations arising from this Agreement are not a debt of the City, nor a legal or equitable pledge, charge, lien, or encumbrance upon any of its property or upon any of its monies, income, receipts, or revenues, except the revenues from the Sales Tax as provided herein . Neither the general nor any other fund of the City shall be liable for the payment of any obligations arising from this Agreement. The credit or taxing power of the City is not pledged for the payment of any obligation arising from this Agreement. Nothing herein shall provide Developer any right to compel the forfeiture of any of the City's property to satisfy any obligations arising from this Agreement. The obligations created by this Agreement do not create an immediate indebtedness of the City, but rather create a liability only when a payment becomes due hereunder.

ARTICLE 4.

DEFAULT AND REMEDIES
Section 4.1 Application of Remedies . The provisions of this Article shall govern the Parties' remedies for breach of this Agreement.

Section 4.2 Fault of City.
(a) Event of Default . Following notice and opportunity to cure as set forth in subsection (b) below, each of the following events constitutes a "City Event of Default" and a basis for Developer to take action against the City:
(i) The City fails to make any payment to Developer when required under this Agreement.
(ii) The City breaches any other material provision of this Agreement. (b) Notice and Cure Procedure . Upon the occurrence of any of the above - described events, Developer shall first notify the City in writing of its purported breach or failure, giving the City thirty (30) days from receipt of such notice to cure such breach or failure. In the event the City does not then cure the default within such thirty (30) -day period (or, if the default is not reasonably susceptible of cure within such thirty (30)-day period, the City fails to commence the cure within such period and thereafter to prosecute the cure diligently to completion), then Developer shall be entitled to pursue any or both of the following remedies: (1) terminating this Agreement by written notice to the City; and (2) exercising its remedies as provided in Section 4.4. If Developer elects to terminate this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement that are specified to survive such termination shall remain in full force and effect.

EXHIBIT G
111
121
7 661\05\3982867.7
Section 4.3 Fault of Developer.
(a) Event of Default . Following notice and opportunity to cure as set forth in subsection (b) below, each of the following events constitutes a "Developer Event of Default" and a basis for the City to take action against Developer:
(i) Developer fails to construct the Development or fails to Open the Development.
(ii) Developer fails to maintain a valid City Business License or fails to comply with any other material City laws or regulations. (iii) Developer: (1) files for bankruptcy, dissolutio n, or reorganization, or fails to obtain a full dismissal of any such involuntary filing brought by another party before the earlier of final relief or ninety (90) days after the filing; (2) makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; (3) applies for the appointment of a receiver, trustee, custodian, or liquidator, or fails to obtain a full dismissal of any such involuntary application brought by another party before the earlier of final relief or ninety (90) days after the filing; (4) becomes insolvent; or (5) fails, is unable or admits in writing to its inability to pay its debts as they become due. (iv) Developer breaches any other material provision of this Agreement. (b) Notice and Cure Procedure. Upon the happening of any of the above-described events the City shall first notify Developer in writing of its purported breach or failure, giving Developer thirty (30) days from receipt of such notice to cure such breach or failure. If Developer does not cure the default within such thirty (30) -day period (or if the default is not reasonably susceptible of being cured within such thirty (30)-day period, Developer fails to commence the cure within such period and thereafter to prosecute the cure diligently to completion), then the City shall be entitled to pursue any or both of the following remedies: (1) terminating this Agreement by written notice to Developer; (2) exercising its remedies pursuant to Section 4.4. If the City elects to terminate this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement that are specified to survive such termination shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 4.4 Remedies.
(a) Either Party may, in addition to any other rights or remedies that it may have available in law or equity (excluding punitive damages and consequential damages) , institute legal action to cure, correct, or remedy any default by the other Party to this Agreement, to enforce any covenant or agreement herein, or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation hereunder or to seek specific performance. For purposes o f instituting a legal action under this Agreement, any City Council determination under this Ag reement as it relates to an alleged default hereunder shall be deemed a final agency action. Developer acknowledges that it may not collect for future years based on a current or prior default, and that the City’s obligation to pay with respect to any Fiscal Year Quarter is contingent upon receipt of Sales Taxes for that Fiscal Year Quarter and dependent upon the amount of those Sales Taxes and fees for determination of the amount to be paid. (b) The Parties hereby acknowledge and agree that it is a material part of Developer’s consideration to City that Developer, on the one hand, and the City, on the other hand, for themselves, their successors and assignees, hereby release one another's officers, trustees, directors, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, actions, or suits of any kind or

EXHIBIT G
112
122
8 661\05\3982867.7
nature arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future, including, but not limited to, any claim or liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to impose any money damages, whatsoever because of the terms of this Agreement, or because of the manner of implementation or performance of this Agreement.

Section 4.5 Mediation. If Developer and City have any disputes relating to this Agreement, the Sales Tax amount, each Party’s respective performance or obligations hereunder or a notice of default has been issued, then, upon the written request of either Party given within ten (10) days after written notice of the dispute or the notice of default, as applicable, the issue shall be submitted to nonbinding mediation with a neutral mediator selected by mutual agreement of the Parties. Failure of either Party to timely request mediation shall be deemed a waiver of the mediation process. The mediator shall be selected and the mediation scheduled as soon as is reasonably practicable. The cost of mediation shall be borne equally by the Parties. At the mediation meeting, the mediator shall attempt to bring the Parties together to close the gap between their respective positions, in an effort to settle the dispute or claim, without deciding the matter for the Parties.

ARTICLE 5.

GENERAL PROVISIONS.

Section 5.1 General Indemnity . Developer shall indemnify, defend (with counsel approved by the City ) and hold harmless the City, Councilmembers, officials, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors (collectively, the “Indemnitees”) from and against any and all liabilities, losses, costs, expenses (including without limitation attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation), claims, demands, actions, suits, causes of action, writs, judicial or administrative proceedings, penalties, deficiencies, fines, orders, judgments and damages (all of the foregoing collectively “Claims”) which in any manner, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, are caused by, arise in connection with, result from, relate to, or are alleged to be caused by, arise in connection with this Agreement, including the negligent or wrongful performance of this Agreement by Developer or any contractor or subcontractor of Developer. This indemnity includes the fees and costs reasonably incurred by the City by its own in-house or special counsel retained to protect the City's interests. Each Party is entitled to legal counsel of its choice, at Developer's expense. The Parties and their respective counsel shall cooperate with each other in the defense of any such actions, including in any settlement negotiations. If a court in any such action awards any form of money damages to such third party, or any attorneys' fees and costs to such third party, Developer shall bear full and complete responsibility to comply with the requirements of such award, and hereby agrees to timely pay all fees and costs on behalf of City. This indemnity obligation shall not extend to any claim to the extent arising solely from the City's gross negligence or the City's failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement, and shall survive termination of this Agreement.

Section 5.2 Challenges to Agreement . Developer hereby agrees to defend (with counsel approved by the City), indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Indemnitees from any costs, losses, damages, claims including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, resulting from any challenges brought by any third parties to the C ity's authority to enter into this Agreement or to make the payments provided for herein. In the event of any such third-party challenge, the Parties shall meet and confer on the defense of such litigation; and Developer may elect, in Developer’s sole discretion, in lieu of defending (or continuing to defend) against such third-party challenge, to terminate this Agreement.

Section 5.3 Notices, Demands and Communications. Any approval, disapproval, demand, document or other notice to be provided under this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be

EXHIBIT G
113
123
9 661\05\3982867.7
sent (i) for personal delivery by a delivery service that provides a record of the date of delivery, the individual to whom delivery was made, and the address where delivery was made; (ii) by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested; or (iii) by a nationally recognized overnight courier service, marked for next day business delivery. All notices shall be addressed to the Party to whom such notice is to be given at the address stated in this Section 5.2 or to such other address as a Party may designate by written notice to the other; notices sent by a Party’s attorney on behalf of such Party shall be deemed delivered by such Party.

City Notice Address:

City of Marina
211 Hillcrest Avenue
Marina, CA 93933
Attn: City Manager
With copies to:

City of Marina
c/o Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, LLP
550 California Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104
Attn: City Attorney

Developer Notice Address:

Unstoppable Automotive MBMCA LLC
40910 Temecula Center Dr
Temecula, CA 92591
Attn; Garth Blumenthal
Email: [email protected]

With a copy to:

Tribune Law Firm, LLP
601 University Ave, Suite 288
Sacramento, CA 95825
Attn: Sylvia Arostegui
Email: [email protected]

All notices shall be deemed effective on the earliest of (a) actual receipt; (b) rejection of delivery; (c) if sent by first class mail, the third day on which regular United States mail delivery service is provided after the day of mailing or; (d) if sent by overnight delivery service, on the next day on which such service makes next-business-day deliveries after the day of sending.

Section 5.4 No Assignment. Developer may not assign any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City, which may be withheld or granted in its sole discretion. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer shall have the right to assign its rights without the prior written consent of the City in connection with the following: (i) any assignment to an affiliate or related party, or (ii) any assignment for financing pur poses or for collateral purposes,

EXHIBIT G
114
124
10 661\05\3982867.7
provided that prior to any such assignment, the Developer shall provide the City with notice of such assignment and a signed assignment agreement.

Section 5.5 No Joint Venture. It is expressly agreed that City is not, in any way or for any purpose, a partner of Developer or any of Developer’s partners, officers, members, directors, shareholders, principals, agents, employees, contractors or subcontractors, or its or their successors or assigns (each, a “Developer Party”) in the conduct of its or their business or a member of a joint enterprise with Developer or any Developer Party. Neither City nor Developer shall be deemed or construed for any purpose to be t he agent of the other, and City does not assume any responsibility for Developer or any Developer Party’s conduct or performance of this Agreement.

Section 5.6 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

Section 5.7 No Waiver. A waiver by either Party of a breach of any of the covenants, conditions or agreements under this Agreement to be performed by the other Party shall not be construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same or other covenants, agreements, restrictions or conditions of this Agreement.

Section 5.8 Modifications. Any alteration, change , amendment or modification of or to this Agreement, in order to become effective, shall be made in writing and in each instance signed on behalf of each Party.

Section 5.9 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person, entity or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such provision to persons, entities or circumst ances other than those as to which it is invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each other provision of this Agreement shall be valid and be enforceable to the full extent permitted by Law.

Section 5.10 Legal Advice. Each Party represents and warrants to the other the following:
they have carefully read this Agreement, and in signing this Agreement, they do so with full knowledge of any right which they may have; they have received independent legal advice from their respective legal counsel as to the matters set forth in this Agreement, or have knowingly chosen not to consult legal counsel as to the matters set forth in this Agreement; and, they have freely signed this Agreement without any reliance upon any agreement, promise, statement or representation by or on behalf of the other Party, or its officers, officials, agents, employees, volunteers, representatives, attorneys, or consultants, except as specifically set forth in this Agreement, and without duress or coercion, whether economic or otherwise.

Section 5.11 Cooperation. Each Party agrees to cooperate with the other in this transaction and, in that regard, shall execute any and all documents which may be reasonably necessary, helpful, or appropriate to carry out the purposes and intent of this Agreement.

Section 5.12 Conflicts of Interest. No member, official or employee of City shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any such member, official or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects his or her personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership or association in which he or she is directly or indirectly interested.

EXHIBIT G
115
125
11 661\05\3982867.7
Section 5.13 Applicable Law. The laws of the State of California, without regard to conflict of laws principles, shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement.

Section 5.14 No Third-party Beneficiaries. There are no third -party beneficiaries to this Agreement.

Section 5.15 Interpretation. The captions preceding the sections of this Agreement have been inserted for convenience of reference only and such captions shall in no way define or limit the scope or intent of any provision of this Agreement. This Agreement has been negotiated at a rm’s length and between persons sophisticated and knowledgeable in the matters dealt with herein and shall be interpreted to achieve the intents and purposes of the Parties, without any presumption against the Party responsible for drafting any part of this Agreement. Provisions in this Agreement relating to number of days shall be calendar days. Use of the word “including” means “including, without limitation.” As used in this Agreement, masculine, feminine or neuter gender and the singul ar or plural number shall each be deemed to include the others where and when the context so dictates.

The recitals to this Agreement and all exhibits attached hereto are incorporated by reference, as though fully restated herein.

Section 5.16 Time of Essence . Time is of the essence with respect to all obligations of Developer under this Agreement.

Section 5.17 City Approvals and Actions. Whenever a reference is made herein to an action or approval to be undertaken by City, the City Manager or his or her designee is authorized to act on behalf of City unless specifically provided otherwise or the context should require otherwise.

Section 5.18 Attorneys’ Fees. In the event that either Party to this Agreement brings an action or proceeding for a declaration of the rights of the parties under this Agreement, for injunctive relief or for an alleged breach or default of this Agreement, or in any other action arising out of this Agreement or the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, the predominantly prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and any court costs incurred in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other damages or relief awarded, regardless of whether such action proceeds to final judgment.

Section 5.19 Land Use Entitlements and Permits. The execution of this Agreement does not constitute the grant of any required land use entitlement or permit, and all land use entitlements and permits contemplated by this Agreement and required from the City, shall be granted, denied, or conditionally granted in accordance with the City’s established procedures and in compliance with all applicable laws, rules, regulations and requirements including but not limited to the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Notwithstanding any language in this Agreement that may be construed to the contrary, the City retains its full discretion to grant, deny or conditionally grant any and all entitlements or permits sought by Developer for the Development, and such discretion includes but is not limited to the discretion to exercise its independent judgment and impose on such approvals all mitigation measures and conditions that City determines are required or appropriate under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. No action by Developer or the City with reference to this Agreement shall be deemed a representation or warranty to Developer, or to any other person or entity, that the City will issue or approve any entitlements or permits, nor constitute a waiver of any state or City requirements that are applicable to the Development.

EXHIBIT G
116
126
12 661\05\3982867.7

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.

CITY OF MARINA, a municipal corporation

By:

Layne Long, City Manager

Approved as to form:

By: ____________________________________
René Ortega, City Attorney

UNSTOPPABLE AUTOMOTIVE MBMCA LLC, a
California limited liability company
By:

Garth Blumenthal, Manager

EXHIBIT G
117
127
A-1
661\05\3982867.7

EXHIBIT A

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

EXHIBIT G
118
128
B-1
661\05\3982867.7

EXHIBIT B

CONCEPT DESIGN

EXHIBIT G
119
129
C-1
661\05\3982867.7

EXHIBIT C

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

EXHIBIT G
120
130
C-2
661\05\3982867.7

EXHIBIT G
121
131
C-3
661\05\3982867.7

EXHIBIT G
122
132
C-4
661\05\3982867.7

EXHIBIT G
123
133
C-5
661\05\3982867.7

EXHIBIT G
124
134
C-6
661\05\3982867.7

EXHIBIT G
125
135
C-7
661\05\3982867.7

EXHIBIT G
126
136
D-1
661\05\3982867.7

EXHIBIT D
CITY COUNCIL RESOUTION NO. 2025-48 and 2025-83

EXHIBIT G
127
137
D-2
661\05\3982867.7

EXHIBIT G
128
138
D-3
661\05\3982867.7

EXHIBIT G
129
139
D-4
661\05\3982867.7

2052427.1

EXHIBIT G
130
140
April 15, 2026 Item No. 13d

Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Marina City Council of April 21, 2026

CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 2026- ,

APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SALES TAX REVENUE

SHARING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MARINA AND

UNSTOPPABLE AUTOMOTIVE MBMCA LLC TO ASSIST WITH THE

CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND SITE DEVELOPMENT OF AN

AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AMENDMENT SUBJECT TO FINAL
REVIEW BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

REQUEST:

It is recommended that the City Council consider adopting Resolution No. 2026 -:

1. Approving an amendment to the Sales Tax Revenue Sharing Agreement between the City of Marina and Unstoppable Automotive MBMCA LLC to assist in covering high site development and construction costs associated with developing a Mercedes-Benz automobile dealership in Marina, and;

2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute the amendment subject to review by the City Attorney.

BACKGROUND:

At the May 20,2025 City Council meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-48 approving with conditions a Sales Tax Revenue Sharing Agreement with the Unstoppable Automotive MBMCA LLC (“Agreement”) group to assist in covering the high site development and construction costs associated with developing a Mercedes-Benz automobile dealership in Marina. On July 18, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-83, approving an amendment to the Agreement, with conditions.

The Agreement provides a $5 million dollar incentive achieved by a 50% rebate from the sales tax received by the City of Marina based on a 1 percent sales tax. It is estimated that it will take approximately seven years to meet the $5 million dollar incentive cap. The Economic Development Subsidy Report prepared by Keyser Marston, Exhibit C to the approved Agreement, shows that the dealership will generate significant annual tax revenue to the City of Marina and that the cumulative tax revenues generated during the dealership’s first seven operating years to the City of Marina net of the subsidy payments to the dealership are estimated to be approximately $11.64 million dollars.

Once the incentive sharing agreement cap is reached, the City’s estimated annual direct tax revenue will be approximately $3,195,000.

ANALYSIS:

The Sales Tax Revenue Sharing Agreement requires that the developer shall commence construction of the development no later than January 1, 2026, and complete construction no later than fifteen (15) months after commencement as evidenced by a certificate of occupancy or final permit sign off by the City.

EXHIBIT G
131
141
Due to delays in getting final approval from Mercedes-Benz USA, securing financing, impacts from tariffs and other economic changes and delays in getting final architectural designs completed, the dealership could not begin construction by January 1, 2026. The dealership is requesting a minor amendment to the Section 3.2 of the Agreement to amend the construction start date and completion.

That provision will be amended to state: “Developer shall commence construction of the Development no later than September 10, 2026, and complete construction no later than eighteen (18) months after commencement as evidenced by a certificate of occupancy or final permit sign off by the City.” There are no other changes to the Agreement, nor the amount of the subsidy.

The developers’ site plan and design review permit will be going before the Planning Commission on April 23, 2026, and as requested by the City Council final approval will come to the City Council which we expect will be at the May 5th or May 19th City Council meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no change in subsidy from the approved Sales Tax Revenue Sharing Agreement. First year direct new tax revenue is estimated to be $882,000. Cumulative tax revenue to the City over seven years, is estimated to be $11,635,000.

CONCLUSION:

This request is submitted for City Council consideration and approval.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________
Layne Long
City Manager
City of Marina

Attachments:

Exhibit A – Amended Sales Tax Revenue Sharing Agreement

EXHIBIT G
132
142

EXHIBIT G
133
143

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-49

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA

APPROVING A SALES TAX REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF MARINA AND UNSTOPPABLE AUTOMOTIVE

MBMCA LLC TO ASSIST WITH THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND SITE DEVELOPMENT OF AN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP; AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT,

SUBJECT TO FINAL REVIEW BY THE CITY ATTORNEY

WHEREAS, the City desires to encourage private investment and economic development within the City’s commercial areas; and

WHEREAS, the Unstoppable Automotive MBMCA LLC (Developer) proposes to construct and operate a new Mercedes-Benz automotive dealership located in the Dunes development within the City of Marina; and

WHEREAS the project involves a capital investment estimated at over $40 million dollars, which includes land purchase, site development, construction of facilities and equipment; and

WHEREAS, the dealership is anticipated to generate substantial local sales tax revenue and other direct tax revenue for the City and create quality jobs; and

WHEREAS, in consideration of the Developer’s significant capital investment and contribution to the City’s economic base, the City agrees to rebate 50% of its local (1%) sales tax revenue for five years to support the financial feasibility of the project.

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

1. Approve the sales tax revenue sharing agreement between the City of Marina and Unstoppable Automotive MBMCA LLC to assist in covering high site development and construction costs associated with developing a Mercedes -Benz automobile dealership in Marina , with the following conditions:
a. The City Council shall have final approval after review from the Tree Committee and the Planning Commission for Site Plan and Architectural Design Review; b. That the dealership produces an accurate computer simulation video prior to Planning Commission review;
c. That any gateway sign be consistent with City monument design requirements and that any dealership signage refer to “Mercedes of Marina”;
d. That the proposed lighting for the dealership site minimizes impact to the night sky; e. To consider future specific agreement amendments subject to mutual agreement by City and Developer; and
f. Implement preference for local hires when feasible.

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement subject to final review by the City Attorney, and:

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

EXHIBIT G
134
144

Resolution No. 2025-49
Page Two

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Marina at a regular meeting duly held on May 20, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: McAdams, McCarthy, Biala Delgado, Visscher NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None

_____________________________
ATTEST: Liesbeth Visscher, Mayor Pro Tem

_______________________________
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk

EXHIBIT G
135
145

May 20, 2025 Item No: 13a

Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Marina City Council of May 20, 2025

SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO ITEM 13A: CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 2025-, APPROVING A SALES

TAX REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF MARINA

AND UNSTOPPABLE AUTOMOTIVE MBMCA LLC TO ASSIST WITH

THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND SITE DEVELOPMENT OF AN
AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP ; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT, SUBJECT TO FINAL
REVIEW BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

ANALYSIS:

The Unstoppable Group, LLC has approached the City to revise the terms of the draft tax sharing agreement to provide for a firm incentive of $5 million dollars, rather than $5 million dollars over a 5-year period. The original discussions with staff revolv ed around providing an incentive of $5 million dollars within a 5-year period. However, there appears to have been an assumption by the Unstoppable Group that a $5 million dollar incentive would be achievable in 5-years, based on the assumption that there would be a 50% rebate from the sales tax received based on a 1 ½ percent sales tax. The 1 ½ percent sales tax they were looking at is the additional 1 ½ percent tax approved by the voters and would not be subject to the tax sharing agreement. The City’s b ase tax rate, which is 1 percent, would be applicable to the sharing agreement. Applying the City’s 1 percent sales tax to expected sales over the 5-year period as provided in the agreement resulted in a $3.48 million dollar estimated incentive, less than the $5 million initial incentive proposed by the Unstoppable Group.

As a result of this request, City staff worked with its consultant to determine whether extending the 5-year cap to a $5 million dollar cap would still make financial sense to the City. The attached revised Economic Development Subsidy Report shows that t o meet the $5 million cap, the cost - sharing time period would need to be extended from five to seven years. The report shows that the City will receive an estimated $11,635,000 over the 7-year period. Once the incentive sharing agreement is over in year seven, the city’s estimated annual direct tax revenue will be $3,195,000.

In addition to clarifying the original intent of staff and the Unstoppable Group with respect to the incentive in the tax sharing arrangement, a couple of other clarifications were requested, including by staff:

• Fixing title of the Agreement
• Providing for quarterly payments to the Unstoppable Group; and • Designating the property in the City of Marina as the point of sale for any internet sales.

A revised economic development subsidy report and agreement are attached to this supplemental report for Council consideration.

FISCAL IMPACT:

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT

EXHIBIT G
136
146

First year direct new tax revenue to the City will be $882,000. Cumulative over seven years, the new direct tax annual revenue will be $11,635,000. The revenue will go to the General Fund.

Additionally, the City’s portion of the Monterey County pooled sales tax could increase an additional $100,000 to $400,000.

CONCLUSION
This request is submitted for City Council consideration and direction.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________
Layne Long
City Manager
City of Marina

EXHIBIT G
137
147

May 15, 2025 Item No: 13a

Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
of the Marina City Council of May 20, 2025

CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 202 5-,

APPROVING A SALES TAX REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT

BETWEEN CITY OF MARINA AND UNSTOPPABLE AUTOMOTIVE

MBMCA LLC TO ASSIST WITH THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND
SITE DEVELOPMENT OF AN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP, AND;

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE

AGREEMENT, SUBJECT TO FINAL REVIEW BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.

REQUEST:

It is requested that the City Council consider:

1. Adopting Resolution No. 2025-, approving a sales tax revenue sharing agreement between the City of Marina and Unstoppable Automotive MBMCA LLC to assist in covering high site development and construction costs associated with developing a Mercedes -Benz automobile dealership in Marina, and;

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement subject to final review by the City Attorney, and:

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

BACKGROUND:

The City of Marina has actively sought to attract high -value commercial businesses that can stimulate economic development, create jobs, expand the tax base, and generate sustainable revenue for the City. This dealership provides a new revenue stream to help meet the public safety, service needs, infrastructure, and maintenance demands of Marina. In alignment with the City’s Mission and Vision Statement and the City Council’s goals and objectives, staff have been in discussions with the Unstoppable Automotive group who are interested in constructing a Mercedes-Benz dealership on a parcel within the Dunes development area.

The Dunes development is a mixed-use development that includes retail, commercial, office, hotel, residential and affordable housing uses. A Specific Plan adopted for the Dunes development guides the development and land use of this development.

The Unstoppable Automotive LLC is proposing to acquire land from the Dunes development (Marina Community Partners ) to develop a new Mercedes -Benz automobile dealership . The proposed dealership represents a significant capital investment estimated at over $40 million dollars that includes land acquisition, site development and construction of dealership facilities with a new showroom and service center . This dealership will generate substantial new sales tax revenue for the City and is expected to create ove r 80 full -time equivalent jobs, initially, and expanding to over 140 full-time equivalent jobs over five years. (“EXHIBIT A”)

EXHIBIT G
138
148

The dealership has requested a sales tax revenue sharing agreement to support the significant upfront capital investment costs that will enhance their long-term competitiveness in the regional automotive market area.

The dealership will serve as an important catalyst for the continued economic growth and development needs of the City. The project will provide substantial direct and indirect benefits to the City and economic opportunities, including sales tax revenues, increased property tax revenues, and increased jobs in the region . It will enhance the City’s position as a regional retail and commercial destination and serve as a catalyst for additional retail and commercial development opportunities.

In general, the City typically does not provide economic incentive agreements to businesses.

However, the former Fort Ord property area has some unique challenges due to constraints placed on the property when it was transferred from the Army to the Fort O rd Reuse Authority and then to the City of Marina. Some of the unique constraints of these properties include requirements for all first-generation construction to pay a prevailing wage for all new construction which in many cases can double the constructions costs verses other cities in the area or state. There are also blighted military housing units that have lead and asbestos which add a significant cost to remove; decaying water and sewer infrastructure to replace; various endangered species that must be mitigated; and housing and water allotment caps.

Other major developments in the former Fort Ord properties in Marina have needed an economic incentive to be able to move forward. Examples include the current Dunes development, Marina Heights development (now Sea Haven), Cinemark theatre, Marriott Springhill Suite, and most recently the 225,000 square foot manufacturing building constructed by Joby Aviation at the Marina Municipal Airport.

ANALYSIS:

Mercedes-Benz, as a premier luxury auto brand, is anticipated to bring notable economic and brand value to the City of Marina . The dealership is projected to generate substantial annual sales revenue, which in turn would increase the City’s share of local sales tax and the City’s share of the Monterey County pooled sales tax.

To help offset the upfront capital burden of the development, the dealership has requested a temporary sales tax revenue sharing agreement. The proposed agreement includes the following terms: (“EXHIBIT B”)

• The City will rebate fifty percent (50%) of the City’s portion of the one percent (1%) local share of sales tax revenue generated by the dealership for a period of up to five (5) years • Commence construction no later than January 1, 2026, and complete construction no later than fifteen (15) months after commencement.
• A high building design standard
• Annual report that includes annual gross sales, total number of employees, total full -time employees, breakdown of job types and number of employees that are Marina residents.

The firm Keyser Marston Associates was hired to evaluate the fiscal and economic benefits associated with the Mercedes-Benz automobile dealership. Included with their evaluation is a tax revenue analysis, an economic impact analysis, along with an assessment of the justification of the sales tax revenue sharing agreement. (“EXHIBIT C”
The new facility will be over 60.000 square feet, consisting of a showroom, service area, and detail bay. Sales will include new vehicles, used vehicles, parts and service sales.

EXHIBIT G
139
149

The sales tax generated by the dealership goes to the City’s General Fund for city -wide benefit and use and is not limited to the former Fort Ord area.

A premium brand like Mercedes-Benz will likely generate high sales volumes, particularly since this will be the only dealership in Santa Cruz County, San Benito County, South Santa Clara County and Monterey County. Significant short -term economic activity will occur from site development and construction of the dealership facility. When completed it is expected to attract regional shoppers. Visitors to the dealership may spend additional money at nearby restaurants, gas stations, and hotels.

Estimated Fiscal Impact
Year 2027 Year 2031
Annual Taxable Sales $93, 593,200 $194,074,694
Sales Tax Revenue (1%) $935,932 $1,940,747
50% Rebate to Dealership $467,966 $970,373
Annual Net to City $467,966 $970,373

Over five years, the cumulative total net sales revenue to City is approximately $3,482,411. In addition to sales tax revenue, the City will receive Measure N (1.5%) tax on parts, business license gross tax receipts, vehicle in lieu property tax revenues. The cumulative total new direct tax revenue the City will receive over the five -year rebate will be $6,420,000. After year five, 100% of the sales tax revenue will come to the City.

FISCAL IMPACT:

First year direct new tax revenue to the City will be $882,000. Cumulative over five years, the new direct tax annual revenue will be $6,420,000. The revenue will go to the General Fund.

Additionally, the City’s portion of the Monterey County pooled sales tax is expected to increase annually by an estimated additional $150,000.

CONCLUSION
This request is submitted for City Council consideration and direction.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________
Layne Long
City Manager
City of Marina

1920056.3

EXHIBIT G
140
150
Lighting Dunes Specific Plan MMRP Measures
University Village Specific Plan Lighting Guidelines

EXHIBIT H
151

EXHIBIT H
152

EXHIBIT H
153

EXHIBIT H
154
2002 City Design Guidelines

EXHIBIT H
155

NOISE STANDARDS

EXHIBIT H
156

EXHIBIT H
157

EXHIBIT H
158
City of Marina City of Marina
211 HILLCREST AVENUE
MARINA, CA 93933
831-884-1278
www.cityofmarina.org
S e r v i n g a W o r l d C l a s s C o m m u n i t y

MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 28, 2026
FROM: Guido F. Persicone
TO: File
SUBJECT: Car Dealership-City Council Questions
I am disappointed in the way this project is being presented to the Council on Tuesday, with a substantial amount of missing and/or unclear information, along with significant reliance on future discretionary staff approvals that remain uncertain.

Please articulate what missing information you need.

If the Council has the right to provide specific policy input on the draft conditions of approval.

There are too many unresolved details for me to feel confident that we are being asked to make a fully informed decision.

Noted. Please articulate what missing information you need.

I also want to suggest that we not take this item if it is past 8:30 PM.

Noted. City staff defers the Mayor and the Council on the order the Council agenda.

Does the city of Marina have or is staff developing commercial design standards for this portion of Marina?
The design guidelines of the University Village Specific Plan (UVSP) would be the guidelines for this project which the Council has approved.

Where is the specific lighting plan? How high are the poles, are the lights dimmable, is there lighted signage?
A specific lighting plan has not been submitted. COA #25 has been placed on the project regarding submitting the plan. Typically, this is not done until the building permit phase of a project.

What will the signage look like? The draft conceptual signage.

The conceptual signage for the building was presented to the Council during the adoption of Council resolution 2025-83 and included here as well1.
1 https://vimeo.com/1168245102/6053e8e725?share=copy&fl=cl&fe=ci

EXHIBIT I
159
2 The final submittal will be approved as part of a Master Sign Program (MSP) by the Planning Commission prior to occupying the building (COA #27). If the Council wants, they can provide more specific policy input on the signage.

What kind of trees will be replanted, where will they be planted, and by what time? Twenty-two (22) trees that are in fair/good condition will be removed so 44 trees need to be replaced.

The applicant is planting 67 replacement trees. The trees will be planted prior to occupancy of the building and per condition of approval COA#13 a bond will have to be placed with the City to maintain the landscaping for at least two years to ensure the vegetation has time to grow and mature.

COA #14 mandates the property to be adequately maintained for the life of the project. The type of trees that will be replaced can be found on the preliminary landscaping plan and in the Preliminary Tree Legend.

EXHIBIT I
160
3 How come none of the Caltrans trees are being removed? They are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Marina.

Is there a way to split the tree removal between the Caltrans trees and the city trees? They are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Marina.

All of the future discretionary staff approvals do not work for me. What are our options and alternatives? The full Council could provide additional language on the draft conditions of approval to provide specific policy input to city staff or Planning Commission on future approvals.

COA #25/#33-Lighting
COA #27 Signage
COA #42-Parking Study

I want to put on record, again, how disappointed I am with the name “Mercedes of Monterey.” We will be the Council remembered for approving a project in Marina that promotes and elevates another city’s identity rather than advocating for and requiring recognition of our own community. This is legacy work. Names matter. Branding matters. Economic identity matters. We should be demanding outcomes that proudly reflect Marina and strengthen our city’s visibility, recognition, and long-term value.

Noted.

EXHIBIT I
161
4 Can you clarify the delivery of truck routes and the hours of delivery of said vehicles to the car dealership?

Here is a proposed truck route for the dealership, which basically shows trucks driving down HWY 1, exiting Light fighter, and making a left onto DIVARTY. No unloading of vehicles on First Avenue would be allowed. Delivery hours vary from 7 am – 10 pm

Can you clarify the car washing component of the business? Hours of operation? Will it be open to Mercedes Benz customers or is it just for when a car is brought in for service and then washed afterwards by the service station staff?
The car wash will generally be operational during Dealership hours, particularly the Service Department..

Can verbiage be added to the master sign program about prohibiting banners, signs and other unsightly signage?
Yes. The car dealership Master Sign Program can incorporate by reference the Dunes MSP that prohibits balloons, inflatable signs, banners and other unsightly signage.

EXHIBIT I
162
5 EXHIBIT I
163
6 Condition of Approval #25 Lighting Plan

To the extent feasible, the following standards will be incorproated into the final lighting plan.

The lighting metrics below are substantially modeled on the City of Calabasas auto dealership lighting standards, which use specific foot-candle limits and uniformity ratios for dealership lots.

You could adapt these into findings, CUP conditions, or zoning ordinance language.

Draft Conditions of Approval — Auto Dealership Noise & Lighting

1. Maximum Pole Height
All freestanding parking lot and inventory lighting poles shall not exceed:
• 24 feet in height within 150 feet of any residentially zoned property; and • 30 feet in height elsewhere on the site.

Pole height shall be measured from finished grade at the base of the pole to the highest point of the fixture.

No pole-mounted lighting shall be installed on parapets, rooftops, retaining walls, or elevated planters in a manner that effectively increases fixture height above these limits.

2. Full Cutoff Fixtures Required
All exterior lighting fixtures shall be:
• full cutoff / fully shielded fixtures;
• directed downward;
• designed so that no direct light source is visible from adjacent public rights-of-way or residential properties.

No uplighting shall be permitted

3. Maximum Lighting Levels (Foot-Candles)
Lighting levels shall be measured in maintained foot-candles using a calibrated light meter at ground level.

A. Customer Display Areas
Vehicle display areas located near showroom frontage may not exceed at 100% power. This space should not exceed xxx square feet.
• 20 average foot-candles
• 25 maximum foot-candles at any single point
B. Inventory Parking Areas
Vehicle inventory lots shall not exceed:
• 2 average foot-candles
• 8 maximum foot-candles at any single point
C. Storage or Overflow Areas
Vehicle storage areas shall not exceed:
• 2 average foot-candles
• 5 maximum foot-candles at any single point
These thresholds are adapted from dealership lighting standards used by Calabasas.

4. Residential Property Line Light Spill Limit
At any residential property line, illumination originating from the dealership site shall not exceed:

EXHIBIT I
164
7 • 0.5 foot-candles average
• 1.0 foot-candle maximum at any point
Measurements shall be taken:
• 5 feet above grade,
• facing the dealership property,
• between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise.

This is intentionally stricter than some urban municipal standards because dealership lighting is unusually intense.

5. Lighting Curfew
Except for minimum security lighting:
• all display lighting shall be extinguished by 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday; • all display lighting shall be extinguished by 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday.

After curfew:
• lighting shall be reduced to security-only levels not exceeding 2 foot-candles average across the site.
**Diming times should correlate to a specific diming percentage**

6. Prohibited Lighting Features
The following shall be prohibited:
• flashing lights;
• animated lighting;
• color-changing LED lighting;
• laser lighting;
• searchlights;
• exposed LED accent strips visible from adjacent streets; • lighting that creates glare visible to motorists on adjacent roadways.

7. Noise Limits — Property Line Standard
Noise generated by dealership operations, including:
• loudspeakers,
• service operations,
• vehicle movement,
• pressure washing,
• Car Wash Blowers
• amplified events,
• and outdoor music,

Time Period Maximum Noise Level
7:00 a.m. â€“ 10:00 p.m. 60 dBA Leq
10:00 p.m. â€“ 7:00 a.m. 50 dBA Leq

Measurements shall be taken:

EXHIBIT I
165
8 • at the nearest residential property line,
• using ANSI Type 2 or better sound meter equipment,
• over a 15-minute averaging period.

8. Prohibition on Outdoor Amplified Sound
Outdoor amplified sound shall be prohibited except during city-approved special events.

Any approved special event using amplified sound shall:
• end by 8:00 p.m.;
• not exceed 65 dBA at the property line.

9. Vehicle Idling Restriction
No vehicle shall idle for more than:
• 3 consecutive minutes outdoors,
• except during legally required service diagnostics.

No outdoor revving, testing, or demonstration of vehicle exhaust systems shall occur before 8:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m.

10. Service Bay Door Restrictions
Service bay doors facing residential areas shall remain closed except for:
• immediate vehicle ingress/egress,
• emergency ventilation needs.

No outdoor repair work shall be permitted.

11. Independent Verification Requirement
Prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall submit:
• a photometric plan prepared by a licensed lighting professional compliance • and a post-installation field verification report prepared by an independent third party.

The report shall certify compliance with all lighting and noise conditions including ca title 24 The City may require re-testing upon documented complaints.

12. Automatic Review Clause
If the City receives:
• 3 substantiated violations within any 12-month period, or • 10 verified nuisance complaints within any 12-month period, the Planning Commission may initiate a public review hearing and impose additional operational restrictions.

EXHIBIT I
166
Guido Persicone, May 31, 2026 Page 1
May 31, 2026
Guido Persicone
Community Development Director
City of Marina
RE: Response for Additional Information and Conditions of Approval to the City Council from the May 19, 2026 City Council Meeting Regarding the Mercedes Dealership Site Plan and Design Review Application (SADRA) Dear Mr. Persicone
This letter is in response to the City Council’s request for additional information and the conditions of approval relating to the site plan and design review application (SADRA) for the proposed Mercedes dealership, as provided in the City Council meeting of May 19, 2026. The Unstoppable Automotive Group (Automotive Group), and its consultants, have prepared this information to assist the Council in the expectation of an approval of this SADRA, in line with the previous unanimous approvals by the Tree Committee and Planning Commission. Overall, the Automotive Group agrees with the Conditions of Approval as provided in the staff report and SADRA resolution, with the exceptions or requests noted below (shown in italics):

Special Events (COA #54)
On occasion, the dealership facility will host special events, such as a grand opening, charity events, Chamber of Commerce mixers, client appreciation events, new model opening events, etc. The frequency of these events throughout the year will vary, and will be based on requests from the community, and organizational needs of the dealership.

Lighting (COA #25)
Program
Provided in Exhibit A is the site plan for the project, with the preliminary location of lighting fixtures on poles noted, subject to modification pending the preparation of a detailed Attachment 2

Guido Persicone, May 31, 2026 Page 2

lighting plan for submittal with the building construction documents, and based on the photometric study. In concept, the lighting program will include the following:
• Approximately 34 light poles, distributed throughout the site. • Limited use of wall packs (sconces) at exit doors, exact amount to be determined during development of the detailed lighting plan as part of the construction documents.
• Timing/duration of lighting: Lighting will step down throughout the site after 10pm, in accordance with the standards and will be detailed in the Lighting Plan submittal.
• Typical height of poles to be 20ft tall including the base.

Standards
• As noted in SADRA application and the staff report for the May 19, 2026, City Council agenda item 11b, the project intends to adhere to dark sky principles, as detailed in these documents, including those specified in the University Villages Specific Plan (Specific Plan).
• Specific standards for lighting are detailed in the Specific Plan, Marina Municipal Code (MMC), Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program from the Dunes EIR adopted in 2005 (EIR MMRP). • A photometric study will be submitted with the detailed lighting plan as part of the building permit application. The purpose of the study is to verify the intensity of the light dispersion and intensity from the fixtures noted on the lighting plan with adjacent land uses.
• The one item of concern is the color temperature standard. The Mercedes-Benz USA corporate image program requires 4000 Kelvin for showroom and display lighting, so we are not able to commit to the 3000 Kelvin cap as written in the COA and request that the condition be revised to allow 4000 Kelvin.

Noise (COA #39, #55, #56)
Program

Guido Persicone, May 31, 2026 Page 3

Provided in Exhibit B is the site plan with the potential noise generators identified, specifically, car wash, service/repair facility, and delivery truck unloading location. Each of these generators will operate within typical car dealership operations, and is not anticipated to generate any significant noise levels. Below is an explanation of each:
• Car wash - this building is an enclosed facility, located on the northwest of the project site away from 1st Avenue, oriented with openings to the north (adjacent to future commercial development), to the south (adjacent to other dealership buildings), and on the site close to the highway side of the project. This location and orientation will significantly limit noise generation to adjacent land uses to the east, north, and particularly the residential to the northeast in the Phase 3 south portion of the Dunes project. Hours of operation of the car wash are limited to 7am to 7pm.

• Service and repair facility – the service bays are a fully enclosed operation without open service bay doors as is typical with auto repair facilities that are independent of auto dealerships. This type of operation and facility will minimize noise production from service equipment such as impact wrenches, lifts, etc. Hours of service and repair operations are limited to 7am to 7pm.

• Auto transport and delivery – auto transport or delivery trucks are anticipated to unload within the project site as indicated on the site plan in Exhibit B. This area is facing east, toward future commercial activity directly across 1st Avenue. Hours of delivery and unloading are limited to vary from 7 am to 10 pm. Auto transport to and from the project site is noted on Exhibit B as well in the lower left, with the primary delivery route from Highway 1 north, to Lightfighter exit, to 2nd Avenue north to Divarty west, to inside the dealership property off of 1st Avenue. o One request for delivery: we ask that parts deliveries be permitted on Sundays.

• Hours of Operation (COA #26):

Guido Persicone, May 31, 2026 Page 4

• Sales Showroom - Monday to Friday 8 AM to 9 PM, Saturday 8:30 AM to 8 PM, Sunday 10 AM to 7 PM.
• Service Monday - to Friday 7 AM to 7 PM, Saturday 8 AM to 4 PM, closed Sundays.

Standards
The Marina General Plan, Municipal Code, and EIR MMRP currently regulates noise standards from commercial land use operations within the Dunes Specific Plan area.

These standards will be utilized in the operation of the Mercedes dealership, and are provided for in the Conditions of Approval #39, #55, and #56 for this development.

A modification is requested to COA #55:
• Remove the 3 Minute Idle Time: We cannot control this, some inventory vehicles may need their batteries charged periodically, the vehicles in idle do not create significant noise.
• Vacuum stations: understood that fixed stations will be located indoors. We ask for flexibility to use portable hand vacuums on the service drive on a case-by- case basis as needed.
• Service bay doors: We will use automatic open and close doors, consistent with our Temecula store.
• Outdoor PA: No general paging. We request to retain the ability to use security voice-down announcements after-hours only.

It should be noted that in the 12 years of operation of the Temecula Mercedes dealership by the Unstoppable Automotive Group, which has the same program of sound generators and operations as Marina, there have been no noise complaints by the residential neighborhood which surrounds the dealership on three sides.

It should also be noted that this development is adjacent to a four-lane highway that generates significant noise to land uses east of the highway. Homeowners adjacent to the car dealership to the northeast along 1st Avenue will hear this highway noise.

Monument Sign (Exhibit C)

Guido Persicone, May 31, 2026 Page 5

Provided in Exhibit C, in the upper two exhibits, is a conceptual representation of the proposed city monument sign, with the dealership facility to the north. This concept is preliminary, as the City has not yet provided the Automotive Group with the dimensions or design of the City logo or seal, or for the monument sign or base stand.

In comparison, the City of Temecula’s monument sign, which is adjacent to the Mercedes dealership on a large slope is a significantly larger sign. Estimated dimensions are provided in the city staff report, and a photo of that sign is shown on Exhibit C in the last picture. It is anticipated that the Marina monument sign will be significantly smaller, and more in proportion to the elevation and dimensions of the dealership showroom facility immediately adjacent to the north, and to the topography of the site it will reside on. As illustrated in the visual concept in Exhibit C, the view for the driver from the north bound highway 1 for the Marina site will primarily be the city monument sign.

The next step in the process for the monument sign is for the City to complete its design concept, provide the design to the Automotive Group for revision of the monument sign base and elevation. Following this, the Automotive Group will work with City staff to finalize this concept and return to the City Council for review and approval. Once approved, the Automotive Group will proceed with preparation of construction documents for review and submission to the City for building permits. Ultimately, construction of the monument sign would be done in conjunction with the completion of construction of the dealership facility.

Video Simulation
The City Council requested that the video drive-by simulation be augmented to illustrate two additional views: 1) add to the video a northerly driving view of the site from Highway 1 northbound travel a little farther to the west but still within the north bound highway right of way; 2) add to the video a view to the site from the south bound driving lanes on Highway

Guido Persicone, May 31, 2026 Page 6

1. Further, include still shots of both additional views. Given the short timeframe from May 19, and the longer timeframe required for production, the revised video simulation and still shots will be presented at the Council meeting on June 2.

June 2 City Council Meeting
It is of critical importance that the City Council review and approve of the site plan and design review application, including the tree removal permit, at the June 2 City Council meeting. This approval date is required for the project to maintain its current construction start and completion dates as provided for in the incentive agreement. Further delay of this approval will necessarily delay those key project milestone dates and potentially impair the project from proceeding.

Thank you again for your review of this additional information and presentation of such to the City Council for their consideration. Please let me know if you have any questions or need clarifications on the information provided herein.

Sincerely,

Garth Blumenthal
Unstoppable Group

Cc: Ken Roycroft, Unstoppable Group
Abbey Teeters, Genslar
Doug Yount, Project Consultant

Enclosures: Exhibits A-C

UP
OZONE
UNIT
FILTER
STAND

RECLAIM
UNIT
∅4'
1ST
TANK
∅4'
2ND
TANK
∅4'
3RD
TANK
30"
R.O. UNIT JET
PUMP
∅22"
BRINE
TANK
∅19"
∅3'
R.O.

TANK
∅3'
R.O.

TANK
10"
55"
DRYING
AGENT
∅2'
SOAP
BLOWER
PANEL

VEHICLE

RECOMMENDED

FLOOR DRAIN

RECOMMENDED

FLOOR DRAIN
3'X3'X3'

CATCH BASIN
R
LR
L L R
LR
CITY
IN
CITY
IN
REC
OUT
REC
OUT
01 11
24 8
8 8
3 19
12 CABRILLO HWY

DIVARTY ST
1ST AVENUE
________________02
A0.21
________________01
A0.25
R 52' - 0"
R 52' - 0"
08 9
9 24
24 24
24 16
6 12
88 12
12 18
12 10
7 8
412
10 3
1210
PARKING TOTAL: 366 SPACES
24' FIRELANE

CONCRETE

LANDSCAPE

THESE DOCUMENTS ARE INCOMPLETE AND NOT FOR REGULATORY

APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
CALIFORNIA REGISTERED ARCHITECT:

A
B

SHEET NOTES

GENERAL NOTES

P R E L I M I N A R Y
As indicated
A0.10

ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN

27.8360.000

MERCEDES-BENZ OF

MONTEREY

MERCEDES-BENZ

OF MONTEREY
xxxx
Marina, California
05/10/2024
SCALE: /REF: 1" = 30'-0" 02 A2.00
SITE PLAN - LEVEL 0101

PARKING CALCULATIONS

SPACES)
03 ADA CROSS ACCESS STRIPING
4 EV CHARGING STATION (2 SHARED SPACES)
04 ROOF CANOPY OVERHEAD
05 DETECTABLE WARNING STRIP; CONTRACTOR TO

PROVIDE A DETECTABLE WARNING PRODUCT

SAMPLE TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR

APPROVAL OF COLOR CONTRAST WITH FINISH

SPACES)
09 ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL
10 <varies>
11 <varies>
12 <varies>
13 ADA PARKING SPACE WITH PAVEMENT MARKING,

LOADING ZONE, WHEEL STOP, AND ADA

SIGNAGE
14 EV CHARGING STATION (2 SHARED SPACES)
15 FUTURE EV CAPABLE PARKING (2 SHARED

SPACES)
16 <varies>
17 RETACTABLE ROLLING SECTURITY GATE WITH

COLORS WITH ARCHITECT
24 <varies>
25 BIKE RACK
26 MAIN SWITCHBOARD; REF ELECTRICAL
27 MAIN SWITCHBOARD; REF ELECTRICAL
9 357

PARKING REQUIREMENTS
(PER MARINA MUNICIPAL ZONIG CODE, CHAPTER 10 & 17)
AUTOMOTIVE USERS:

ONE LOADING SPACE FOR EACH
FIVE THOUSAND SF OF STORE AREA (62.3K GSF) = 13 SPACES
ADA SPACES REQUIRED:
(PER CBC, TABLE 111B:208.2)
401 - 500 SPACES = MIN OF 9 SPACES = 9 SPACES
EV CAPABLE SPACES REQUIRED:
(PER CALGREEN, TABLE 5.106.5.3.1)
201 AND OVER = 20 PERCENT OF TOTAL
20% OF 200 (100 PUBLIC + 100 SERVICE) = 40 SPACES
EVCS FOR PUBLIC AND COMMON USE:
(PER CBC TABLE 11B-228.3.2.1)
TOTAL NUMBER OF EVCS (5-25) = 1 VAN ACCESSIBLE, 1 STANDARD ACCESSIBLE EVCS (ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS) SPACES REQUIRED:
(PER CALGREEN, TABLE 5.106.5.3.1)
25 PERCENT OF EV CAPABLE SPACES
25% OF 200 (100 PUBLIC + 100 SERVICE) = 50 SPACES
02 EV STALL 8 8
EV CAPABLE STALL 40 40
05/10/2024 PROGRESS PRINT
06 STOPSTOPSTOPSTOP
STATE HIGHWAY 1
1ST AVENUE62' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY(A CITY STREET)
DIVARTY STREETPARCEL OP-3.26.168 ACTRACT 156924-C&T-93
3RD STREET
SHEETOFSCALE:DRAWN:JOB No.: SUBMITTAL / REVISIONNOT VALIDWITHOUTSIGNATURECivil EngineeringLand Surveying6 Harris CourtMonterey, California831.649.5225whitsonengineers.com 1"=30'EPI3140.62XB 8MERCEDES-BENZ OF MARINAGROUND-UP CAR DEALERSHIP FACILITYEXHIBIT 8PRELIMINARY VEHICULAR TURNING NW CORNER 1ST AVE AND DIVARTY STREETMarina, CaliforniaAPNPRELIMINARY DESIGN 4/6/2006CWPLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL

EINESONWENITHSGR
LEGEND

May 28, 2026 Item No. 11b

Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of
of the Marina City Council June 2, 2026

CITY COUNCIL TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL

OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP26-000002, WHICH SOUGHT TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A

DRIVE THRU USE FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED GAS STATION,

CONVENIENCE STORE, AND CAR WASH AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF

DEL MONTE BLVD A ND IMJIN PARKWAY, AND WOULD HAVE

DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED USES AND IMPROVEMENTS WOULD

NOT RESULT IN NEW SIGNIFICANT ENVIORNMENTAL IMPACTS OR

EFFECTS OR A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE SEVERITY OF
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED IN EIR NO. 20040 91167

WHICH WAS CERTIFIED FOR THE UNIVERISTY VILLAGES SPECIFIC PLAN.

SUMMARY
The matter before the City Council is an appeal by the applicant, Harbhajan (Harvey) Dadwal, of the Planning Commission’s denial of a Conditional Use Permit to establish a drive thru lane operation in conjunction with a previously approved gas station, convenience store, and car wash at the northwest corner of Del Monte Blvd and Imjin Parkway. In denying the Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission expressed concerns about the potential on -site circulation impacts from the addition of the drive thru lane. The applicant has had their traffic engineer prepare a supplemental analysis of the on-site circulation in support of their request to reverse the Planning Commission’s denial and to approve the Conditional Use Permit.

Under the provisions of Marina Municipal Code (MMC) Section 17.70.040 (Processing of Appeals) the reviewing authority shall conduct a de novo review of the permit. “ De novo” is a Latin term meaning "anew," "from the beginning," or "afresh" meaning the City Council does not have to give deference to the Planning Commission’s decision and can take in new evidence or information not shared at the time of the Commission’s decision. Additionally, the City Council is authorized to affirm, affirm in part, reverse the action or add or modify conditions of approval to address issues or concerns that are the subject of the appeal.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That City Council open a public hearing and adopt City Council Resolution 2026-, approving the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Conditional Use Permit CUP26-000002 to establish a drive -thru lane at the previously approved gas station, convenience store, and car wash located at the northwest corner of Del Monte Blvd/2 nd Avenue and Imjin Parkway

2. Find that the project will not result in new significant environmental impacts or effects or a substantial increase in the severity of significant effects previously identified in the University Village Specific Plan EIR (EIR NO. 2004091167).

1 BACKGROUND
On August 9, 2023, the applicant submitted a Site and Architectural Design Review Application (SAD23-000009) for the development of a gas station, convenience store, and carwash on a vacant parcel at the northwest corner of Del Monte Blvd and Imjin Parkway . Specifically, the 1.3-acre site consists of a 4,950 square foot convenience store building, a 3,360 square foot canopy over 12 gas dispenser positions, and a 2,816 square foot carwash tunnel with 15 vacuum spaces under two 266 square foot canopies.

On December 14, 2023, the Planning Commission voted 6 -0 with one Commissioner absent to approve the Site and Architectural Design Review for the project. Since that time, the applicant has been working on the construction drawings for building permits and commenced grading activities on the property. The applicant also received approval of a Lot Line Adjustment along the western edge of the gas station property, to better align the property line with the improvements to the gas station site.

On April 23, 2026, the Planning Commission denied conditional use permit CUP 2026 -002 to convert 2,000 square feet of the approved convenience store into a drive thru restaurant at 3001 Second Avenue (Opportunity Area 1A of the Dunes Development). On April 28, 2026, Harvey Dadwal filed an appeal within the standard ten (10) day appeal period. The main concerns from the Planning Commission centered around two key factors: the changing nature of the project and the traffic impacts of the proposed drive thru.

MMC Sec 17.70.040 – Processing of appeals.

A. Scheduling of Hearing. After an appeal has been received, the matter shall be placed on the next available agenda of the appeal authority that is within sixty days of the filing of such appeal.

B. Notification of Applicant. Within three business days of receipt of an appeal, staff shall attempt to notify the applicant.

C. Joining an Appeal. Only those persons who file an appeal within the time limit established shall be considered appellants. Any person who wishes to join an appeal shall follow the same procedures for an appellant. No person shall be allowed to join an appeal after the expir ation of the time limit for appeals.

D. Action and Findings. The appeal authority shall conduct a de novo public hearing. At the hearing, the appeal authority may consider any issue involving the matter that is the subject of the appeal, in addition to the specific grounds identified in the appeal.

1. The appeal authority may affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the action, decision, or determination that is the subject of the appeal, based upon findings of fact about the case.

The findings shall identify the reasons for the action on the appeal and verif y the compliance or noncompliance of the subject of the appeal with these regulations.

2. When reviewing a decision on a community development permit, the appeal authority may adopt additional conditions of approval that may address other issues or concerns than the subject of the appeal.

Previous Project Revisions
Since the original Planning Commission Site and Architectural Design Review Application (SAD23-000009) approval, the applicant has made several minor changes to the project during the plancheck process. These include:

• The original configuration of the convenience store building floorplan was changed to expand and consolidate the office space within the building from several smaller separate spaces to one large space at the southern end of the building. Correspondingly, the retail space and storage/prep areas were reduced and consolidated primarily along the western and northern portions of the building.
2 • The location of the convenience store building was shifted approximately 5 feet to the west, to facilitate better circulation within the parking lot. This was accomplished with the approval of Lot Line Adjustment LLA24 -000004, which adjusted the western bo undary between the gas station site and the future hotel site. • The landscaping and hardscape along the building’s north elevation fronting onto Breakwater Street has been revised several times to accommodate a retaining wall needed to address the drop from the finished surface of Breakwater Street down to the building pad elevation.
• Minor changes to the exterior façade of the convenience store building have been made to accommodate the revisions to the interior configuration. The location and alignment of the various exterior colors, materials, and finishes remained generally consiste nt with the design approved by the Planning Commission in 2023.
• The aforementioned office space has been reconfigured to accommodate a small, quick - serve restaurant typical of those co -located with a gas station convenience store, in anticipation of the request for the drive-thru lane.

Except for the drive-through restaurant, the other modifications are interior changes or minor exterior changes related to interior changes that are not subject to Planning Commission review and should not be a material fact to deny a conditional use permit.

Traffic and Circulation
In preparation for the December 14, 2023 , Planning Commission hearing on the Site and Architectural Design Review Application (SAD23 -000009), the applicant and the City went through several revisions of a traffic and circulation impact assessment for the site and its proposed improvements. The base project assessment for this phase of the Dunes Project , prepared in January 2023 considered 29 single-family residences, a gas station with 16 pumps, a convenience store, and three 100 room hotels, but no restaur ant or car wash. The first traffic and circulation update in February 2023 reflected the same 29 homes, a gas station with 8 pumps, a 4,500 square foot convenience store and a 2 ,500 square foot drive -thru restaurant attached to the convenience store, one full-service hotel with 100 rooms, and two motels with 100 rooms each. Then, in July 2023, the drive -thru restaurant was eliminated and the project scope revised to reflect one full - service hotel with 200 rooms, one motel with 100 rooms, a gas station with 12 pumps and a 4,950 square foot convenience store, an automated car wash with one tunnel, and the same 29 single - family residences previously identified. In updating the traffic analysis, Keith Higgins concluded that the July 2023 project configuration resulted in approximately 25% less traffic than the previous proposal with the drive -thru restaurant, and an approximately 15% reduction in traffic over the original January 2023 project scope.

Responding to circulation concerns regarding the proposed driveway connection from the gas station site to Imjin Parkway, in October 2023, the applicant submitted an updated traffic analysis.

No changes were made to the project scope, but to reduce potential circulation issues, direct access from the hotel parking areas to the Imjin Parkway driveway was eliminated. This version of the traffic analysis, that did not include the drive -thru restaurant, was provided to the Planning Commission during the Site an d Architectural Design Review hearing on December 14, 2023, where they ultimately approved the project (without the drive -thru). In approving the Design Review for the project, the Planning Commission imposed two specific conditions of approval to address potential traffic and circulation concerns. First, they required that direct access from the hotel parking to the Imjin Parkway driveway be eliminated. Second, they required that within one year of operations commencing on site, a traffic and circulation i mpact assessment would be conducted specifically to determine whether the Imjin Parkway should remain, be altered, or be eliminated.
3 During the April 23, 2026 Planning Commission meeting on the applicant’s request for a conditional use permit to add a drive-thru to the approved project, concerns were expressed about traffic and circulation impacts, both within the site and to the surrounding road network. These included:

• Concerns about stacking capacity in the drive-thru lane • Concerns about traffic entering the drive-thru lane, particularly from eastbound Breakwater Street
• Concerns about traffic exiting the drive-thru conflicting with traffic entering or exiting via the Imjin Parkway driveway
• Concerns about traffic exiting the drive-thru being trapped into exiting the site onto Imjin Parkway and being forced onto Hwy 1

Circulation Modifications
In light of the Planning Commission circulation concerns, the city had Kimley Horn peer review the applicant’s traffic report and identify necessary to improve the overall circulation on the site.

These included, but were not limited to the following:

• The proposed drive-through land use should not be a high yielding trip generator but be restricted to low demand fast food drive-through facilities, such as Taco Bell or Subway. It is recommended that the applicant confirm the proposed user, and that the city approves only low trip generators such that there is sufficient queuing space.

• The opposing movements at the drive-through exit can be mitigated by providing a “Bot Dot” or mountable curb barrier as indicated below in blue

4 Conditions of Approval
For the Planning Commission hearing, staff had proposed incorporating all of the original conditions of approval from the previous Site and Architectural Design Review Application (SAD23-000009) approval for the site, plus the following additions:

1) The traffic and circulation review of the Imjin Parkway driveway within one year of operations commencing was expanded to no longer just consider the viability of the Imjin Parkway driveways, but to assess circulation on the entire site, including drive -thru stacking, conflicts between the drive-thru entrance and the Breakwater driveway, conflicts between traffic exiting the drive -thru and traffic utilizing the Imjin driveway in either direction, and general circulation conditions across the entire site. 2) The applicant shall prepare a comprehensive signage and striping plan for the entire site, to include all directional and informational signage, including directional arrows on the pavement, directional signage for vehicles exiting the drive -thru lane, “no u-turn” drive- thru access from eastbound Breakwater Street, disabled paths of travel, etc. 3) Removable bollards are to be added to the rolled curb at the western edge of the drive-thru lane that provides service vehicle access to the EV Charger transformer at the west edge of the building.

Additionally, i n reviewing the permit after the Planning Commission denial of the permit, the Public Works Department is also asking for the following conditions of approval to be placed on the permit prior to occupancy of the building:

1) The applicant shall submit confirmation of functionality/viability of turning movements in and out of all service areas on -site per NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials)
2) The applicant shall p rovide an updated Lot Line Adjustment package to incorporate the new improvement areas along the western boundary of his project. 5 3) The applicant shall confirm with the Water District that this new use within the store has enough approved allocated water.
4) The applicant shall install a mountable curb/Bott Dot island to better separate inbound and outbound Imjin driveway traffic while still enabling traffic exiting the drive -thru to turn left and proceed back to the main parking lot and ultimately exit the site onto Breakwater Street (proposed by Kimley-Horn, the City’s on-call traffic consultant).

The recommendations proposed by Kimley Horn will address the Planning Commission concerns.

If approved, the conditions of approval will incorporate by reference the additional conditions listed in this staff report

Additional Considerations:

Zoning. The University Villages Specific Plan (UVSP) designates this parcel in the Specific Plan Area as Opportunity Area 1A with a Land Use Designation of MU -Multiple Use. The Multiple Use designation permits a variety of uses including commercial retail and restaurants. While the UVSP does not list drive-thru operations as permitted or conditionally permitted uses, it does not explicitly prohibit them. Section 5.1 (General Provisions) of the Specific Plan does state that “(a)ny issue not directly or specifically covered by this Specific Plan shall be subject to non -conflicting regulations and procedures of t he City of Marina Planning and Zoning Code.” Within the C -2 General Commercial zoning district, the Zoning Ordinance (MMC Section 17.20.030.d) lists drive-thru restaurants as conditionally permitted uses.

Findings. Per Marina Municipal Code (MMC) Section 17.58.040, in order to grant any use permit, the findings of the appropriate authority shall be that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.

Upon review of the proposed Conditional Use Permit application, plans, materials, and proposed conditions of approval, staff finds that the proposed drive-thru lane at a previously approved gas station, convenience store, and carwash will not be detrimenta l to health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed drive-thru lane, nor will it be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Council members or Planning Commissioners are subject to the Political Reform Act. C ouncil Members or Planning Commissioners must not make, participate in making, or attempt to influence in any manner a governmental decision which they know, or should know, may have a material effect on a financial interest of such Council Member or Planning Commissioner.

EX PARTE COMMUNICATION DISCLOSURES
On quasi -judicial matters, City Councilmembers shall verbally disclose off the record contacts relating to the item, after the item is called and before C ity Council consideration of the matter.

Disclosure shall include the identity of an individual(s) with whom the C ity Council had contact, and the nature of the contact. Written ex parte communications must be forwarded to the Community Development Department so they can be provided to the entire Commission, the Council, and to the public.

6 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The City of Marina Planning Division has determined that this project will not result in new significant environmental impacts or effects or a substantial increase in the severity of significant effects previously identified in the University Village Specific Plan EIR (EIR No. 2004091167), which was certified for the University Villages Specific Plan (UVSP). See CEQA Guidelines § 15183; Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21083.3(b). The Specific Plan, its associated EIR, and the City of Marina Zoning Ordinance contemplated that the previously approved uses at the site, the gas station, convenience store, and carwash were all permitted uses within the MU-Mixed Use district within the UVSP. The addition of a restaurant to this site is also identified as permitted use. The UVSP does not mention drive-thru lanes as permitted, conditionally permitted, or prohibited. As such, the UVSP defers to the City of Marina Zoning Ordinance, which finds that drive-through lanes are conditionally permitted uses within the main commercial districts within the City. As such, subject to conditions of approval, the proposed use should not generate any adverse impacts.

CONCLUSION
This staff report, resolution, and associated exhibits are submitted for City Council consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

Bradley Evanson
Contract Planner
Regional Government Services

REVIEWED/CONCUR:

_____________________________
Guido F. Persicone, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Marina

Layne Long
City Manager
City of Marina

ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A – Conditional Use Permit Findings
Exhibit B – Project Conditions of Approval
Exhibit C – Plans
Exhibit D – Keith Higgins Traffic/Circulation Report
Exhibit E – Kimley-Horn Peer Review of Keith Higgins Traffic/Circulation Report

7 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA APPROVING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP26-00002 TO ESTABLISH A DRIVE -THRU LANE AT THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED

GAS STATION, CONVENIENCE STORE, AND CAR WASH LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF IMJIN PARKWAY AND DEL MONTE BLVD/2ND AVENUE, AND FIND THIS ACTION WAS ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED IN EIR NO. 2004091167, CERTIFIED FOR THE UNIVERSITY VILLAGES SPECIFIC PLAN.

WHEREAS, on December 14, 2023, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission of the City of Marina considered Site and Architectural Design Review SAD23 -000009 to establish a gas station, convenience store, and carwash at the northwest corner of 2 nd Avenue/Del Monte Boulevard and Imjin Parkway; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving the Site and Architectural Design Review subject to findings and conditions of approval; and

WHEREAS, on March 12, 2026, the applicant submitted an application for Conditional Use Permit CU26-000002 to make minor site and building revisions to add a drive-thru lane to the gas station site to support a future restaurant within the convenience store building; and

WHEREAS, staff determined that the proposed drive -thru lane is consistent with the City’s Conditional Use Permit criteria and will not be detrimental to health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed drive-thru lane, nor will it be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City; and

WHEREAS, the City of Marina is a lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project will not result in new significant environmental impacts or effects or a substantial increase in the severity of significant effects previously identified in the University Village Specific Plan EIR (EIR No. 2004091167 ), which was certified for the University Villages Specific Plan (UVSP). See CEQA Guidelines § 15183; Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21083.3(b). The Specific Plan, its associated EIR, and the City of Marina Zoning Ordinance contemplated that the previously approved uses at the site, the gas station, convenience store, and carwash were all permitted uses within the MU -Mixed Use district within the U VSP.

The addition of a restaurant to this site is also identified as a permitted use. The UVSP does not mention drive-thru lanes as permitted, conditionally permitted, or prohibited. As such, the UVSP defers to the City of Marina Zoning Ordinance, which finds that drive-thru lanes are conditionally permitted uses within the main commercial districts within the City. As such, subject to conditions of approval, the proposed use should not generate any adverse impacts.

WHEREAS, on April 23, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, took public testimony, and considered the application for CUP26-000002; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did not adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit CUP26-000002, effectively denying the application; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 202 6, the applicant, Harvy Dadwal, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action within the standard ten (10) day appeal period, and

8 Resolution No. 2026-
Page Two

WHEREAS, on June 2, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing, took public testimony, and considered the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of CUP26 - 000002.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council, based on Findings of Fact, Conditions of Approval, and the CEQA determination referenced hereto, does hereby:

1. Find that the project will not result in new significant environmental impacts or effects or a substantial increase in the severity of significant effects previously identified in the University Village Specific Plan EIR (EIR NO. 2004091167).

2. Incorporate by reference the recitals listed above , the staff report accompanying this resolution, and the project revised Conditions of Approval as presented by City staff at the June 2, 2026 City Council meeting. (Exhibit A to this Resolution).

3. Approve a Conditional Use Permit to make minor site and building revisions to add a drive- thru lane to the gas station site to support a future restaurant within the convenience store building on the property located at the northwest corner of Imjin Parkway and Del Monte Blvd/Second Avenue (Opportunity Area 1A of the Dunes Development) , subject to the Findings contained in Exhibit A and the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit B.

4. Direct staff to prepare and submit a Notice of Exemption (NOE) to the County Clerk within five days of approval by the City Council.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Marina at a duly noticed special on the 2nd day of June 2026, by the following vote:

AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN, COUNCIL MEMBER:

__________________________
Bruce Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:

_____________________________
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk

9 EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
Per Marina Municipal Code (MMC) Section 17.58.040, in order to grant any use permit, the findings of the appropriate authority shall be that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.

Upon review of the proposed Conditional Use Permit application, plans, materials, and proposed conditions of approval, staff finds that with the Conditions of Approval, Exhibit B, the proposed drive-thru lane at a previously approved gas station, convenience store, and car wash will not be detrimental to health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed drive-thru lane, nor will it be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.

10 1
Drive-Thru Lane Conditions of Approval
The recitals from the project resolution are incorporated by reference into the attached conditions of approval.

1. Approved Use. The permittee shall execute, construct, and operate the project in accordance with the approved application materials and plans dated March 25, 2026, as amended by the following conditions of approval. Any deviation from approvals must be reviewed and approved by staff and may require separate approval from the approving authority and/or further environmental review.

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

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

4. Compliance with Specific Plan. This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with the University Village Specific Plan. All applicable University Village Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mitigation and Monitoring Program (MMRP) conditions shall be applicable and enforceable upon this project.

5. Prior Approval. All conditions of approval associated with the Planning Commission approval of Site and Architectural Development Review SAD23-000009 are incorporated herein and shall apply to the approval of CU26-000002.

6. Rolled Curb. The proposed rolled curb between the drive-thru lane and the parking lot aisle directly west of the drive-thru lane shall be replaced with a standard curb and shall include a series of bollards to prevent traffic from utilizing the drive-thru lane as an exit path from the parking area west of the convenience store building.

EXHIBIT B
11 2

7. Traffic and Circulation Review. The traffic and circulation review of the Imjin Parkway driveway within one year of operations commencing was expanded to no longer just consider the viability of the Imjin Parkway driveways, but to assess circulation on the entire site, including drive-thru stacking, conflicts between the drive-thru entrance and the Breakwater driveway, conflicts between traffic exiting the drive-thru and traffic utilizing the Imjin driveway in either direction, and general circulation conditions across the entire site.

8. Striping Plan. The applicant shall prepare a comprehensive signage and striping plan for the entire site, to include all directional and informational signage, including directional arrows on the pavement, directional signage for vehicles exiting the drive-thru lane, “no u-turn” drive-thru access from eastbound Breakwater Street, disabled paths of travel, etc.

9. Turning Movements. The applicant shall submit confirmation of functionality/viability of turning movements in and out of all service areas on-site per NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials).

10. Lot Line Adjustment. The applicant shall provide an updated Lot Line Adjustment package to incorporate the new improvement areas along the western boundary of his project.

11. Water Availability. The applicant shall confirm with the Water District that this new use within the store has enough approved allocated water.

12. Mountable Curb. Per the Kimley-Horn peer review of the May 4, 2026, Keith Higgins supplemental traffic document, the applicant shall install a mountable curb/Bott Dot island to better separate inbound and outbound Imjin driveway traffic while still enabling traffic exiting the drive-thru to turn left and proceed back to the main parking lot and ultimately exit the site onto Breakwater Street.

13. Modifications. Any modification to the approved project, site plan, conditions of approval, or use requires consistency review and approval by Community Development Director. Major revisions may require review and approval by the original approving body.

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

EXHIBIT B
12 3

violations are present, consistent with MMC Chapters 1.08, 1.10 and 1.12.

15. Revocation. Where one or more project Conditions of Approval are not met, or where a project was approved on the basis of false material information given willfully, intentionally or negligently by the permittee, the appropriate authority may revoke or modify the approval for the project.

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

17. Record Retention. The permittee shall retain full and complete copies of all permits and other regulatory approvals issued in connection with the project, including but not limited to conditions of approval, approved plans, and resolutions. In the event the City cannot locate full and complete permits or other regulatory approvals in its official records, and the permittee fails to retain full and complete permits or other regulatory approvals, any ambiguities or uncertainties that would be resolved through an examination of the missing documents will be conclusively resolved against the permittee.

18. Violation of Code. Any person who does any work or uses, occupies or maintains any building or structure, or causes the same to be done, or does any grading, contrary to or in violation of Title 15, Buildings and Construction, or of any of the uniform codes adopted by Title 15 is guilty of an infraction pursuant to Marina Municipal Code (MMC) Section

15.04.060.

19. Grading Permit. Grading work disturbing at least 50 cubic yards or 2,500 square feet of a property within the City requires a grading permit meeting all requirements of Marina Municipal Code (MMC) Section 8.46.130 regarding stormwater retention. The permittee shall secure a grading permit before beginning grading work.

20. Notice of Exemption. That within five (5) days from the date of action upon the permit of this project by City Council the applicant shall submit to Planning staff a check payable to the “Monterey County Clerk” in the amount of $50.00 to pay for the fee for filing the notice of exemption.

21. Landscape Maintenance. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a bond or other surety acceptable to the City to guarantee that the installed landscaping shall remain in a healthy and growing condition for a minimum of two years from the date of occupancy approval. The amount of the surety shall be a minimum of ten percent of the actual or estimated costs of the installation accepted by the Planning Services Division. An amount greater than ten percent may be required by the Planning Services Division if more exotic, less reliable plant material is specified in the approved

EXHIBIT B
13 4

planting plan. Two years after the approval of occupancy, the applicant shall contact the Planning Services Division to arrange for an inspection of the landscaping. If or when all landscaping shown on the approved plans is in place and is healthy and growing condition, the surety shall be returned to the entity that provided the surety or to another entity upon proof of transfer. If plant material is dead, dying or missing and the applicant does not take steps to restore the landscaping, the City shall have the authority to use the surety for the restoration of the landscaping.

22. Site Maintenance. The project site shall be kept in a nuisance-free condition, and healthy and well-kept landscaping shall be continuously maintained. Any existing blight or nuisance shall be abated within seventy-two hours of receiving a notice from the City of Marina.

23. Monterey Bay Air Resources District (Permit). Prior to issuance of construction permit(s), the Owner/Applicant shall submit evidence to the Building Division, that the appropriate permits have been obtained from Monterey Bay Air Resources District.

24. Monterey Bay Air Resources District (BMPs). The Owner/Applicant shall utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs) for fugitive dust control measures. Best Management Practices (BMPs) notes shall be included on all building and/or grading permits for construction activities that may result in soil/ground disturbance

25. Bicycle Facilities. Prior to the issuance of building permits the site plan shall be modified to show the placement of one bike rack per Section 5.7 of the University Village Specific Plan. Prior to occupancy, the bike rack shall be installed.

26. Trash Enclosures and Maintenance Building. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant submit shall coordinate with the waste hauler for the site and submit proof that adequate service will be accommodated/contracted for the project site. The applicant shall demonstrate the service provider approves of the size and final location of the trash enclosure.

27. Environmental Health Clearance. Prior to the issuance of building permits, clearance from the Monterey County Department of Environmental Health shall be obtained and provided to the Community Development Department.

28. Development Impact Fee (DIF). The developer shall comply with the provisions of Title 3, Chapter 3.26 of the Marina Municipal Code and all its resolutions by paying the appropriate City fee.

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

Monday through Saturday: 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

EXHIBIT B
14 5

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

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

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

31. Lighting. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be required to submit a detailed lighting plan to ensure dark sky principles are incorporated into the final design of the building and light pollution does not occur. Exterior lighting fixtures shall be adequately shielded to a point below the light bulb and reflector prevent unnecessary glare onto adjacent properties. Per the University Village Specific Plan, the lighting plan shall demonstrate that said lighting is dimly light as is feasible. After installation, the Community Development Director or designee shall retain the right to require reduction in the intensity of illumination or change of light color if said illumination creates any undue public nuisance. The following shall be shown within the construction drawings:

32. Encroachment Permit. Any improvements or staging within the City Right -of-Way will require an Encroachment Permit and a Public Improvement Agreement with the City.

Improvements in the right-of-way shall conform to the City Standard Details and the Dunes Specific Plan with Tentative Map Conditions (as amended).

33. Traffic Control Plan. If temporary closure of the public right -of-way is required for construction and/or staging, the permittee shall receive an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department, which includes a Traffic Control Plan to be approved by the City Engineer.

34. Road, Sidewalk, and Landscape Condition. All affected roads, sidewalks, and landscaped areas shall be restored to original or better condition following completion of work in the right(s)-of-way.

35. Grading Permit. Due to the scope of the project, a Grading Permit will be required.

Provide the following for the Permit Plan Review submittal:
a. Preliminary Title Report not more than 6 months old. b. Hydrology Report for the proposed on-site drainage system. c. Show all proposed spot elevations showing positive drainage away from all proposed structures and property lines. Hillsides shall be graded (e.g. drainage

EXHIBIT B
15 6

swales) to capture runoff before reaching the City right -of-way or adjacent properties.
d. Show the sediment capture/pre -treatment features (for parking lots) and retention systems for capturing on -site runoff with pipe sizing and invert elevations. If driveways are sloped towards the City right -of-way, show a driveway catchment system preventing runoff from leaving the property.

36. Lighting Plan. A Photometric & Lighting Plan shall be submitted to the Public Works and Community Development Departments for review and approval prior to issuance of the Grading Permit. Special consideration shall be given to the project’s close proximity to residential development and Highway 1.

37. Off Site Improvements. For any offsite improvements not within the City’s right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain the necessary approvals from the Property Owner or Public Agency (e.g. Caltrans) prior to issuance of the Grading Permit.

38. MCWD Approval. The applicant shall coordinate with the adjacent Developer (Shea Homes) and the special water district (Marina Coast Water District) for approval of the project’s proposed sewer and water improvements.

39. Peer Review Traffic Report. The applicant shall submit final plans for approval by the Community Development Director incorporating modifications to the site plan as approved by the City Council on June 2, 2026 per the peer review of the traffic study prepared by Kimley Horn.

40. Additional Condition of Approval. Additional project conditions of approval as identified in the June 2, 2026 City Council report and approved by the City Council shall be incorporated by reference into the project conditions. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with said conditions prior to occupying the building and operation of the gas station. Including but not limited to the following:
a. The traffic and circulation review of the Imjin Parkway driveway within one year of operations commencing was expanded to no longer just consider the viability of the Imjin Parkway driveways, but to assess circulation on the entire site, including drive-thru stacking, conflicts between the drive-thru entrance and the Breakwater driveway, conflicts between traffic exiting the drive-thru and traffic utilizing the Imjin driveway in either direction, and general circulation conditions across the entire site.
b. The applicant shall prepare a comprehensive signage and striping plan for the entire site, to include all directional and informational signage, including directional arrows on the pavement, directional signage for vehicles exiting the drive-thru lane, “no u-turn” drive-thru access from eastbound Breakwater Street, disabled paths of travel, etc.

EXHIBIT B
16 7

c. Removable bollards are to be added to the rolled curb at the western edge of the drive-thru lane that provides service vehicle access to the EV Charger transformer at the west edge of the building.
d. The applicant shall submit confirmation of functionality/viability of turning movements in and out of all service areas on-site per NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials)
e. The applicant shall provide an updated Lot Line Adjustment package to incorporate the new improvement areas along the western boundary of his project. f. The applicant shall confirm with the Water District that this new use within the store has enough approved allocated water.
g. The applicant shall install a mountable curb/Bott Dot island to better separate inbound and outbound Imjin driveway traffic while still enabling traffic exiting the drive-thru to turn left and proceed back to the main parking lot and ultimately exit the site onto Breakwater Street (proposed by Kimley-Horn, the City’s on-call traffic consultant).
h. The proposed drive-through land use should not be a high yielding trip generator but be restricted to low demand fast food drive-through facilities, such as Taco Bell or Subway. It is recommended that the applicant confirm the proposed user, and that the city approves only low trip generators and sufficient queuing space. i. The opposing movements at the drive-through exit can be mitigated by providing a "Bot Dot" or mountable curb barrier as indicated below in blue

41. Permit Authorization and Signature. The planning permits are not valid, and construction shall not commence until the below affidavit is signed and the approved Conditions are returned to the Community Development Department. a. I attest to the truth and correctness of all the facts, exhibits, maps, and attachments presented with and made a part of the application for the [Insert Project Description].
b. I understand and agree to implement all conditions throughout the duration of the project.
c. I acknowledge that any changes to the conditions of approval would require modification of the conditional use permit by the approval authority.

Permittee’s Name:

Permittee’s Signature: Date:

d. I am the owner of the property involved in this project, and I authorize the person named above to act on my behalf throughout the duration of the project.

Property Owner’s Name:

Property Owner’s Signature: Date:

EXHIBIT B
17 SHEET NUMBER:

SHEET CONTENTS:

PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT DATE:

CONSULTANTS:

Sacramento, CA 95827
PH:(916) 455-6500 FAX:(916) 455-8100
3090 Fite Circle, #104
REVISIONS:
24-004 03-25-2026
K12 Architects, Inc
DEVELOPER:

CONTRACTOR:

PROJECT:

MARINA

CHEVRON QSR
WITH

DRIVE-THRU
CUP
PROFESSIONAL SEALS:
3001 2nd AVE
MARINA, CA 93933
C-14729
DATE

RENEWAL
NOVEMBER, 2027
L
IC

ENS E D A RCH I TEC
T

STATE OF CAL I FORN
IA

KURT WAGENKNECHT

AREA/OCCUPANCY CALCULATIONS
SITE AREA: 69,097 SF 1.586 ACRES

ALLOWABLE BUILDING

AREA ANALYSIS
B 9000
U 5,500
M 9000
C-STORE BLDG (110' X 45'): 4,950 SF
C-STORE AREA: 3,014 SF
OFFICE AREA #1: 120 SF
OFFICE AREA #2: 1588 SF
RESTROOM AREAS: 228 SF
FUEL CANOPY (84' X 40'): 3,360 SF
CARWASH BLDG (90' X 32'): 2,880 SF
TOTAL AREA: 16,339 SF
AREA OF LOT COVERAGE: 0.2 SF

PARKING CALCULATIONS

DESCRIPTION SQUARE

FOOTAGE
C-STORE BLDG (110' X 45'): 4,950 SF
FUEL CANOPY (84' X 40'): 3,360 SF
CARWASH BLDG (90' X 32'): 2,880 SF
TOTAL AREA: 14,075 SF

COUNTY MUNICIPAL CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT

FOR TOTAL AREA OF BLDG
PARKING REQUIRED 4,950 SF SF 18 STALL

PARKING PROVIDED
STANDARD PARKING PROVIDED: 7
ACCESSIBILITY PARKING PROVIDED: 2
PARKING AT FUEL PUMP: 12
EVCS REQUIRED PER TABLE 5.106.5.3.1 = ACTUAL 26-50 (31) PROVIDE 8 EV CAPABLE / 2 EVSE
8 EVSE
2 CAPABLE
VACUUM PARKING: 15
TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 29

APPLICABLE CODES
2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
2025 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
2025 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE
2025 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
2025 CAL-GREEN
2025 TITLE 24 ENERGY
2025 NFPA 24
COUNTY/CITY MUNICIPAL CODE : CURRENT VERSION
THE EXISITNG 4950 SF (110' X 45') C-STORE BLDG. WILL REMAIN AS IS. THE OFFICE SPACE WILL BE CONVERTED INTO A QSR. THERE WILL BE A NEW DRIVE THRU WITH A DRIVE THRU WINDOW TO THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.

THIS AREA WAS PREVIOUSLY LANDSCAPING.

ALSO, THE SIGNAGE FOR THE FRONTAGE IS INCLUDED.

ALL PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONS ARE STILL IN EFFECT. thIS WILL BE AN ADDITION TO THOSE CONDITIONS.

PHONE:

EMAIL:

CONTACT:

DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

CITY OF MARINA
211 HILLCREST AVENUE
MARINA, CA 93933
831-884-1278
[email protected]

DEPARTMENT
PHONE:

EMAIL:

CONTACT:

OWNER DATA

HARBHAJAN DADWAL
1534 FREMONT BLVD SUITE-D
SEASIDE, CA 93955
831-224-9191
[email protected]
HARVEY

PROJECT DATA
EX. USE: VACANT LAND
NEW USE: GAS STATION
APN: 031-251-073
SITE ADDRESS: 3001 2nd Ave. Marina, CA. 93933
ZONE: C-1
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VB
OCCUPANCY: M (STORE) B (CARWASH)

SHEET INDEX

SHEET DESCRIPTION

ARCHITECTURAL
A0.0 COVER SHEET
A1.1 SITE PLAN
A2.1 FLOOR PLAN - STORE
A2.7 ELEVATIONS - STORE
L1.0A1 LANDSCAPE PLAN
SHEET DESCRIPTION FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: YES
FIRE ALARM SYSTEM: YES
VACUUM CANOPY - 1
COVER PATIO SQ. FT:
2025 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE
2,080 SF
2,360 SF
575 SF
VACUUM CANOPY - 1
-2
2,080 SF
2,360 SF

ACTUAL SF

GROUP ALLOWABLE
B
B
M
U
U
U
M
M
M
9000
9000
9000
9000
9000
9000
9,000
5,500
5,500
5,500
M
CALCULATED AS (1) 4,960 SF

SPRINKLERS

PROVIDED
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YESVACUUM CANOPY - 2
134 SF U 5,500 YESEQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE
CALCULATED AS (1) 2,494 SF
CALCULATED AS (1) 5,525 SF
CIVIL
C2 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN

SHEET DESCRIPTION

LANDSCAPE

SCOPE OF WORK
PHONE:

EMAIL:

CONTACT:

ENGINEER IN RECORD

CVEAS, INC - RICARDO LEAL - PE
22511 LOGAN STREET
SELMA, CA 93662
559-891-8811
[email protected]

RICARDO
PHONE:

EMAIL:

CONTACT:

HEALTH AGENCY

MONTERERY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
19065 PORTOLA DRIVE
SALINAS, CA 93908
831-647-7655
--

DEPARTMENT

COVER SHEET
A0.0
L12.0A1 IRRIGATION PLAN

MARINA CHEVRON QSR

WITH DRIVE-THRU
CUP
3001 2ND AVE
MARINA CA 93933

VICINITY MAP

MARINA, CALIFORNIA
SITE
L1 MONUMENT SIGN B

SHEET DESCRIPTION

SIGNAGE
L2 MONUMENT SIGN ON IMJIN-C-1
L3 MONUMENT SIGN ON IMJIN - C-2
L4 MONUMENT GAS SIGN ON IMJIN

EXHIBIT C
18 W/H
SHEET NUMBER:

SHEET CONTENTS:

PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT DATE:

CONSULTANTS:

Sacramento, CA 95827
PH:(916) 455-6500 FAX:(916) 455-8100
3090 Fite Circle, #104
REVISIONS:
24-004 03-25-2026
K12 Architects, Inc
DEVELOPER:

CONTRACTOR:

PROJECT:

MARINA

CHEVRON QSR
WITH

DRIVE-THRU
CUP
PROFESSIONAL SEALS:
3001 2nd AVE
MARINA, CA 93933
C-14729
DATE

RENEWAL
NOVEMBER, 2027
L
IC

ENS E D A RCH I TEC
T

STATE OF CAL I FORN
IA

KURT WAGENKNECHT
A2.1

C STORE

FLOOR PLAN

WALL LEGEND

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
NEW EXTERIOR WALL:
2X6 DF#2 AT 16" O.C.

EXTERIOR SIDE -
3-LAYER STUCCO - 7/8" MIN. THICKNESS OVER 17 GA. X 1-1/2" HEXAGONAL PAPER-BACKED WIRE LATH OVER 2-LAYERS OF TYPE "D" PAPER
UNDER-LAYMENT OVER PLYWOOD SHEATHING.

INTERIOR SIDE-
5/8" DRYWALL WITH SCREWS BOTH SIDES.

REFER TO STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR NAILING.

REFER TO INSULATION SCHEDULE AND TITLE 24.

INTERIOR WALL:
2x6 DF#2 AT 16" O.C.
5/8" DRYWALL WITH SCREWS BOTH SIDES

PRE-FAB METAL WALL FOR WALK-IN BOXES
PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECS. PROVIDE 2" AIR GAP BETWEEN EXTERIOR / INTERIOR WALLS AND WALK-IN BOXES.

FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
1 44'-2"
110'-0"
AF.O. CMU
B
65'-10"12'-6"
2'-0" 10'-6" 8'-0" 3'-0" 3'-0" 3'-0" 3'-0" 3'-0" 3'-0" 8'-0"12'-0"17'-0"18'-0"17'-0" 9'-6" 35'-6"
45'-0"
1 2
F.O. SHTG
F.O. SHTG
8'-6" 3'-0" 16'-10" 3'-0" 13'-8"
12'-0"
F.O. CMU
44'-2"
110'-0"
A F.O. SHTG
A
F.O. SHTG
53'-5" 12'-5"
1'-1" 3'-0" 12'-4" 3'-0" 2'-0" 3'-0" 12'-0" 9'-0" 30'-0" 2'-0" 3'-0" 3'-0" 6'-0" 3'-0" 3'-0" 8'-0" 1'-0" 6'-0" 1'-0"
1'-3" 6'-0" 1'-3"
12'-6"
2'-0" 10'-6"
46'-0"
2'-0" 12'-8" 2'-0" 12'-8" 2'-0" 12'-8" 2'-0"
45'-0"
1'-1" 3'-0" 2'-10" 6'-0" 2'-10" 3'-0" 13'-8"
6"6"
6"6"
110
109
108

WALK-IN
COOLER
111
107
RETAIL
SALES
101
104
OFFICE #1
102

SERVICE

COUNTER
103

CUSTOMER

SERVICE
112

WALK-IN
COOLER #2
112

WALK-IN
COOLER #2
115

ALL GENDER

RESTROOM
116

ALL GENDER

RESTROOM
117

COVERED
PATIO
5'-11" 13'-0"
25'-1"
8'-6" 8'-6"
8'-7"9'-5"6'-0"
10'-6"
17'-0"
4'-1" 2'-5"
10'-0" 5'-5"
5'-0"
8'-4"3'-6"20'-0"
4'-1"
105

PREP ROOM
3'-9" 4'-6" 3'-9"
3 A2.7
2 A2.7
1 A2.7
4 A2.7
1 2
F.O. SHTG
F.O. SHTG

COLD DRINK STORAGE
(NO BEER)

FREEZER

BACKROOM
ENTRY
8'-0" TYPE I HOOD
6"
6"
1'-0"
1'-0"
3'-0"
2'-0"
5'-0"
6'-0" 7"
7"12'-0"
106

BEVERAGE

FOOD COUNTER
6'-2"
4'-6"
19'-8" 9'-0" 2'-9" 6'-9" 8'-11"
3'-2"
2'-2"
BEER

BEER BEER
WINE

CIGARETTES

LIQUOR SALES
DINING

SERVICE

COUNTERDRINKS

KITCHEN /

STORAGE

DRIVE THRU

EXHIBIT C
19 SHEET NUMBER:

SHEET CONTENTS:

PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT DATE:

CONSULTANTS:

Sacramento, CA 95827
PH:(916) 455-6500 FAX:(916) 455-8100
3090 Fite Circle, #104
REVISIONS:
24-004 07-25-2025
K12 Architects, Inc
DEVELOPER:

CONTRACTOR:

PROJECT:

NEW GAS

STATION

C-STORE &

CAR WASH
PROFESSIONAL SEALS:
3001 2nd AVE
MARINA, CA 93933
5 22-08-2025
6 PLAN REVIEW CHANGES 10/10/2025

OWNER CHANGES
C-14729
DATE

RENEWAL
NOVEMBER, 2027
L
IC

ENS E D A RCH I TEC
T

STATE OF CAL I FORN
IA

KURT WAGENKNECHT
7 PLAN REVIEW CHANGES 10/28/2025
8 PLAN REVIEW CHANGES 11/26/2025
9 SITE ELECT CHANGES 3/18/2026

COLOR SCHEDULE
STUCCO #1:
3-LAYERED STUCCO FINISH
COLOR - SW7014 - EIDER WHITE

OR EQUAL
PVDF WOOD GRAIN FINISHES:

PAC-CLAD PETERSONC

COLOR - SUGAR MAPLE

OR EQUAL
STONE VENEER:

EL DORADO STONE
VANTAGE 30

COLOR - WHITE ELM
METAL SIDING:

METAL CLADDING SYSTEM

FLATLOCK

COLOR - MATTE BLACK STEEL OR EQUAL

INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECS AND INSTALLATION
INSTRUCTIONS. REFER TO DETAILS ON D11.

CORNICE FINISH:

SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW7020

COLOR - BLACK FOX OR EQUAL
TRIM FINISH:

SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW7020
COLOR - BLACK FOX OR EQUAL.

A
B
C
D
E
F

ELEVATION KEYED NOTES
3 COAT STUCCO SMOOTH FINISH #1:
7/8" MIN. THICKNESS OVER 17 GA. X 1-1/2" HEXAGONAL PAPER BACKED WIRE LATH OVER 2-LAYERS OF TYPE "D" PAPER UNDER-LAYMENT OVER PLYWOOD.

REFER TO WEEP SCREED DETAIL 1/D1 FOR EXTERIOR WALLS.

REFER TO WEEP SCREED DETAIL 2/D1 FOR STEM WALLS
REFER TO WEEP SCREED DETAILS 3/D1 FOR BOX COLUMN(S).

DOOR OPENING - REFER TO DOOR SCHEDULE ON SHEET A2.1 AND DETAIL(S) ON SHEET D2.

WINDOW OPENING - REFER TO WINDOW SCHEDULE ON SHEET A2.1 AND DETAIL(S) ON SHEET D2.

METAL SIDING PANEL(S).
2' X 3' METAL PANEL(S).

FOAM CORNICE - REFER TO DETAIL X/D5.

FOAM TRIM - REFER TO DETAIL X/D5.

STONE VENEER - PAGOSA SPRINGS

NOT USED
WALL SCONCE LIGHT FIXTURE. REFER TO ELECTRICAL.

PRE-FINISHED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM.

NOT USED
METAL POST - ALUMINIMUM FINISH.

METAL CANOPY

METAL TRIM
3 COAT STUCCO SMOOTH FINISH:
7/8" MIN. THICKNESS OVER HI-RIB LATH OVER 2-LAYERS OF TYPE "D" PAPER UNDER-LAYMENT OVER PLYWOOD.
5'-0" X 20'-0" SIGN BY EXTRA MILE. AREA - 100 SF

PER DEVELOPER'S REQUIREMENTS, AND
CITY STANDARDS AND ORDINANCES.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 3

FRONT ELEVATION - EAST
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 1

REAR ELEVATION - WEST
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 4

RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION - NORTH
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 2LEFT SIDE ELEVATION - SOUTH
D 4
2F 7B 5
E 6
C 8
-(0'-4")
GROUND
0'-0"
F.F.
10'-0"
OPENING HGT.
19'-6"

BOTTOM OF METAL PANEL
24'-6"
T.O. PARAPET
±26'-4"

ROOF APEX FROM GROUND
-(0'-4")
GROUND
0'-0"
F.F.
10'-0"
OPENING HGT.
19'-6"

BOTTOM OF

METAL PANEL
24'-6"
T.O. PARAPET
±26'-4"

ROOF APEX FROM GROUND
-(0'-4")
GROUND
0'-0"
F.F.
10'-0"
OPENING HGT.
19'-6"

BOTTOM OF METAL PANEL
24'-6"
T.O. PARAPET
±26'-4"

ROOF APEX FROM GROUND
-(0'-4")
GROUND
0'-0"
F.F.
10'-0"
OPENING HGT.
19'-6"

BOTTOM OF METAL PANEL
24'-6"
T.O. PARAPET
±26'-4"

ROOF APEX FROM GROUND
F 7 G 15G 15 3 33333B 5 2
1710 D 4D 4
C 8
E 6
2 3F 7 A 1 A 1 F 7C 8C 8
E 6
E 6D 4B 5 E 6 D 4
3 F 7 A 1G 15 G 15
B 5 B 5C 8
B 5 B 5
E 6D 4B 5
E 6
A 1 F 7 10 B 5A 1 C 8
E 6D 4
G 15
E13
G 1510
A 1 A 1
A 1 A 1
10 10
E 6
A2.7

C STORE

EXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS
3 A 1F 7F 7 A 1
A 1
NOTE:

REVISION DELTA 5 - THE ENTIRE FLOOR PLAN HAS CHANGED

AND ALSO EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND DOORS
3 3
5'-0"

A KNOX BOX WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE EQUIPMENT ROOM (FIRE CONTROL ROOM) DOOR. A KEY TO THE EQUIPMENT ROOM, FIRE ALARM PANEL, THE

MANUAL PULL STATION, AND THE POST INDICATOR VALVE SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE KNOX BOX. “A KEY TO THE FIRE CONTROL ROOM SHALL BE

LOCATED WITHIN AN APPROVED FIRE DEPARTMENT KNOX COMPANY MODEL NO. 4400 OR LARGER KEY BOX LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE ACCESS DOOR ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. CONTACT THE KNOX COMPANY DIRECTLY AT [(866) 623-4563] FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE AND COST.” 18 18
G

METAL TRIM
SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW7020
COLOR - BLACK FOX OR EQUAL.
12'-0"

TOP OF AWNING
12'-0"

TOP OF AWNING
15G14H
H

METAL CANOPY
SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW7020
COLOR - BLACK FOX OR EQUAL.6
6 5
66 6
8'-0"
T.O. VENEER
A 2
A 1 A 1 A 1A 1A 1
A 1 A 1
A 1A 1A 1
A 1
E 6
14'-0"
PLATE HGT.
14'-0"
PLATE HGT.
14'-0"
PLATE HGT.
14'-0"
PLATE HGT.

EXHIBIT C
20 ______
STOP

ENTERONLY
______
STOP
20K REGULAR UNLEADED
8K DIESEL8K E-8514K PREMIUM
EVCS
STOP

EVCS EVCS EVCS

EVCSEVCS
VAN
VAN
20K REGULAR UNLEADED
8K DIESEL8K E-8514K PREMIUM

EXIT EVCS EVCS

EXHIBIT C
21 ______
EXIT
ONLY

IMJIN PARKWAY
FH
FDC
______
STOP
ENTER
ONLY
R45'-0"
R25'-0"
R45'-0"R45'-0"
R15'-0"

EVCSEVCS
BBBB
BB
B
B
BB
B
B

NO PARKING

EVCSNO PARKING EVCS
NO

PARKINGEVCS EVCS
MSB

BREAKWATER

EVCS EVCS
SDMH
SDMH
SDMH

SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT QTY
TREES
Arbutus x 'Marina' / Marina Strawberry Tree Standard
Low Water / WUCOLS 24"box 2
Cercis occidentalis / Western Redbud
Low Water / WUCOLS 24"box 8

SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE QTY
SHRUBS
Callistemon viminalis `Little John` / Dwarf Bottlebrush Low Water / WUCOLS 5 gal 30
Dietes bicolor / Fortnight Lily
Low Water / WUCOLS 5 gal 58
Lantana montevidensis / Purple Trailing Lantana
Low Water / WUCOLS 5 gal 47
Muhlenbergia capillaris `Pink Cloud` / Pink Cloud Pink Muhly Grass Low Water / WUCOLS 5 gal 10
Rhaphiolepis indica `Clara` / Clara Indian Hawthorn
Medium Water / WUCOLS 5 gal 44

PLANT SCHEDULE

BYREVISIONS
Sheets
Date
Job
Scale
Drawn
Sheet
Of
A
ECIL
SN
DE
T

TCEIHCR

PCSAND AL E
ST AI
AO
A
ET
F C
ROFLI
N
REN. 11-30-25
No. 3941
Date
Signature

NWORBYRRPELORAC
08-12-25
916 223 0645

P E R R Y D E S I G N

CAROL PERRY BROWN
Irrigation Design
Landscape Architecture
[email protected]
RLA 3941 CID 002624

PLANTING PLAN
L1.0A1
1" = 20'-0"SCALE:

C-STORE

IMJIN PARKWAY & DEL MONTE BLVD
MARINA, CA.

NOTES:NOTES:

TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA SHOWN ON PREVIOUS PLANS = 14,142
TOTAL ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE AREA WITHIN THIS PHASE =2,614 FOR

ADDITIONAL NOTES, DETAILS AND SPECIFICATION REFER
TO SHEET L3.1A, L3.2A, AND L4.0A.

FOR THE PLANTING OF THE ENTIRE SITE REFER TO SHEET L1.0A.

DESIGN COMPLIANCE

I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE AND

APPLIED THE FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE
LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLAN. (MWELO 492.6)

FOR PLANTING OF THE REST
OF THE SITE SEE SHEET L1.0A
(TYPICAL).
1" = 20'-0"
August 21, 2025
Carol B.

NEW WALKWAY, CONTRACTOR TO

REMOVE EXISTING PLANTING FROM

SITE AND REPLACE ANY PLANT

MATERIAL THAT IS DAMAGED DURING
CONSTRUCTION OF THIS WALKWAY.

EXHIBIT C
22 ______
EXIT
ONLY

IMJIN PARKWAY
FH
FDC
______
STOP
ENTER
ONLY
STOP
R45'-0"
R25'-0"
R45'-0"R45'-0"
R15'-0"

EVCSEVCS
20K REGULAR

UNLEADED
8K DIESEL8K E-85
FILL
FILL
FILL
FILL
14K PREMIUM
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B

NO PARKING

EVCSNO PARKING EVCS
NO

PARKINGEVCS EVCS
MSB

BREAKWATER

EVCS EVCS
SDMH
SDMH
SDMH
C11

5.0 Bubbler
1"
43 "
C
34"
C11
C10

3.23 Dripline
1"
C12
RW RW
1-1/4" MAINLINE, 3" SLEEVE, AND

CONTROLLER CONDUIT CROSSING
THE DRIVEWAY.

FOR IRRIGATION OF THE REST OF
THE SITE REFER TO SHEET L1.0A
1-1/4" MAINLINE
1-1/4" MAINLINE, 3" SLEEVE, AND

CONTROLLER CONDUIT CROSSING
THE DRIVEWAY FOR FUTURE.
1-1/2" MAINLINE

CONTROLLER LOCATION

POINT OF CONNECTION
CONTRACTOR TO CONNECT TO 2" RECYCLED

WATER METER BY OTHERS AND INSTALL

MASTER VALVE/FLOW SENSOR AND
CONNECT TO IRRIGATION AS SHOWN.

STATIC PRESSURE AT POC IS 55 PSI
DESIGN PRESSURE IS 25 PSI
1" MAINLINE
1,672
200
1,805
1" MAINLINE, 2" SLEEVE, AND

CONTROLLER CONDUIT
CROSSING THE DRIVEWAY.

C9
1"
1"
1"
34"
34"

CONTRACTOR TO REPAIR OR

REPLACE ANY EXISTING IRRIGATION

EQUIPMENT THAT IS DAMAGED

DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THIS
NEW WALKWAY.
1" MAINLINE
C9

5.49 Dripline
1"

DIAGRAMMATIC

PLACE LINE IN

PLANTER
34"
742
6<MB2L MAN8)AC78RER/M2DEL/DE6CRI37I2N 47< 36I
Hunter PCB-R
Flood Bubbler, 1/2in. FIPT. With Purple Cap for Reclaimed Water Use. Install one Bubbler 0.25 GPM threaded on 1/2" IPS Flexible PVC pipe, Locate over root ball on uphill side of tree in conjunction with tree root Bubbler.
10 25
Hunter RZWS-18-CV
18in. long RZWS with installed .25 gpm or .50 gpm bubbler options, Check Valve, 1/2" swing joint for connection to 1/2". pipe install with 1/2" swing Joint assembly. Locate on opposite sides of tree from Bubbler and adjacent to the root ball.
10 25
6<MB2L MAN8)AC78RER/M2DEL/DE6CRI37I2N 47<
Rain Bird XCZ-100-IVMQ
Wide Flow IVM Drip Control Kit for Commercial Applications. 1in. Ball Valve with 1in. PESBIVM Smart Valve w/ factory installed IVM-SOL 0.3-20 gpm and 1in. Pressure Regulating 40psi Quick-Check Basket Filter 0.3-20 gpm. Install in a Reclaimed Water Purple Rectanglular Valve Box, one per box. 2 Rain Bird MDCFPCAP
Dripline Flush Valve purple cap in compression fitting coupler.

For non-potable water use.
7 Rain Bird XFCV-09-12
XFCV On-Surface Landscape Dripline with a Heavy-Duty 3.5 psi Check Valve. 0.9 GPH emitters at 12" O.C. Great for elevation change. Specify XF insert fittings.
495.0 lf
6<MB2L MAN8)AC78RER/M2DEL/DE6CRI37I2N 47<
Rain Bird PESB-R-PRS-D
1in., 1-1/2in., and 2in., Durable Chlorine-Resistant Valves for Reclaimed Water Applications. With Scrubber Mechanism
Technology, Purple Flow Control Handle, and Pressure
Regulator Module. Install in Reclaimed Water Purple
Rectangular Valve box.
1 Brass Gate Valve
Class 125 brass gate shut off valve with wheel handle, same size as mainline pipe diameter at valve location. Install Gate Valve in a ten inch (10") round reclaimed purple valve box. 1 Rain Bird 150 PESB-R 1-1/2" Reclaimed Master Valve 1-1/2" Reclaimed Water Compatible, and Purple Handle Cover
Designates Non-Potable Water Use. With Pressure
Regulator.
1 Irritrol MC-12E
12- Station, Commercial-Grade, Outdoor/Indoor Controller.

Equipped in a rugged, lockable, vandal-proof, weather
resistant steel cabinet. Install Climate Logic CL-100
Wireless Weather Sensor Module. Mounted on East side of Car Wash building.
1 Flomec QS200-15
1-1/2in. insertion flowmeter, schedule 80 PVC housing. .55 GPM-82 GPM range, max. operating pressure 150 psi.
2-wire connector w/ LED indicators for power and
pulse.Install in a Reclaimed Water Purple Rectangle Valve Box. 1 Water Meter 2"
Reclaimed Water Meter- Manufacturer to be approved by the City of Marina. Install Water Meter in a Christy concrete utility valve box.
1 Irrigation Lateral Line: PVC Schedule 40
Reclaimed Water Purple Lateral line Piping. Size as noted. 526.7 lf Irrigation Mainline: PVC Schedule 40
Reclaimed Water Purple Mainline Piping. Size as noted. 503.1 lf Pipe Sleeve: PVC Schedule 40 321.7 lf
C

IRRIGATION SCHEDULE
B<RE9I6I2N6
6KeetV
DDte
-Rb
6FDle
DrDZn
6Keet
2I
A
ECIL
6N
DE
7 7CEI+CR
3C6AND AL E
67 AI
A2
A
E7
) C
R2)LI
N
REN. 11-30-25
NR. 3941
DDte
6iJnDture
NW2RB<RR3EL2RAC
08-12-25
916 223 0645

P E R R Y D E S I G N
CAR2L 3ERR< BR2WN
IrriJDtiRn DeViJn
LDnGVFDpe ArFKiteFture
perryGeViJn#Dtt.net
RLA 3941 CID 002624
L2.0A1
1" = 20'-0"SCALE:

C-672RE
IM-IN 3AR.WA< DEL M2N7E BL9D
MARINA, CA.

NOTES:NOTES:

TOTAL OVER ALL LANDSCAPE AREA SHOWN ON PREVIOUS PLANS
17,159 SF EXISTING - 2,253 SF REVISED =14,142 SF TOTAL AREA INCLUDED WITHIN SCOPE OF WORK = 2,614 SF

FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES, DETAILS AND SPECIFICATION REFER
TO SHEET L2.0A, L3.1A, L3.2A, AND L4.0A.

FOR THE IRRIGATION OF THE ENTIRE SITE REFER TO SHEET L2.0A.

DESIGN COMPLIANCE

I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE AND

APPLIED THE FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE
IRRIGATION DESIGN PLAN. (MWELO 492.6)
IRRI*A7I2N 3LAN
2"34-551"7-12
1-1/4"13-23 56-70 2-1/2"
6C+ED8LE 40 39C LA7ERAL6
3/4"
6I=E
3I3E 6I=IN* *8IDE
0-6
*3M
24-33
*3M
1-1/2"
6I=E
1"
type
1" 20
-0"
AuJuVt 21, 2025
CDrRl B.

FOR IRRIGATION OF THE REST
OF THE SITE SEE SHEET L2.0A
(TYPICAL).

EXHIBIT C
23 3

MARINA, CALIFORNIA

IMJIN GAS STATION SIGNAGE -

MONTEREY

PENINSULA HOTELS

GROUP , LP

03.24.26 L-1
Collaborative
ELEVATION-1
SCALE: 1/2”= 1’-0”
ELEVATION-2
SCALE: 1/2”= 1’-0”

PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1/2”= 1’-0”
1 1
1 2 2
2 1

CONCEPTUAL PRIMARY SIGN B
CMU Wall with stone veneer and wall cap
LEGEND
CMU Wall with Precast Cap
Metal Cladding (Match Architecture)
Project Identity Monumentation
Future Tenant Idenity/Logo
1 2
3 4

KEY MAP
4 4
4 3 3
Sign Lettering: Pin mounted custom 3D Led lettering
Aluminum Exterior Cladding: Color and pattern to TBD

EXHIBIT C
24 MARINA, CALIFORNIA

IMJIN GAS STATION SIGNAGE -

MONTEREY

PENINSULA HOTELS

GROUP , LP

03.24.26 L-2
Collaborative
ELEVATION-1
SCALE: 1/2”= 1’-0”
ELEVATION-2
SCALE: 1/2”= 1’-0”

PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1/2”= 1’-0”
CONCEPTUAL SECONDARY SIGN C-1

KEY MAP
Sign Lettering: Pin mounted custom 3D Led lettering
Aluminum Exterior Cladding: Color and pattern to TBDCMU Wall with stone veneer and wall cap LEGEND
CMU Wall with Precast Cap
Metal Cladding (Match Architecture)
Project Identity Monumentation
1 2
3 1 1
1 2 2
2 1
3 3 3

EXHIBIT C
25 1 1
1 2 2
2 1
3 3 3

MARINA, CALIFORNIA

IMJIN GAS STATION SIGNAGE -

MONTEREY

PENINSULA HOTELS

GROUP , LP

03.24.26 L-3
Collaborative
ELEVATION-1
SCALE: 1/2”= 1’-0”
ELEVATION-2
SCALE: 1/2”= 1’-0”

PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1/2”= 1’-0”
CONCEPTUAL SECONDARY SIGN C-2

MARINA, CALIFORNIA

IMJIN GAS STATION SIGNAGE -

MONTEREY

PENINSULA HOTELS

GROUP , LP

03.24.26 L-4
Collaborative
ELEVATION-1
SCALE: 1/2”= 1’-0”
ELEVATION-2
SCALE: 1/2”= 1’-0”

PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1/2”= 1’-0”

CONCEPTUAL GAS STATION SIGN
CMU Wall with stone veneer and wall cap

KEY MAP
Aluminum Exterior Cladding: Color and pattern to TBD
1 2
3 1
2 3
LEGEND
CMU Wall with Precast Cap
Metal Cladding (Match Architecture)
Hallmark with Techron
1 2
3 EXHIBIT C
27 2060 ROCKROSE COURT, GILROY, CA 95020
T 408.201.2752 [email protected] WWW.KEITHHIGGINSTE.COM Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
May 4, 2026
Harvey Dadwal, President
Dadwal Management Group
1534 Ste-D Fremont Blvd.

Seaside, CA 93955
Re: The Dunes Phase 1A Hotel/Restaurant/Gas Station Opportunity Site – Response to Marina Planning Commission Traffic Concerns Regarding Proposed Fast Food Drive-Through Restaurant Dear Harvey,
This letter is a response to concerns raised by the Marina Planning Commission at the April 23, 2026 hearing regarding traffic operations for the addition of a Drive-Through Restaurant at the approved Gas Station Convenience Market and Car Wash (Project), which is now under construction. The specific concerns are as follows. Each is discussed in detail below.

A. Project driveway on Imjin Parkway west of 2nd Avenue.

B. Additional traffic generated by conversion of part of proposed Convenience Store to a Drive- through Restaurant.

C. Storage capacity of proposed drive-through lane.

A. Project Driveway on Imjin Parkway West of 2nd Avenue Is Part of Original Circulation Plan for The Dunes Phase 1 Opportunity Site The City of Marina Planning Commission expressed concern about the driveway currently under construction on Imjin Parkway at the westerly side of the gas station convenience market car wash site. The driveway was included in the Project building permit. It was also the subject of an encroachment permit for construction within the Imjin Parkway right of way. Reference documents that addressed the Proposed Project Driveway on Imjin Parkway West of 2nd Avenue during Project planning and permitting include the following.

1. Attachment 1 - “The Dunes on Monterey Bay – Phase 1 Opportunity Site Conceptual Site Plan,” Whitson Engineers, February 26, 2020 – The concept plan for the Dunes Phase 1 Opportunity Site included a right turn exit onto westbound Imjin Parkway from Parcels C and D. The driveway was anticipated to serve a gas station with car wash, 3,600 s.f. C-Store, Subway/Baja Fresh and Crispy Crunch Chicken, 1,500 s.f. Jamba Juice, 2,000 s.f. Dutch Brothers, Chick-fil-A or In-N-Out Burger and access to future hotels with a total of 310 rooms.

EXHIBIT D
28 Harvey Dadwal
May 4, 2026
2 2. Attachment 2 – “Department of Public Works Map Check and Improvement Plan Check,” David Rubcic and Frederik Venter, November 30, 2021, updated 1/21/22 – This memorandum states that, “A single driveway onto Imjin Parkway from Parcel C is acceptable and shall conform to the requirements set forth in the attached memorandum from Kimley Horn (dated 11/18/21). The driveway shall act as an exit onto Imjin Pkwy only – no left turn movements or entrance into Parcel C shall be allowed from this driveway without a City-approved traffic study supporting such turning movements. Abutter’s rights for Parcel A along Imjin Pkwy shall not be granted.”

3. Attachment 3 – “The Dunes – Del Monte Boulevard Extension, Marina, California” letter from Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer, dated May 4, 2021 – This letter states, “The proposed driveway on Imjin Parkway also needs to comply with Caltrans standards for the proximity of access points to freeway ramp intersections. Section 504.3(3) (page 500-31) of the Highway Design Manual, Caltrans, Seventh Edition, July 1,2020 (HDM), states, “The minimum distance (curb return to curb return) between ramp intersections and local road intersections shall be 400 feet. The preferred minimum distance should be 500 feet. This does not apply to Resurfacing, Restoration and Rehabilitation (3R), ramp widening, restriping or other projects which do not reconfigure the interchange. This standard does apply to projects proposing to realign a local street.
“The spacing between the Northbound State Route 1 Ramps and Del Monte Boulevard Extension is about 1,200 feet. The proposed driveway will be located about 130 feet from Del Monte Boulevard Extension. The clear distance to the ramp intersection will be over 800 feet, which will exceed the minimum spacing standard of the Highway Design Manual. “Additional information is provided regarding the location and design of the proposed Imjin Parkway driveway, In conclusion, the letter states, “ The Imjin Parkway / Del Monte Boulevard Intersection and Imjin Parkway will operate acceptably with construction of either the Commercial Access or the gas station driveways.”

4. Attachment 4 – “The Dunes – Del Monte Boulevard Extension Transportation Peer Review Technical Memorandum,” Frederik Venter and Chris Gregerson, Kimley Horn, June 3, 2021 – This Memo provides recommended design details for the proposed Imjin Parkway driveway.

At this time consideration was given to providing two driveways onto Imjin Parkway.

The Memo also mentions that Monterey Salinas Transit (MST) was consulted as well. MST provided guidance about clearance between the proposed driveway and the existing MST bus stop.

The Memo recommended that only a single driveway be provided at the location and configuration currently proposed.

5. Attachment 5 – “Dunes on Monterey Bay Phase II North Traffic Analysis Memorandum” Wood Rodgers, December 7, 2022 – The last paragraph of the Introduction of this Memo

EXHIBIT D
29 Harvey Dadwal
May 4, 2026

3 states, “This analysis includes projected delay, level of service (LOS), and queueing at the 2nd Avenue/Del Monte Boulevard & Imjin Parkway intersection and Project access intersections.” In other words, it provides an independent analysis of the studies prepared by Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer and peer reviewed by Kimley Horn.

The bottom of page 1 of the Memo describes the access to the gas station as follows. “The Project would extend Del Monte Boulevard by approximately 550 feet to the north.

Access to the Project site would be provided via two new roadway intersections with Del Monte Boulevard and one new driveway on Imjin Parkway:
• Breakwater Street would extend east from Del Monte Boulevard directly across from the existing Imjin Office Park entrance and would primarily serve the proposed hotels and gas station. The Del Monte Boulevard & Breakwater Street intersection would be side-street stop- controlled.
• Bay View Street would extend east and west from Del Monte Boulevard and would serve the proposed residential homes west of Del Monte Boulevard and provide emergency vehicle access to the hotel sites. The Del Monte Boulevard & Bay View Street intersection would be side-street stop controlled.
• The Gas Station Driveway would extend north from Imjin Parkway approximately 250 feet west of the 2nd Avenue/Del Monte Boulevard & Imjin Parkway intersection and primarily serve the gas station. The Gas Station Driveway & Imjin Parkway intersection would be side-street stop-controlled with right-in/right-out control.”
The Memo indicates that the Gas Station Driveway & Imjin Parkway will operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) B. It implies that this intersection will operate acceptably.

B. Minimal Increase in Traffic Generated by Conversion of Part of Proposed Convenience Store to a Drive-through Restaurant The current proposal is to modify a portion of the Project C Store from retail to fast food restaurant with a drive through. This will result in a change in trip generation from the approved project. A comparison of trip generation is difficult because no specific type of fast food restaurant has been identified. The fast food restaurant portion of the 5,000 gross square foot C-Store that will be converted to fast food restaurant will include about 2,000 gross square feet of floor area. This is about one-half the size of a typical McDonald’s, Burger King, Jack-in-the Box, Carl’s Junior or In-N- Out Burger. Chik-Fill-A restaurants typically have about 5,000 square feet of floor area. Taco Bell restaurants have about 3,000 square feet of floor area. This will limit the type of prospective drive- through franchise that will occupy this space.

To provide a conservative comparison, the trip generation rate for the fast food restaurant space is assumed to be similar to the rate generated by the major fast food restaurant brands listed above. As indicated in Table 1 on the following page, the trip generation rate per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for a typical fast food restaurant is 467.48 daily trips per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.

This is much less than the average trip generation rate for a convenience store/gas station (700.43

EXHIBIT D
30 Harvey Dadwal
May 4, 2026

4 daily trips per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area). The reduction in trips associated with the reduction in convenience store floor area probably more than offsets the additional trips associated with the inclusion of a fast food restaurant.

LAND USE ITE LAND

USE CODE

DAILY TRIP GENERATION
RATE PER 1,000 S.F.

1. Fast Food Restaurant With Drive-
Through Window 934 467.48

2. Convenience Store/Gas Station 945 700.43

C. Prospective Drive-through Restaurant Tenant Will Also be Limited by Drive-through Lane Capacity
In addition to the relatively small fast food restaurant floor area, the drive-through capacity of only 10 cars also would limit the type of restaurant franchise that would be interested in occupying the space.

This is because operators of fast food brands that depend on larger volumes utilizing the drive- through facility would not want to be constrained by this limitation.

D. Conclusion
In conclusion, the proposed Imjin Parkway, Del Monte Extension, 2nd Avenue and Gas Station Driveway intersection location and design were determined to be acceptable to accommodate Cumulative traffic conditions by the following:

1. Whitson Engineers (the design engineer),

2. Kimley Horn (city consulting engineer)

3. Wood Rodgers (consulting traffic engineers)

4. City of Marina Public Works Department (reviewing and permitting agency).

The conversion of 2,000 square feet of convenience store floor area to a fast food restaurant with 10- car drive-through will not result in a qualitative change in traffic operations. The Project site plan, Imjin Parkway driveway and Drive-Through restaurant drive-through lane will operate acceptably.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you.

Respectfully submitted,

Keith B. Higgins, PE, TE
attachments

EXHIBIT D
31 Attachment 1

EXHIBIT D
32

Page 1 of 2 ends

CITY OF MARINA The Submittal / Plans are: COPY:
209 Cypress Avenue APPROVED Applicant(s)
Marina, CA 93933 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Planning Department Phone: (831) 884-1212 NOT APPROVED – SEE COMMENTS P.W. / Engineering Attn.: Edrie De Los Santos OTHER _________________

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MAP CHECK and IMPROVEMENT PLAN CHECK
PROPERTY ADDRESS: Second Avenue and Imjin Parkway
PROJECT NAME: Parcel Map - Phase 1A Opportunity Parcel aka: Ph 2 North PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 3-parcels with a Remainder; PC #3
DATE: November 30, 2021 – [Updated 1/21/22]
BY: David Rubcic, PE, PLS; Frederik Venter, PE
NOTE:

Upon re-submittal of these documents, please include:

1. a copy of these comments

2. an itemized response letter to each comment below

3. the original redlined set

4. revised documents as requested
Failure to provide this may delay the review process. Please also note that submission of these comments does not necessarily constitute the unconditional approval of any portion of the Final Map.

COMMENTS
The
following documents were reviewed with this Plan Check No. 3. • Revised Parcel Map prepared by Whitson Engineers dated October 8, 2021 • Revised Closure Calculations prepared by Whitson Engineers dated 10/11/2021 • Plan Check Comment Response #2 from Whitson Engineers dated October 8, 2021 • Letter from Keith Higgins, Traffic Engineer dated September 1, 2021 – response to Kimley Horn Peer Review Comments
The following conditions of approval are the result of the 3rd plan check for the Dunes on Monterey Bay - Opportunity Phase 1A – Parcel Map submittal package (aka Phase 2 North):

1. Prior to issuance of any grading permit within Phase 2 North, the Developer shall dedicate the 138 ft right of way for Del Monte Boulevard.

2. A single driveway onto Imjin Parkway from Parcel C is acceptable and shall conform to the requirements set forth in the attached memorandum from Kimley Horn (dated 11/18/21). The driveway shall act as an exit onto Imjin Pkwy only – no left turn movements or entrance into Parcel C shall be allowed from this driveway without a City- approved traffic study supporting such turning movements. Abutter’s rights for Parcel A along Imjin Pkwy shall not be granted.

3. All traffic analysis studies as stated in the attached Kimley Horn memorandum (dated 11/18/21) shall be provided as part of the initial improvement plans or future final maps for any development within Phase 2 North. This is in response to Keith Higgin’s traffic operations analysis (dated 5/4/21) and response to City Comments (dated 9/1/21).

Attachment 2

EXHIBIT D
33 2060 ROCKROSE COURT, GILROY, CA 95020
T 408.201.2752 [email protected] WWW.KEITHHIGGINSTE.COM Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
May 4, 2021
Andrew Hunter, Principal
Whitson Engineers
6 Harris Court
Monterey, CA 93940
Re: The Dunes – Del Monte Boulevard Extension, Marina, California Dear Andrew,
As you requested, this is an analysis of operations of the lower portion of the Del Monte Boulevard extension in Marina, California. The lower extension – a two-block portion north of Imjin Parkway – will be constructed as part of The Dunes on Monterey Bay development, specifically the commercial and residential phases north of Imjin Parkway. This analysis focused on both operations and queuing associated with the project and its proposed access points.

Exhibit 1 depicts the location of the study intersections. Exhibit 2 depicts the proposed commercial uses north of Imjin Parkway.

A. PROJECT DEFINITION AND TRIP GENERATION
North of Imjin Parkway, The Dunes on Monterey Bay is composed of the following:

1. Commercial Uses:
a. Hotel: 310 rooms, split over two buildings
b. Gas Station: 12 vehicle fueling positions (i.e., maximum of 12 vehicles fueling simultaneously) plus convenience market.

2. Residential:
a. East of Del Monte Boulevard: 45 single-family units b. West of Del Monte Boulevard: 9 single-family units.

The residential units will be accessed off a local east-west street (“East-West Street”) that will intersect with Del Monte Boulevard two blocks north of Imjin Parkway. The residences will be located both east and west of Del Monte Boulevard.

The commercial uses will all be located west of Del Monte Boulevard and east of Highway 1. The exact access for the commercial uses is not yet finalized and is one of the subjects of this analysis. (See Section B for more information.)
Attachment 3

EXHIBIT D
34 Andrew Hunter
May 4, 2021

2 Exhibit 3 summarizes the project trip generation for the study project. For consistency with the original traffic study for The Dunes on Monterey Bay, the project trip generation was based on trip rates from Trip Generation, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2003. Rates for the Hotel use were cited from Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2010. A 10% internal reduction was also applied to the project trip generation, to account for internal circulation. The project will generate a net 5,635 daily trips, with 319 trips during the AM peak hour (135 in, 154 out) and 397 trips during the PM peak hour (203 in, 194 out).

One other property adding traffic to the Del Monte Boulevard extension is the Imjin Business Park, located at the northeast corner of Imjin Parkway intersection with the future Del Monte Boulevard extension. This existing business park is approximately 53,000 square feet in size and has its primary access on the future Del Monte Boulevard extension (currently signed as 2nd Avenue) north of Imjin Parkway. Due to the COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders reducing the potential traffic activity of the business park, traffic counts at its driveway on the Del Monte Boulevard extension were not performed. Rather, the traffic activity of the business park was estimated using ITE trip generation rates and conservatively assuming that all of the traffic to and from this facility uses this one driveway on Del Monte Boulevard. The trip generation for the business park is summarized in Exhibit 4. The business park generates an estimated 677 daily trips, with 76 trips during the AM peak hour (64 in, 12 out) and 68 trips during the PM peak hour (16 in, 52 out).

B. DERIVATION OF DESIGN VOLUMES
The Cumulative Plus Project volumes on the lower Del Monte Boulevard extension are shown on Exhibit 5 under Baseline conditions. These volumes were derived using various data. First, the Cumulative Plus Project volumes at the southern end of the Del Monte extension – at the 2nd Avenue – Del Monte Boulevard / Imjin Parkway intersection – are cited from the memorandum Imjin Parkway & 2nd Avenue Queue Evaluation, Kimley-Horn and Associates, May 19, 2020. The volumes at the Imjin Business Park driveway (“Private Driveway”) and both sides of East-West Street are derived based on the trip generation in Exhibits 3 and 4, as well as an assumption that 75% of traffic using these side street travel to/from the south (i.e., towards Imjin Parkway) and 25% travel to/from the north (i.e., towards Reindollar Avenue).

Under Baseline conditions, the hotel and gas station will share access with the residential area, i.e., East- West Street. Alternate access options are explored for the other two volume scenarios. Option 1 adds a new roadway (“Commercial Access”) located directly opposite the Imjin Business Park driveway. This will make the Del Monte / Commercial Access – Private Driveway intersection a four-way intersection.

Commercial access via East-West Street will be restricted to just emergency access only. Option 2 is the same as Option 1, but also adds two new driveways (“Gas Station Driveways”) on Imjin Road west of Del Monte Boulevard. These will be located on the east and west side of the westbound MST bus stop, which will be relocated about 45 feet west of its existing location. (See Section E for more information about the bus stop relocation.) The volumes on the lower Del Monte extension under Options 1 and 2 are shown in Exhibits 6 and 7, respectively.

EXHIBIT D
35 Andrew Hunter
May 4, 2021

3 The lane configurations at the study intersections will also change under each of the three analysis scenarios. These lane configurations are also summarized on Exhibit 8A. The Del Monte Boulevard / East-West Street intersection will have left turn lanes in each direction on Del Monte Boulevard for all three scenarios. The intersection of Del Monte Boulevard and Commercial Access – Private Driveway will also have left turn lanes on Del Monte Boulevard – just a southbound left turn lane for Baseline conditions and both northbound and southbound left turn lanes for Options 1 and 2. The Gas Station Driveways on Imjin Parkway will allow right turns in and out only. Both driveways will be served by westbound right turn deceleration and acceleration flares on Imjin Parkway via a shared access with the relocated bus turnout and no access across the existing median on that roadway. A conceptual design of the two driveways and the relocated MST bus stop can be found in Exhibit 9.

The 2nd Avenue – Del Monte Boulevard / Imjin Parkway will experience the largest change in its lane configuration. These changes will be to the southbound Del Monte Boulevard approach to the intersection.

Baseline conditions are consistent with the Kimley-Horn recommendations, i.e. one southbound left turn lane, one southbound through lane and one southbound right turn lane. Options 1 and 2, however, revise this configuration to two southbound left turn lanes, one through lane and one shared through-right turn lane. The addition of the second southbound left turn lane is to maximize the storage length for both the southbound Del Monte left turn movement at Imjin Parkway and the northbound left turn lane at Commercial Access – Private Driveway. Due to the short block between these intersections – about 280 feet – there is not sufficient space to allow both a northbound left turn lane at the Commercial Access – Private Driveway and the single southbound left turn lane at Imjin Parkway within the proposed right-of-way for the Del Monte Boulevard extension.

Note that there is currently a signed U-turn prohibition for eastbound Imjin Parkway. This prohibition legally prohibits eastbound Imjin Parkway vehicles from making a U-turn and using the Gas Station Driveways to access the gas station. Because there is over 45 feet between the outside of the eastbound left turn lane and the narrowest point along the curb line laong the north side of Imjin Parkway, some vehicles are likely to make the U-turn. This movement would interact with a low volume (43 in the morning and 48 in the evening) southbound Del Monte Extension right turn movement. This would operate similarly to U-turn movements regularly occurring at many arterial intersections. Any U-turns would reduce northbound Del Monte Boulevard Extension left turns to access Commercial Access. However, to be conserevative, it is assumed under Option 2 that all eastbound Imjin traffic accessing the gas station will continue to turn onto Del Monte Boulevard and use the Commercial Access.

C. INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Exhibit 8A summarizes the levels of service at the Del Monte Boulevard intersections with Imjin Parkway, Commercial Access – Private Driveway and East-West Street. Exhibit 8B summarizes the recommended intersection improvements at these same intersections. Appendix A contains the level of service calculations.

EXHIBIT D
36 Andrew Hunter
May 4, 2021

4 Operations of the Del Monte Boulevard intersections with Commercial Access – Private Driveway and East- West Street will be better than City of Marina Level of Service (LOS) standard of “D,” with side-street operations of LOS B and LOS C for all three of the analyzed scenarios (i.e., Background, Option 1 and Option 2). No further improvements are required at either of these two intersections.

The 2nd Avenue – Del Monte Boulevard / Imjin Parkway intersection under Baseline conditions will operate at an acceptable LOS D during the AM peak hour but an unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour.

However, the proposed lane configuration changes at the intersection under Options 1 and 2 will improve operations to LOS D during both the AM and PM peak hours. These lane configuration changes will therefore fully improve operations of the intersection to acceptable conditions. No further improvements are required at this intersection under either Options 1 or 2.

The Gas Station Driveway / Imjin Parkway intersection would not exist under either Baseline or Option 1 conditions. For Option 2 conditions, the intersection would operate at LOS C during both the AM and PM peak hours. No improvements are required at this intersection.

D. INTERSECTION VEHICLE QUEUES
Vehicle queues were evaluated on Del Monte Boulevard for its proposed left and right turn lanes at the study intersections. These queue lengths were estimated using the Highway Capacity Manual method (stop control) and the Poisson approximation method (signal control), the latter documented by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for use at signalized intersections in Santa Clara County.

Exhibit 10 summarizes these vehicle queues. Appendix B contains the queue length calculations. All of the northbound and southbound left turn lanes on Del Monte Boulevard at Commercial Access – Private Driveway and East-West Street can more than accommodate their anticipated vehicle queues for Baseline, Option 1, and Option 2 conditions. No improvements are required at these turn lanes.

At Imjin Parkway, only the southbound Del Monte Boulevard left turn lane queues will require additional storage. Under Baseline conditions, the southbound left turn lane queue will require 200 feet of storage, exceeding the proposed 165 feet. Under Options 1 and 2, the dual left turn lanes will each require 125 feet of storage, exceeding the proposed 100 feet. Reducing the taper lengths of the northbound Del Monte left turn lane at the Commercial Access and southbound Del Monte left turn lanes at Imjin Parkway would allow for the southbound left turn lanes’ storage to be lengthened to 130 feet, more than exceeding the necessary vehicle storage under Options 1 and 2. No further improvements are required.

E. GAS STATION DRIVEWAY SPACING

1. Distance to Northbound State Route 1 Ramps
The proposed driveway on Imjin Parkway also needs to comply with Caltrans standards for the proximity of access points to freeway ramp intersections. Section 504.3(3) (page 500-31) of the Highway Design Manual, Caltrans, Seventh Edition, July 1,2020 (HDM), states, “The minimum distance (curb return to curb return) between ramp intersections and local road intersections shall be 400 feet. The preferred minimum

EXHIBIT D
37 Andrew Hunter
May 4, 2021

5 distance should be 500 feet. This does not apply to Resurfacing, Restoration and Rehabilitation (3R), ramp widening, restriping or other projects which do not reconfigure the interchange. This standard does apply to projects proposing to realign a local street.”
The spacing between the Northbound State Route 1 Ramps and Del Monte Boulevard Extension is about 1,200 feet. The proposed driveway will be located about 130 feet from Del Monte Boulevard Extension.

The clear distance to the ramp intersection will be over 800 feet, which will exceed the minimum spacing standard of the Highway Design Manual.

2. Relation to Existing MST Bus Stop
A westbound Imjin Parkway right turn taper is recommended in advance of the gas station driveways. This lane can begin just west of the 2nd Avenue – Del Monte Boulevard / Imjin Parkway intersection, proceeded by a standard taper. However, a complicating factor of both the driveway location and the right turn lane is the existing bus stop pullout on westbound Imjin Parkway adjacent to the proposed gas station property.

This bus stop would need to be relocated as a part of the driveway construction. To minimize the relocation distance of the bus stop, it is recommended that the bus stop pullout be incorporated into the driveway and right turn lane designs using the design guidelines of Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST). These guidelines are documented in Designing for Transit, MST, 2020. Specifically, the right turn lane itself can serve as the near-side taper in advance of the bus stop and a far-side taper can be added just west of both the bus stop and driveway. The conceptual design of the driveways – as shown on Exhibit 9 – is consistent with this recommended design approach.

The spacing between the bus stop and driveway should also follow MST’s near-side and far-side bus stop curb standards. For example, the bus stop design on the Del Monte side of the bus stop should follow the far-side standards. It should follow the near-side standards on the western gas station driveway side of the bus stop.

Line 18 is the only MST bus route that currently services this bus stop. Line 18 provides service between Marina and Monterey via Seaside, Sand City and CSUMB. This line operates every hour on weekdays and weekends. The westbound Imjin bus stop is only serviced when traveling to Marina. Therefore, buses will be stopping at this bus stop only once every hour, minimizing interference with driveway traffic. As buses serving this bus stop continue onto Northbound Highway 1 via the rightmost westbound lane on Imjin Parkway, relocation of this bus stop will not impede the ability of buses to continue their route.

When a bus is stopped at the westbound Imjin Parkway bus stop, it will partially block the available sight distance between the west gas station driveway and westbound Imjin Parkway. Sight distance would be restricted to approximately 70 feet, which is well under the Caltrans stopping sight distance standard for the posted speed limit on Imjin Parkway of 45 mph. The more limited sight distance would typically last for approximately 30-60 seconds while the bus is stopped at the bus stop. Once the bus has left the area, sight distance would return to beyond the 2nd Avenue – Del Monte Boulevard / Imjin Parkway intersection.

Sight distance at the east gas station driveway would not be affected by a stopped bus.

EXHIBIT D
38 Andrew Hunter
May 4, 2021

6 3. Driveway Level of Service
Both of the proposed driveways on Imjin Parkway will operate at LOS C, as indicated in Exhibit 8A. The calculations are contained in Appendix A. These calculations are conservative in that they assume random arrivals of traffic along westbound Imjin Parkway. However, gaps in traffic are provided be the existing signal at the 2nd Avenue-Del Monte Extension intersection.

4. Examples of Similar Driveway Locations
The proposed driveway location on Imjin Parkway would require modifying the existing non-access strip along the Project’s Imjin Parkway frontage. This may have been imposed so that no conflict points would be created along Imjin Parkway, which is a high-volume facility. However, there are many examples of similar driveways throughout Monterey County and locations in the South and East San Francisco Bay Area. A representative list is included on Exhibit 11, which indicates the city and street where the driveway is located as well as average daily traffic, speed limit and spacing from the upstream intersection and downstream freeway ramps. Most of these are very high-volume locations, some of which have triple left turn lanes at the upstream intersection. The land uses are all commercial. Many are designed with concrete curb aprons.

F. DEL MONTE BOULEVARD EXTENSION CROSS SECTION
The proposed typical cross section for the Del Monte Boulevard Extension is illustrated on the middle of Exhibit 12. It would have a total right-of-way width of 104 feet, which will include a two-lane arterial with buffered bike lanes, 16-foot curbed median that will accommodate left turn lanes, shared bike/pedestrian path on the east side and sidewalk on the west side. The top of Exhibit 12 also illustrates a section recommended by the City of Marina with a 138-foot right-of-way. This section would include a four-lane arterial with buffered bike lanes, 16-foot curbed median that will accommodate left turn lanes, shared bike/pedestrian path plus sidewalk on the east side and 8-foot sidewalk on the west side. Additional right of way would also be provided for perpendicular bike parking on the west side.

Exhibit 13 indicates that Del Monte Boulevard will only carry about 6,500 vehicles per day, which is well within the capacity of a two-lane arterial with left turn lanes. This is corroborated by worst-case C levels of service on the side street approaches at intersections immediately north of Imjin Parkway under long term cumulative conditions. There will be no need in the future for the Del Monte Extension to have four lanes with buildout of the current General Plan. The proposed 2-lane arterial in a 104-foot right of way will adequately accommodate long term traffic demand.

If the City is more comfortable providing a four-lane facility, an alternative four-lane configuration can be provided within a 104-foot right of way as illustrated on Exhibit 13. This would include a 14-foot median, which would be wide enough for median left turn lanes as well as buffered bike lanes, a sidewalk on the west side and a 10-foot share bike-pedestrian path on the east side. A 104-foot right of way will accommodate both two-lane and four-lane alternatives well within acceptable traffic operations.

EXHIBIT D
39 Andrew Hunter
May 4, 2021

7 G. CONCLUSION
In summary, this analysis found that the proposed design of the lower Del Monte Boulevard extension will operate acceptably with the buildout of The Dunes on Monterey Bay and minor modifications to the roadway design. The 2nd Avenue – Del Monte Boulevard / Imjin Parkway intersection will operate acceptably if the southbound Del Monte Boulevard lane configuration is changed to that which is proposed by the study project. Intersection and Imjin Parkway will operate acceptably with construction of either the Commercial Access or the gas station driveways.

Vehicle queuing at the Del Monte Boulevard intersections can be fully accommodated by the proposed designs, with the sole exception of the southbound Del Monte Boulevard left turn movement at Imjin Parkway. It is recommended that the vehicle storage for this movement be increased to 130 feet for each left turn lane by reducing the length of the turn lane tapers for both these turn lanes as well as the adjacent northbound Del Monte left turn lane at Commercial Access.

A 104-foot right-of-way will be able to easily provide acceptable operations, for motorized vehicles, bikes and pedestrians. A 138-foot right-of-way is not needed for the volumes of motorized or non-motorized traffic through General Plan Buildout.

If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you.

Respectfully submitted,

Keith B. Higgins, PE, TE
Attachments

EXHIBIT D
40 Basemap Source: Google Maps, 2020.
2 Project
Site
N
1 4
3 Legend:

Study Intersections
Del Monte Boulevard
Extension (Approximate
Alignment)
X
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Exhibit 1
Project Location Map
and Study Area

EXHIBIT D
41 Source: Whitson Engineers, April 2020.

N
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Exhibit 2
Project Site Plan

EXHIBIT D
42 The Dunes (Marina University Villages) Project Buildout - Trip Generation Table 2020 Project Description - North of Imjin Parkway
ITE DAILY PEAK % OF PEAK % OF
LAND USE TRIP HOUR DAILY % % HOUR DAILY % %

TRIP GENERATION RATES CODE RATES RATES RATES IN OUT RATES RATES IN OUT Single Family Homes 210 341 units 9.57 0.75 8% 25% 75% 1.01 11% 63% 37% Gas Station with Convenience Market 945 12 positions 162.78 10.06 6% 50% 50% 13.38 8% 50% 50% Business Park 770 100,000 sq. ft. 12.76 1.43 11% 84% 16% 1.29 10% 23% 77% Hotel 310 500 rooms 12.23 0.62 5% 58% 42% 0.73 6% 49% 51% I T E P E A K% O F P E A K% O F
LAND USE DAILY HOUR DAILY % % HOUR DAILY % %

PROJECT TRIPS GENERATED - FUTURE USES LOCATION CODE TRIPS TRIPS RATES IN OUT TRIPS RATES IN OUT Single Family Homes W of Del Monte 210 9 units 86 7 8% 2 5 9 10% 6 3 Single Family Homes E of Del Monte 210 45 units 431 34 8% 9 25 45 10% 28 17 Gas Station with Convenience Market Northwest Corner of Imjin/Del Monte 945 12 positions 1,953 121 6% 61 60 161 8% 81 80 Hotel W of Del Monte 310 310 rooms 3,791 192 5% 111 81 226 6% 111 115 Sub-Total Project Future Trips 6,261 354 6% 183 171 441 7% 226 215 Internal Trip Reduction5 (-10%) 626 35 6% 18 17 44 7% 23 22 TOTAL PRIMARY PROJECT FUTURE TRIPS 5,635 319 6% 165 154 397 7% 203 194 To and From Imjin 75% 4,226 239 124 115 298 153 145
Notes: To and From Marina 25% 1,409 80 41 38 99 51 48

1. Trip generation rates published by Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), "Trip Generation," 7th Edition, 2003, unless otherwise noted.

2. Trip rates for Hotel are cited from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), "Trip Generation Manual," 10th Edition, 2018.

3. Internal Capture rate of non-residential trips due to Neighborhood District land use.

SIZE

NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED

AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR

PROJECT

PEAK HOUR TRIP RATES & DISTRIBUTION

AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR

PROJECT
SIZE
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Exhibit 3
Project Trip
Generation

EXHIBIT D
43 Imjin Business Park
Trip Generation
ITE PROJECT DAILY PEAK % OF PEAK % OF
LAND USE TRIP HOUR DAILY % % HOUR DAILY % %

TRIP GENERATION RATES CODE RATES RATES RATES IN OUT RATES RATES IN OUT Business Park 770 53,050 sq. ft. 12.76 1.43 11% 84% 16% 1.29 10% 23% 77% I T E P E A K% O F P E A K% O F
LAND USE DAILY HOUR DAILY % % HOUR DAILY % %

PROJECT TRIPS GENERATED - FUTURE USES LOCATION CODE TRIPS TRIPS RATES IN OUT TRIPS RATES IN OUT Business Park (Existing) Northeast Corner of Imjin/Del Monte 770 53,050 sq. ft. 677 76 11% 64 12 68 10% 16 52 To and From Imjin 75% 508 57 48 9 51 12 39
Notes: To and From Marina 25% 169 19 16 3 17 4 13

1. Trip generation rates published by Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), "Trip Generation," 7th Edition, 2003, unless otherwise noted.

2. Square footage is estimated from aerial imagery.

AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR

PROJECT
SIZE

NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED
(EXISTING USES)

PEAK HOUR TRIP RATES & DISTRIBUTION

AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
SIZE
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Exhibit 4
Imjin Business Park
Trip Generation

EXHIBIT D
44 69(89)
140(45)
0(0)
16(4)
52(48) 3(13)
1362(1046) 0(0)
260(268) 9(39)
70(84) 0(0)
891(1055) 0(0)
930(918) 0(0)
392(825)
94(209)
155(322)
0(0)
168(329)
48(12)
43(49)
2(7)
0(0)[0]
0(0)[0]
6(4) 0(0)[0]
0(0) 0(0)[0]
19(13) 0(0)[0]
36(50) 0(0)[0]
0(0) 0(0)[0]
110(148) 0(0)[0]
131(149)
33(172)
7(21)

0(0)[0]
0(0)[0]
0(0)[0]
241(106)
0(0)[0]

1. 2nd Avenue - Del Monte Boulevard / Imjin Parkway 2. Del Monte Boulevard / Commercial Access - Private Driveway

3. Del Monte Boulevard / East-West Street
154(168)
354(263)

4. Gas Station Driveway / Imjin Parkway
Del Monte Blvd
Del Monte Blvd
East-West Street
Imjin Pkwy
2nd Ave
Del Monte Blvd
Private Dwy
(Imjin Bus. Pk.)
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Exhibit 5
Baseline Conditions
AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes

EXHIBIT D
45 69(89)
140(45)
43(48)
16(4)
52(48) 3(13)
1362(1046) 0(0)
260(268) 9(39)
70(84) 35(49)
891(1055) 0(0)
930(918) 106(146)
392(825)
94(209)
155(322)
129(144)
39(185)
48(12)
0(1)
2(7)
0(0)[0]
0(0)[0]
6(4) 0(0)[0]
0(0) 0(0)[0]
19(13) 0(0)[0]
1(1) 0(0)[0]
0(0) 0(0)[0]
4(2) 0(0)[0]
2(5)
68(221)
7(21)

0(0)[0]
0(0)[0]
0(0)[0]

3. Del Monte Boulevard / East-West Street 4. Gas Station Driveway / Imjin Parkway 284(154)
0(0)[0]

1. 2nd Avenue - Del Monte Boulevard / Imjin Parkway 2. Del Monte Boulevard / Commercial Access - Private Driveway
154(168)
248(117)
Del Monte Blvd
Del Monte Blvd
East-West Street
Imjin Pkwy
Commercial Access
2nd Ave
Del Monte Blvd
Private Dwy
(Imjin Bus. Pk.)
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Exhibit 6
Option 1 Conditions
(Commercial Access)
AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes

EXHIBIT D
46 57(64)
140(45)
43(48)
16(4)
26(24) 3(13)
1388(1070) 0(0)
260(268) 9(39)
70(84) 35(49)
891(1055) 0(0)
930(918) 94(121)
401(847)
85(187)
155(322)
94(98)
39(185)
48(12)
0(1)
2(7)
2(5)
0(0)[0]
6(4) 28(37)
0(0) 1818(1950)
19(13) 0(0)[0]
1(1) 0(0)[0]
0(0) 1891(2057)
4(2) 0(0)[0]
2(5)
68(221)
7(21)

0(0)[0]
0(0)[0]
0(0)[0]
10(20)
0(0)
61(47)
30(67)
7(9) 91(76)
1813(1946) 1230(806)
0(0) 196(157)
0(0) 49(79)
1891(2057) 539(1049)
0(0) 151(158)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
111(101)
55(150)
124(246)

5. Gas Station Driveway West / Imjin Parkway 8. Work Street / John Street (SR 68) 0(0)
122(53)

3. Del Monte Boulevard / East-West Street 4. Gas Station Driveway East / Imjin Parkway 284(154)
0(0)[0]

1. 2nd Avenue - Del Monte Boulevard / Imjin Parkway 2. Del Monte Boulevard / Commercial Access - Private Driveway
154(168)
248(117)
Del Monte Blvd
Private Dwy
(Imjin Bus. Pk.)
Del Monte Blvd
East-West Street
Imjin Pkwy
Imjin Pkwy
Gas Station
Dwy 2nd Ave
Del Monte Blvd
Imjin Pkwy
Gas Station Dwy
East
Commercial Access
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Exhibit 7
Option 2 Conditions
(Commercial Access and Gas Station Driveways)
AM & PM Peak Hour Volumes

EXHIBIT D
47 N-S E-W Intersection LOS Peak
Street Street Control Standard Hour
1 2nd Avenue - Imjin NB 2-L, 1-T, 1-R NB 2-L, 1-T, 1-R NB 2-L, 1-T, 1-R AM 42.6 D 40.2 D 40.3 D Del Monte Parkway SB 1-L, 1-T, 1-R SB 2-L, 1-T, 1-T/R SB 2-L, 1-T, 1-T/R PM 60.4 E 53.3 D 53.8 D Boulevard EB 1-L, 2-T, 1-R EB 1-L, 2-T, 1-R EB 1-L, 2-T, 1-R WB 2-L, 1-T, 1-T/R WB 2-L, 1-T, 1-T/R WB 2-L, 1-T, 1-T/R AM 40.2 D PM 53.3 D
2 Del Monte Commercial NB 1-T/R NB 1-L, 1-T/R NB 1-L, 1-T/R AM 12.4 B Boulevard Access - SB 1-L, 1-T SB 1-L, 1-T/R SB 1-L, 1-T/R PM 13.7 B Private WB 1-L/R EB 1-L/T/R EB 1-L/T/R AM 13.7/16.9 B/C 13.0/15.1 B/C Driveway WB 1-L/T/R WB 1-L/T/R PM 13.8/20.2 B/C 12.7/16.7 B/C 3 Del Monte East-West NB 1-L, 1-T/R NB 1-L, 1-T/R NB 1-L, 1-T/R AM 13.2/16.4 B/C 10.3/11.0 B/B 10.3/11.0 B/B Boulevard Street SB 1-L, 1-T/R SB 1-L, 1-T/R SB 1-L, 1-T/R PM 13.7/18.3 B/C 10.1/11.6 B/B 10.1/11.6 B/B EB 1-L/T/R EB 1-L/T/R EB 1-L/T/R
WB 1-L/T/R WB 1-L/T/R WB 1-L/T/R
4 Gas Station Imjin SB 1-R AM 19.8 C
Driveway Parkway EB 2-T PM 21.8 C
East WB 2-T, 1-R
5 Gas Station Imjin SB 1-R AM 20.2 C
Driveway Parkway EB 2-T PM 23.1 C
West WB 2-T, 1-R
Notes:

1. L, T, R = Left, Through, Right. 7. Analysis performed using 2000 and 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodologies.

2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Left, Through, Right, Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound. 8. Level of service calculations can be found in Appendix A.

3. * = Delay exceeds 3,000 seconds 9. LOS highlighted in red indicates intersection operating below level of service standard.

4. Overall level of service standard for the City of Marina is LOS D. Side-street level of service is assumed as LOS E. 10. Resul ting levels of service with recommended improvements noted under "With Improvements".

5. N/A = Not Applicable. This intesection or control type does not exist under this scenario. A list of applied improvements can be found on Exhibit 8B.

6. For signalized and all-way stop intersection analysis, delay is average overall delay in seconds per vehicle (sec/veh).

For one- and two-way stop intersections, delays are side-street approach operations, also in seconds per vehicle (sec/veh).

N/A
One-Way
Stop
N/A
D
Lane Configuration
Baseline Option 1 Option 2
Option 1 Conditions
(Commercial Access)
Delay LOS
Baseline
Conditions
LOSDelay
Signal
Two-Way
Stop E/E
Two-Way
Stop E/E
E
E

N/A N/A
One-Way
Stop
Option 2 Conditions
(Commercial Access
plus Gas Station Dwys)
Delay LOS
N/A
N/A
N/A
With Improvement

N/A N/A
One-Way
Stop E

N/A N/A
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Exhibit 8A
Intersection
Levels of Service

EXHIBIT D
48 N-S E-W
Street Street
1 2nd Avenue - Imjin
Del Monte Parkway
Boulevard
2 Del Monte Commercial
Boulevard Access -
Private
Driveway
3 Del Monte East-West
Boulevard Street
4 Gas Station Imjin
Driveway Parkway
East
5 Gas Station Imjin
Driveway Parkway
West
Notes:

1. L, T, R = Left, Through, Right.

2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound.

3. N/A = Not Applicable. This intesection does not exist under this scenario.

Option 2 Conditions
(Commercial Access
plus Gas Station Dwy)
None Required
N/A N/A None Required
None RequiredNone Required
Implement Option 1
Lane Configuration
(SB Del Monte:
2-L, 1-T, 1-T/R)
None Required
None RequiredNone Required
Baseline
Conditions
None Required
Option 1 Conditions
(Commercial Access)
None Required
N/A N/A None Required
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Exhibit 8B
Recommended
Intersection Improvements

EXHIBIT D
49 Source: Whitson Engineers, March 2021.

Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Exhibit 9
Conceptual Design of
Option 2 Driveways
on Imjin Parkway

EXHIBIT D
50 N-S E-W Intersection Peak
Street Street Control Hour NB L SB L SB R NB L SB L SB R NB L SB L SB R 1 2nd Avenue - Imjin AM 200 125 125* 125*
Del Monte Parkway PM 100 150 50* 50*
Boulevard
Available Storage (feet) 165 165 100* 100*
2 Del Monte Commercial AM 25 25 25 25 25
Boulevard Access - PM 25 25 25 25 25
Private
Driveway Available Storage (feet) 90 90 90 90 90
3 Del Monte East-West AM 25 25 25 25 25 25
Boulevard Street PM 25 25 25 25 25 25
Available Storage (feet) 90 105 90 105 90 105
Notes:

1. L, T, R = Left, Through, Right.

2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Left, Through, Ri ght, Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound.

3. The 95th Percentile (Design) vehicle queue lengths represent the maximum queue lengths in each peak hour for use in roadway design.

4. Queue lengths estimated using the Highway Capacity Manual method (stop control) and the Poisson approximation method (signal control), the latter documented by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).

5. Vehicle queue calculations can be found in Appendix H. These queue calculations assume a typical vehicle length of 25 feet.

6. * = Queue lengths are per lane for both turn lanes.

7. Available queue storage is cited from designs by Diablo Engineering Group and Whitson Engineers.

8. Queues highlighted in red indicates queus longer than available storage lengths (including block lengths).

Option 2 Conditions
(Commercial Access
plus Gas Station Dwy)
Baseline
Conditions
Option 1 Conditions
(Commercial Access)
95th Percentile (Design) Queue Lengths (per lane - feet) Signal
One- or
Two-Way Stop
Two-Way
Stop
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Exhibit 10
Vehicle Queues on
Del Monte Boulevard Extension

EXHIBIT D
51 Existing Driveways Between Signalized Intersection and Freeway Interchange - Representative Sample
Characteristics:

1. High volume, moderate speed arterial

2. Unsignalized freeway ramp junction

3. Upstream signalized intersection

LOCATION
Cross
Street
(Two-Way)
Nearest
Ramp
SPEED
LIMIT
(MPH)

DISTANCE FROM

UPSTREAM INTERSECTION
(FT)*

DISTANCE

FROM ON-
RAMP (FT)** DRIVEWAY LAND USE

PROJECT DRIVEWAYS (MARINA)
Imjin Parkway
WB, west of 2nd Ave. 40,400 3,200 45 130 ft to 2nd Ave. 870 Gas Station (proposed)

ALAMEDA COUNTY
Dublin
SB Dougherty Blvd north of I-580 46,460 8,300 40 70 ft & 140 ft s of Dublin Blvd 480 and 410 2 Chevron Gas Station driveways Pleasanton
NB Hopyard Rd south of I-580 40,520 4,750 45 180 ft to Owens Dr 440 Neighborhood Shopping Center

MONTEREY COUNTY
Gonzales
WB Fifth St east of US 101 10,810 3,900 25 NA 220 McDonald's and Neighborhood Shopping Center Greenfield
EB Walnut Ave west of US 101 4,760 1,800 25 360 Santa Lucia Square Neighborhood Shopping Center WB Walnut Ave east of US 101 3,000 2,500 35 NA 470 Future Walnut Avenue Specific Plan King City - None Applicable
Marina - None Applicable
Monterey - None Applicable
Salinas
NB Main St south of US 101 28,180 6,000 40 390 ft to Cassentini St 760 Wheeler's Flooring and Coast Auto Insurance WB Boronda Rd east of US 101 37,810 6,430 45 230 ft to Main St 180 Northridge Plaza Neighborhood Shopping Center Seaside
WB Canyon del Rey Blvd (SR 218) east of SR 1 18,970 6,400 35 180 ft to Kmart Driveway 220 Home Depot & Shell Station (also has an ent rance just north of driveway) Soledad - None Applicable

NORTH SANTA CLARA COUNTY / EXPRESSWAYS
Almaden Expressway
NB, south of Blossom Hill Rd. 49,300 NA 45 250 ft to Blossom Hill Rd. NA Nei ghborhood Shopping Center SB, south of Blossom Hill Rd. 49,300 NA 45 185 ft to Blossom Hill Rd. NA Shell Gas Station NB, north of Branham Ln. 43,500 NA 50 150 ft to Branham Ln. NA AutoZone SB, north of Branham Ln. 43,500 NA 50 175 to Branham Ln. NA Carl's Jr.

Capitol Expressway
WB, west of SB Hwy. 87 Ramps 44,150 19,500 45 345 ft to Hwy. 87 345 McDonald's Popeye's EB, west of Vistapark Dr. 37,820 NA 50 150 ft to Vistapark Dr. NA Neighborhood Shopping Center WB, west of Snell Ave. 48,300 NA 50 105 ft to Snell Ave. NA Valero Gas Station WB, east of Snell Ave. 63,480 NA 50 95 ft to Snell Ave. NA Chevron Gas Station Lawrence Expressway
SB, north of Pruneridge Ave. 62,580 NA 50 95 ft to Pruneridge Ave. NA Chevron Gas Station NB, south of Homestead Rd. 55,580 NA 50 380 ft to Homestead Rd. NA Neighborhood Shopping Center NB, south of Monroe St. 58,270 NA 50 115 f eet to Monroe St. NA Shell Gas Station

SOUTH SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Gilroy
Eastbound 10th Street west of US 101 21,220 1,390 35 210 ft to Chestnut 380 El Pollo Loco and South Valley Plaza Shopping Center Eastbound Leavesley Road west of US 101 30,510 9,700 35 180 ft to Murray 280 Shell Gas Station and Burger King Morgan Hill
Eastbound Tennant Ave west of US 101 32,630 4,100 40 275 ft to Juan He rnandez 230 Bethel Baptist Church, vacant future commercial Eastbound Dunne Ave west of US 101 27,828 4,100 40 170 ft to Walnut Grove Ave 550 Shell Gas Station Eastbound Dunne Ave west of US 101 27,828 6,000 40 300 ft to Walnut Grove Ave 420 Home Depot and Safeway Eastbound Cochrane Road west of US 101 30,686 6,000 45 230 ft to Madrone Pkwy 450 Cochrane Plaza Shopping Center SANTA CRUZ COUNTY - None Applicable
NOTES:

1. Distances are approximate and measured on Google Earth.

2. * - Distance is from centerline of driveway to near curb extension of cross street.

3. ** - Distance is from centerline of driveway to near gore point of on-ramp pork chop island.

4. Volume Sources:
a. Caltrans
b. Morgan Hill 2035 DEIR, PlaceWorks, January 23, 2016. c. City of Gilroy 2040 General Plan Transportation Analysis, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, May 12, 2020. d. West End Sand City Traffic Impact Analysis, Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer, January 19, 2018. e. Harvest Moon Agricultural Employee Housing Project (Quattrin Ranch) Traffic Impact Analysis, Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer, February 28, 2020. f. Salinas (Cloverfield) Retail Center Transportation Impact Anlaysis, Fehr & Peers, December 2010. g. City of Greenfield General Plan 2005-2025, City of Greenfield, July 2005. h. Fatal-Flaw Analysis of Porposed Roundabouts at Fifth Street/US 101 Interchange in Gonzales, California, Fehr & Peers, March 14, 2014. i. Dublin IKEA Final Transportation Assessment, Fehr & Peers, January 2018. j. 4300 Stevens Creek Boulevard Mixed-Use Development Traffic Impact Analysis, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, August 17, 2018. k. Communications Hill Residential and Industrial Buildout Traffic Impact Analysis, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, May 28, 2014. l. Stanford 2018 General Use Permit (GUP): Transportation Impact Analysis Part 2, Fehr & Peers, August 2017. m. Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis, Fehr & Peers, May 22, 2018. n. Official County Road Book 2019, Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department, July 2019. o. Traffic Impact Analysis for the Harkins Slough Road Townhouse Development, Watsonv ille, California, Hatch Mott MacDonald, September 25, 2014. p. The Dunes - Del Monte Bouevard Extension, Marina, California, Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer, October 6, 2020.

Existing ADT
Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Exhibit 11
Examples of
Similar Driveway Locations
to Proposed Imjin Parkway Driveway

EXHIBIT D
52 Source: City of Marina.

Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Exhibit 12
Comparison of City Del Monte Section
with 104-Foot Two-Lane Configuration

EXHIBIT D
53 DEL MONTE BOULEVARD EXTENSION

SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
Del Monte Blvd Extension Segment
AM
Peak
2-Lane
LOS
PM
Peak
2-Lane

LOS ADT
2-Lane
LOS
North of East-West Street 361 A 388 A 3,900 A
Commercial Access-Imjin Bus. Park to
East-West Street 384 A 416 A 4,200 A
Imjin Parkway to Commercial Access-
Imjin Bus. Park 579 A 643 A 6,500 A
Notes:

Cumulative Plus Project

1. Source of Volumes: "Imjin Parkway & 2nd Avenue Queue Evaluation," Kimley-Horn and Associates, May 19, 2020

2. Levels of service are based on segment planning thresholds for a two-lane arterial (with left turn lanes) included in Appendix D.

Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Exhibit 13
Del Monte Boulevard
Segment Levels of Service

EXHIBIT D
54 Source: Whitson Engineers, July 2020.

Keith Higgins
Traffic Engineer
Exhibit 14
104-Foot Four-Lane
Del Monte Configuration

EXHIBIT D
55 Appendix A

Level of Service
Calculations

EXHIBIT D
56 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Plus Project AM 1: 2nd Ave/Del Monte Blvd & Imjin Pkwy Baseline
The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 70 891 930 260 1362 52 392 94 155 140 154 69 Future Volume (vph) 70 891 930 260 1362 52 392 94 155 140 154 69 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3539 1568 3400 3454 3433 1881 1583 1787 1881 1599 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3539 1568 3400 3454 3433 1881 1583 1787 1881 1599 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 76 968 1011 283 1480 57 426 102 168 152 167 75 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 273 02000 1 4 200 6 5
Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 968 738 283 1535 0 426 102 26 152 167 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.1 52.7 52.7 10.1 56.7 14.7 16.7 16.7 12.5 14.5 14.5 Effective Green, g (s) 6.1 52.7 52.7 10.1 56.7 14.7 16.7 16.7 12.5 14.5 14.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.48 0.48 0.09 0.52 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.13 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 99 1695 751 312 1780 458 285 240 203 247 210 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.27 c0.08 c0.44 c0.12 0.05 0.09 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm c0.47 0.02 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.77 0.57 0.98 0.91 0.86 0.93 0.36 0.11 0.75 0.68 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 51.3 20.5 28.2 49.5 23.2 47.1 41.8 40.2 47.2 45.5 41.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 29.3 0.5 28.2 28.2 4.6 25.6 0.8 0.2 14.0 7.1 0.1 Delay (s) 80.5 21.0 56.4 77.7 27.8 72.7 42.6 40.4 61.2 52.6 41.8 Level of Service F C E E C E D D E D D
Approach Delay (s) 40.6 35.6 60.5 53.9
Approach LOS D D E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
57 HCM 2010 TWSC Cumulative Plus Project AM
2: Del Monte Blvd & Private Dwy Baseline
The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.4
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 3 168 48 16 354
Future Vol, veh/h 9 3 168 48 16 354
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 90 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 10 3 183 52 17 385

Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 628 209 0 0 235 0
Stage 1 209 -----
Stage 2 419 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 447 831 - - 1332 -
Stage 1 826 -----
Stage 2 664 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 441 831 - - 1332 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 441 -----
Stage 1 815 -----
Stage 2 664 -----

Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.4 0 0.3

HCM LOS B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 500 1332 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.026 0.013 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 12.4 7.7 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.1 0 -

EXHIBIT D
58 HCM 2010 TWSC Cumulative Plus Project AM
3: Del Monte Blvd & East-West St Baseline
The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 36 0 110 19 0 6 131 33 7 2 241 43
Future Vol, veh/h 36 0 110 19 0 6 131 33 7 2 241 43
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - ----- 9 0-- 1 0 5--
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 39 0 120 21 0 7 142 36 8 2 262 47

Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 618 618 286 674 637 40 309 0 0 44 0 0 Stage 1 290 290 - 324 324 -------
Stage 2 328 328 - 350 313 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 403 406 755 370 396 1034 1257 - - 1571 - - Stage 1 720 674 - 690 651 -------
Stage 2 687 649 - 669 659 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 366 360 755 284 351 1034 1257 - - 1571 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 366 360 - 284 351 -------
Stage 1 639 673 - 612 577 -------
Stage 2 606 576 - 562 658 -------

Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.2 16.4 6.3 0.1

HCM LOS B C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1257 - - 598 344 1571 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.113 - - 0.265 0.079 0.001 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 - - 13.2 16.4 7.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B C A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 1.1 0.3 0 - -

EXHIBIT D
59 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Plus Project PM 1: 2nd Ave/Del Monte Blvd & Imjin Pkwy Baseline
The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 84 1055 918 268 1046 48 825 209 322 45 168 89 Future Volume (vph) 84 1055 918 268 1046 48 825 209 322 45 168 89 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3574 1599 3467 3551 3467 1881 1599 1787 1881 1599 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3574 1599 3467 3551 3467 1881 1599 1787 1881 1599 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 91 1147 998 291 1137 52 897 227 350 49 183 97 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 796 03000 1 3 400 7 9
Lane Group Flow (vph) 91 1147 202 291 1186 0 897 227 216 49 183 18 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA custom Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 4 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.5 40.6 23.5 10.7 43.8 31.2 48.0 48.0 6.7 23.5 23.5 Effective Green, g (s) 7.5 40.6 23.5 10.7 43.8 31.2 48.0 48.0 6.7 23.5 23.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.33 0.19 0.09 0.35 0.25 0.39 0.39 0.05 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 108 1170 303 299 1254 872 728 618 96 356 303 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.32 c0.08 c0.33 c0.26 0.12 0.03 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.13 0.13 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.98 0.67 0.97 0.95 1.03 0.31 0.35 0.51 0.51 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 57.7 41.3 46.6 56.5 39.0 46.4 26.5 26.9 57.1 45.1 41.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 41.8 21.6 5.5 44.4 14.3 38.0 1.1 1.6 4.5 1.3 0.1 Delay (s) 99.4 62.9 52.1 100.9 53.3 84.4 27.6 28.5 61.6 46.4 41.3 Level of Service F E D F D F C C E D D
Approach Delay (s) 59.6 62.6 62.4 47.1
Approach LOS E E E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 60.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 124.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
60 HCM 2010 TWSC Cumulative Plus Project PM
2: Del Monte Blvd & Private Dwy Baseline
The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.1
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 39 13 329 12 4 263
Future Vol, veh/h 39 13 329 12 4 263
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 90 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 42 14 358 13 4 286

Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 659 365 0 0 371 0
Stage 1 365 -----
Stage 2 294 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 429 680 - - 1188 -
Stage 1 702 -----
Stage 2 756 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 428 680 - - 1188 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 428 -----
Stage 1 700 -----
Stage 2 756 -----

Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.7 0 0.1

HCM LOS B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 472 1188 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.12 0.004 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.7 8 -
HCM Lane LOS - - B A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4 0 -

EXHIBIT D
61 HCM 2010 TWSC Cumulative Plus Project PM
3: Del Monte Blvd & East-West St Baseline
The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 0 148 13 0 4 149 172 21 7 106 49
Future Vol, veh/h 50 0 148 13 0 4 149 172 21 7 106 49
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - ----- 9 0-- 1 0 5--
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 54 0 161 14 0 4 162 187 23 8 115 53

Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 683 692 142 761 707 199 168 0 0 210 0 0 Stage 1 158 158 - 523 523 -------
Stage 2 525 534 - 238 184 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 365 369 908 323 361 845 1416 - - 1367 - - Stage 1 847 769 - 539 532 -------
Stage 2 538 526 - 768 749 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 330 325 908 241 318 845 1416 - - 1367 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 330 325 - 241 318 -------
Stage 1 750 764 - 478 471 -------
Stage 2 474 466 - 628 745 -------

Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.7 18.3 3.4 0.3

HCM LOS B C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1416 - - 630 290 1367 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.114 - - 0.342 0.064 0.006 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 - - 13.7 18.3 7.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B C A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 1.5 0.2 0 - -

EXHIBIT D
62 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Plus Project AM 1: 2nd Ave/Del Monte Blvd & Imjin Pkwy Baseline - With Improvement The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 70 891 930 260 1362 52 392 94 155 140 154 69 Future Volume (vph) 70 891 930 260 1362 52 392 94 155 140 154 69 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3539 1568 3400 3454 3433 1881 1583 3467 3408 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3539 1568 3400 3454 3433 1881 1583 3467 3408 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 76 968 1011 283 1480 57 426 102 168 152 167 75 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 236 02000 1 3 80 4 80
Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 968 775 283 1535 0 426 102 30 152 194 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.1 52.9 52.9 10.1 56.9 14.5 16.8 16.8 9.0 11.3 Effective Green, g (s) 6.1 52.9 52.9 10.1 56.9 14.5 16.8 16.8 9.0 11.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.50 0.50 0.09 0.53 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 102 1752 776 321 1840 466 295 249 292 360 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.27 c0.08 c0.44 c0.12 0.05 0.04 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm c0.49 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.55 1.00 0.88 0.83 0.91 0.35 0.12 0.52 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 49.6 18.7 26.9 47.8 21.0 45.5 40.1 38.6 46.8 45.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 25.2 0.4 31.7 23.4 3.4 22.3 0.7 0.2 1.7 1.5 Delay (s) 74.8 19.1 58.6 71.2 24.4 67.9 40.8 38.9 48.5 46.8 Level of Service EBEEC E DDDD
Approach Delay (s) 40.6 31.7 56.9 47.5
Approach LOS D C E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 40.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.8 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
63 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Plus Project PM 1: 2nd Ave/Del Monte Blvd & Imjin Pkwy Baseline - With Improvement The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 84 1055 918 268 1046 48 825 209 322 45 168 89 Future Volume (vph) 84 1055 918 268 1046 48 825 209 322 45 168 89 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3574 1599 3467 3551 3467 1881 1599 3467 3389 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3574 1599 3467 3551 3467 1881 1599 3467 3389 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 91 1147 998 291 1137 52 897 227 350 49 183 97 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 383 02000 1 2 90 5 80
Lane Group Flow (vph) 91 1147 615 291 1187 0 897 227 221 49 222 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.9 46.4 46.4 11.1 48.6 32.2 42.2 42.2 4.0 14.0 Effective Green, g (s) 8.9 46.4 46.4 11.1 48.6 32.2 42.2 42.2 4.0 14.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.38 0.38 0.09 0.40 0.26 0.35 0.35 0.03 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 130 1362 609 316 1418 917 652 554 113 389 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.32 c0.08 0.33 c0.26 0.12 0.01 c0.07 v/s Ratio Perm c0.38 0.14
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.84 1.01 0.92 0.84 0.98 0.35 0.40 0.43 0.57 Uniform Delay, d1 55.1 34.3 37.7 54.9 33.0 44.4 29.5 30.1 57.7 51.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 15.2 4.9 38.9 30.9 4.5 24.2 0.3 0.5 2.7 2.0 Delay (s) 70.3 39.2 76.6 85.8 37.4 68.6 29.9 30.6 60.4 53.0 Level of Service E D E F D E C C E D
Approach Delay (s) 57.2 46.9 53.6 54.1
Approach LOS E D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 53.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 121.7 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
64 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Plus Project AM 1: 2nd Ave/Del Monte Blvd & Imjin Pkwy Option 1 - Commercial Access The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 70 891 930 260 1362 52 392 94 155 140 154 69 Future Volume (vph) 70 891 930 260 1362 52 392 94 155 140 154 69 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3539 1568 3400 3454 3433 1881 1583 3467 3408 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3539 1568 3400 3454 3433 1881 1583 3467 3408 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 76 968 1011 283 1480 57 426 102 168 152 167 75 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 236 02000 1 3 80 4 80
Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 968 775 283 1535 0 426 102 30 152 194 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.1 52.9 52.9 10.1 56.9 14.5 16.8 16.8 9.0 11.3 Effective Green, g (s) 6.1 52.9 52.9 10.1 56.9 14.5 16.8 16.8 9.0 11.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.50 0.50 0.09 0.53 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 102 1752 776 321 1840 466 295 249 292 360 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.27 c0.08 c0.44 c0.12 0.05 0.04 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm c0.49 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.55 1.00 0.88 0.83 0.91 0.35 0.12 0.52 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 49.6 18.7 26.9 47.8 21.0 45.5 40.1 38.6 46.8 45.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 25.2 0.4 31.7 23.4 3.4 22.3 0.7 0.2 1.7 1.5 Delay (s) 74.8 19.1 58.6 71.2 24.4 67.9 40.8 38.9 48.5 46.8 Level of Service EBEEC E DDDD
Approach Delay (s) 40.6 31.7 56.9 47.5
Approach LOS D C E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 40.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.8 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
65 HCM 2010 TWSC Cumulative Plus Project AM
2: Del Monte Blvd & Commercial Access/Private Dwy Option 1 - Commercial Access The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 35 0 106 9 0 3 129 39 48 16 248 43
Future Vol, veh/h 35 0 106 9 0 3 129 39 48 16 248 43
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - ----- 9 0-- 9 0--
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 38 0 115 10 0 3 140 42 52 17 270 47

Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 678 702 294 733 699 68 317 0 0 94 0 0 Stage 1 328 328 - 348 348 -------
Stage 2 350 374 - 385 351 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 366 362 745 336 364 995 1243 - - 1500 - - Stage 1 685 647 - 668 634 -------
Stage 2 666 618 - 638 632 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 330 317 745 257 319 995 1243 - - 1500 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 330 317 - 257 319 -------
Stage 1 608 640 - 593 562 -------
Stage 2 589 548 - 533 625 -------

Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.7 16.9 4.9 0.4

HCM LOS B C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1243 - - 568 316 1500 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.113 - - 0.27 0.041 0.012 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 - - 13.7 16.9 7.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B C A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 1.1 0.1 0 - -

EXHIBIT D
66 HCM 2010 TWSC Cumulative Plus Project AM
3: Del Monte Blvd & East-West St Option 1 - Commercial Access The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 4 19 0 6 2 68 7 2 284 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 4 19 0 6 2 68 7 2 284 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - ----- 9 0-- 1 0 5--
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 1 0 4 21 0 7 2 74 8 2 309 0

Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 399 399 309 397 395 78 309 0 0 82 0 0 Stage 1 313 313 - 82 82 -------
Stage 2 86 86 - 315 313 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 563 541 733 565 543 985 1257 - - 1522 - - Stage 1 700 659 - 929 829 -------
Stage 2 924 826 - 698 659 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 558 539 733 560 541 985 1257 - - 1522 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 558 539 - 560 541 -------
Stage 1 699 658 - 927 827 -------
Stage 2 916 824 - 693 658 -------

Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.3 11 0.2 0.1

HCM LOS B B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1257 - - 690 625 1522 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - 0.008 0.043 0.001 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 - - 10.3 11 7.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0.1 0 - -

EXHIBIT D
67 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Plus Project PM 1: 2nd Ave/Del Monte Blvd & Imjin Pkwy Option 1 - Commercial Access The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 84 1055 918 268 1046 48 825 209 322 45 168 89 Future Volume (vph) 84 1055 918 268 1046 48 825 209 322 45 168 89 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3574 1599 3467 3551 3467 1881 1599 3467 3389 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3574 1599 3467 3551 3467 1881 1599 3467 3389 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 91 1147 998 291 1137 52 897 227 350 49 183 97 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 383 02000 1 2 90 5 80
Lane Group Flow (vph) 91 1147 615 291 1187 0 897 227 221 49 222 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.9 46.4 46.4 11.1 48.6 32.2 42.2 42.2 4.0 14.0 Effective Green, g (s) 8.9 46.4 46.4 11.1 48.6 32.2 42.2 42.2 4.0 14.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.38 0.38 0.09 0.40 0.26 0.35 0.35 0.03 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 130 1362 609 316 1418 917 652 554 113 389 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.32 c0.08 0.33 c0.26 0.12 0.01 c0.07 v/s Ratio Perm c0.38 0.14
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.84 1.01 0.92 0.84 0.98 0.35 0.40 0.43 0.57 Uniform Delay, d1 55.1 34.3 37.7 54.9 33.0 44.4 29.5 30.1 57.7 51.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 15.2 4.9 38.9 30.9 4.5 24.2 0.3 0.5 2.7 2.0 Delay (s) 70.3 39.2 76.6 85.8 37.4 68.6 29.9 30.6 60.4 53.0 Level of Service E D E F D E C C E D
Approach Delay (s) 57.2 46.9 53.6 54.1
Approach LOS E D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 53.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 121.7 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
68 HCM 2010 TWSC Cumulative Plus Project PM
2: Del Monte Blvd & Commercial Access/Private Dwy Option 1 - Commercial Access The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 49 0 146 39 0 13 144 185 12 4 117 48 Future Vol, veh/h 49 0 146 39 0 13 144 185 12 4 117 48
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - ----- 9 0-- 9 0--
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 53 0 159 42 0 14 157 201 13 4 127 52

Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 690 689 153 763 709 208 179 0 0 214 0 0 Stage 1 161 161 - 522 522 -------
Stage 2 529 528 - 241 187 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 359 369 893 321 359 832 1397 - - 1356 - - Stage 1 841 765 - 538 531 -------
Stage 2 533 528 - 762 745 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 322 327 893 241 318 832 1397 - - 1356 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 322 327 - 241 318 -------
Stage 1 747 763 - 478 472 -------
Stage 2 465 469 - 625 743 -------

Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.8 20.2 3.3 0.2

HCM LOS B C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1397 - - 618 293 1356 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.112 - - 0.343 0.193 0.003 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 - - 13.8 20.2 7.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B C A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 1.5 0.7 0 - -

EXHIBIT D
69 HCM 2010 TWSC Cumulative Plus Project PM
3: Del Monte Blvd & East-West St Option 1 - Commercial Access The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 2 13 0 4 5 221 21 7 154 1
Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 2 13 0 4 5 221 21 7 154 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - ----- 9 0-- 1 0 5--
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 1 0 2 14 0 4 5 240 23 8 167 1

Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 448 457 168 447 446 252 168 0 0 263 0 0 Stage 1 184 184 - 262 262 -------
Stage 2 264 273 - 185 184 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 523 501 879 523 509 789 1416 - - 1307 - - Stage 1 820 749 - 745 693 -------
Stage 2 743 686 - 819 749 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 516 496 879 518 504 789 1416 - - 1307 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 516 496 - 518 504 -------
Stage 1 817 745 - 742 690 -------
Stage 2 736 683 - 812 745 -------

Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.1 11.6 0.2 0.3

HCM LOS B B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1416 - - 712 564 1307 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - 0.005 0.033 0.006 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 - - 10.1 11.6 7.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0.1 0 - -

EXHIBIT D
70 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Plus Project AM 1: 2nd Ave/Del Monte Blvd & Imjin Pkwy Option 2 - Commercial Access Plus Imjin Driveway The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 70 891 930 260 1388 26 401 85 155 140 154 57 Future Volume (vph) 70 891 930 260 1388 26 401 85 155 140 154 57 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3539 1568 3400 3463 3433 1881 1583 3467 3429 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3539 1568 3400 3463 3433 1881 1583 3467 3429 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 76 968 1011 283 1509 28 436 92 168 152 167 62 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 243 01000 1 3 70 3 60
Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 968 768 283 1536 0 436 92 31 152 193 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 2% 3% 3% 4% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.1 52.4 52.4 10.1 56.4 15.0 17.3 17.3 9.0 11.3 Effective Green, g (s) 6.1 52.4 52.4 10.1 56.4 15.0 17.3 17.3 9.0 11.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.49 0.49 0.09 0.53 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 102 1736 769 321 1828 482 304 256 292 362 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.27 c0.08 c0.44 c0.13 0.05 0.04 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm c0.49 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.56 1.00 0.88 0.84 0.90 0.30 0.12 0.52 0.53 Uniform Delay, d1 49.6 19.1 27.1 47.8 21.4 45.2 39.4 38.3 46.8 45.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 25.2 0.4 31.7 23.4 3.7 20.2 0.6 0.2 1.7 1.5 Delay (s) 74.8 19.5 58.9 71.2 25.0 65.4 40.0 38.5 48.5 46.8 Level of Service EBEEC E DDDD
Approach Delay (s) 40.9 32.2 55.6 47.5
Approach LOS D C E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 40.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.8 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
71 HCM 2010 TWSC Cumulative Plus Project AM
2: Del Monte Blvd & Commercial Access/Private Dwy Option 2 - Commercial Access Plus Imjin Driveway The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 35 0 94 9 0 3 94 39 48 16 248 43
Future Vol, veh/h 35 0 94 9 0 3 94 39 48 16 248 43
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - ----- 9 0-- 9 0--
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 38 0 102 10 0 3 102 42 52 17 270 47

Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 602 626 294 651 623 68 317 0 0 94 0 0 Stage 1 328 328 - 272 272 -------
Stage 2 274 298 - 379 351 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 412 401 745 382 402 995 1243 - - 1500 - - Stage 1 685 647 - 734 685 -------
Stage 2 732 667 - 643 632 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 382 364 745 306 365 995 1243 - - 1500 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 382 364 - 306 365 -------
Stage 1 629 640 - 674 629 -------
Stage 2 670 612 - 549 625 -------

Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13 15.1 4.2 0.4

HCM LOS B C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1243 - - 592 370 1500 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.082 - - 0.237 0.035 0.012 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 - - 13 15.1 7.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B C A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0.9 0.1 0 - -

EXHIBIT D
72 HCM 2010 TWSC Cumulative Plus Project AM
3: Del Monte Blvd & East-West St Option 2 - Commercial Access Plus Imjin Driveway The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 4 19 0 6 2 68 7 2 284 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 4 19 0 6 2 68 7 2 284 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - ----- 9 0-- 1 0 5--
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 1 0 4 21 0 7 2 74 8 2 309 0

Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.3 11 0.2 0.1

HCM LOS B B

EXHIBIT D
73 HCM 2010 TWSC Cumulative Plus Project AM
4: Imjin Pkwy & Gas Sta Dwy East Option 2 - Commercial Access Plus Imjin Driveways The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1891 1818 28 0 2
Future Vol, veh/h 0 1891 1818 28 0 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - 0 - 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 2055 1976 30 0 2

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 - 0 - 988
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Critical Hdwy - ---- 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -----
Follow-up Hdwy - ---- 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - - 0 246
Stage 1 0 - - - 0 -
Stage 2 0 - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - ---- 2 4 6
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -----
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----

Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 19.8

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 246
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.009
HCM Control Delay (s) - - - 19.8
HCM Lane LOS - - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0

EXHIBIT D
74 HCM 2010 TWSC Cumulative Plus Project AM
5: Imjin Pkwy & Gas Sta Dwy West Option 2 - Commercial Access Plus Imjin Driveways The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1891 0 0 1813 700000 1 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 1891 0 0 1813 700000 1 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - ---- 0----- 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 ----- 0-
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 0 2055 0 0 1971 800000 1 1

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 - - - 0 - - 986
Stage 1 - ----- ---
Stage 2 - ----- ---
Critical Hdwy - ----- -- 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- ---
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- ---
Follow-up Hdwy - ----- -- 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 247
Stage 1 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 -
Stage 2 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - ----- - 0 2 4 7
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - ----- - 0-
Stage 1 - ----- - 0-
Stage 2 - ----- - 0-

Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 20.2

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 247
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.044
HCM Control Delay (s) - - - 20.2
HCM Lane LOS - - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0.1

EXHIBIT D
75 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Cumulative Plus Project PM 1: 2nd Ave/Del Monte Blvd & Imjin Pkwy Option 2 - Commercial Access Plus Imjin Driveway The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 84 1055 918 268 1070 24 847 187 322 45 168 64 Future Volume (vph) 84 1055 918 268 1070 24 847 187 322 45 168 64 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3574 1599 3467 3563 3467 1881 1599 3467 3426 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3574 1599 3467 3563 3467 1881 1599 3467 3426 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 91 1147 998 291 1163 26 921 203 350 49 183 70 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 393 01000 1 2 30 3 30
Lane Group Flow (vph) 91 1147 605 291 1188 0 921 203 227 49 220 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.5 45.8 45.8 11.1 48.4 32.8 42.7 42.7 4.0 13.9 Effective Green, g (s) 8.5 45.8 45.8 11.1 48.4 32.8 42.7 42.7 4.0 13.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.38 0.38 0.09 0.40 0.27 0.35 0.35 0.03 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 124 1346 602 316 1418 935 660 561 114 391 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.32 c0.08 c0.33 c0.27 0.11 0.01 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm c0.38 0.14
v/c Ratio 0.73 0.85 1.01 0.92 0.84 0.99 0.31 0.40 0.43 0.56 Uniform Delay, d1 55.4 34.8 37.9 54.8 33.1 44.2 28.7 29.8 57.7 51.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 20.0 5.4 38.0 30.9 4.5 25.6 0.3 0.5 2.6 1.9 Delay (s) 75.4 40.2 75.9 85.7 37.5 69.7 29.0 30.3 60.3 52.8 Level of Service E D E F D E C C E D
Approach Delay (s) 57.6 47.0 54.8 54.0
Approach LOS E D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 53.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 121.6 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

EXHIBIT D
76 HCM 2010 TWSC Cumulative Plus Project PM
2: Del Monte Blvd & Commercial Access/Private Dwy Option 2 - Commercial Access Plus Imjin Driveway The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 49 0 121 39 0 13 98 185 12 4 117 48
Future Vol, veh/h 49 0 121 39 0 13 98 185 12 4 117 48
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - ----- 9 0-- 9 0--
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 53 0 132 42 0 14 107 201 13 4 127 52

Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 590 589 153 649 609 208 179 0 0 214 0 0 Stage 1 161 161 - 422 422 -------
Stage 2 429 428 - 227 187 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 419 421 893 383 410 832 1397 - - 1356 - - Stage 1 841 765 - 609 588 -------
Stage 2 604 585 - 776 745 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 387 387 893 307 377 832 1397 - - 1356 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 387 387 - 307 377 -------
Stage 1 776 763 - 562 543 -------
Stage 2 548 540 - 660 743 -------

Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.7 16.7 2.6 0.2

HCM LOS B C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1397 - - 649 365 1356 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.076 - - 0.285 0.155 0.003 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 - - 12.7 16.7 7.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B C A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 1.2 0.5 0 - -

EXHIBIT D
77 HCM 2010 TWSC Cumulative Plus Project PM
3: Del Monte Blvd & East-West St Option 2 - Commercial Access Plus Imjin Driveway The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 2 13 0 4 5 221 21 7 154 1
Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 2 13 0 4 5 221 21 7 154 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - ----- 9 0-- 1 0 5--
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 1 0 2 14 0 4 5 240 23 8 167 1

Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.1 11.6 0.2 0.3

HCM LOS B B

EXHIBIT D
78 HCM 2010 TWSC Cumulative Plus Project PM
4: Imjin Pkwy & Gas Sta Dwy East Option 2 - Commercial Access Plus Imjin Driveways The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 2057 1950 37 0 5
Future Vol, veh/h 0 2057 1950 37 0 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - 0 - 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 2236 2120 40 0 5

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 - 0 - 1060
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Critical Hdwy - ---- 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -----
Follow-up Hdwy - ---- 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - - 0 220
Stage 1 0 - - - 0 -
Stage 2 0 - - - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - ---- 2 2 0
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -----
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----

Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 21.8

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 220
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.025
HCM Control Delay (s) - - - 21.8
HCM Lane LOS - - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0.1

EXHIBIT D
79 HCM 2010 TWSC Cumulative Plus Project PM
5: Imjin Pkwy & Gas Sta Dwy West Option 2 - Commercial Access Plus Imjin Driveways The Dunes - Del Monte Extension Synchro 10 Report
Keith Higgins Traffic Engineer
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 2057 0 0 1946 900000 2 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 2057 0 0 1946 900000 2 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - ---- 0----- 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 ----- 0-
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 0 2236 0 0 2115 10 00000 2 2

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 0 - - - 0 - - 1058
Stage 1 - ----- ---
Stage 2 - ----- ---
Critical Hdwy - ----- -- 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- ---
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- ---
Follow-up Hdwy - ----- -- 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 221
Stage 1 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 -
Stage 2 0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - ----- - 0 2 2 1
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - ----- - 0-
Stage 1 - ----- - 0-
Stage 2 - ----- - 0-

Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 23.1

HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) - - - 221
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.098
HCM Control Delay (s) - - - 23.1
HCM Lane LOS - - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - 0.3

EXHIBIT D
80 Appendix B

Vehicle Queue
Calculations

EXHIBIT D
81 Vehicle Queue Estimates - Turning Movements
Intersection: 1. 2nd Avenue - Del Monte Boulevard / Imjin Parkway Movement: SB L
Analysis Period: AM - Baseline
Baseline Conditions Background Plus Project Conditions
Cycle Length (sec) 110 Cycle Length (sec) 60
Lanes 1 Lanes 1
Volume (vph) 140 Volume (vph) 189
Volume (vphpl) 140 Volume (vphpl) 189
Average Queue (veh/ln) 4.28 Average Queue (veh/ln) 3.15 Percentile 0.95 Percentile 0.95
95% Queue (veh/ln) 8 95% Queue (veh/ln) 6

0.014 0 0.043 0

0.073 1 0.178 1

0.200 2 0.390 2

0.381 3 0.614 3

0.574 4 0.789 4

0.740 5 0.900 5

0.858 6 0.958 6

0.930 7 0.985 7

0.969 8 0.995 8

0.987 9 0.998 9

0.995 10 1.000 10

0.998 11 1.000 11

0.999 12 1.000 12

1.000 13 1.000 13

1.000 14 1.000 14

1.000 15 1.000 15

1.000 16 1.000 16

1.000 17 1.000 17

1.000 18 1.000 18

1.000 19 1.000 19

1.000 20 1.000 20

1.000 21 1.000 21

1.000 22 1.000 22

1.000 23 1.000 23

1.000 24 1.000 24

1.000 25 1.000 25

1.000 26 1.000 26

1.000 27 1.000 27

1.000 28 1.000 28

1.000 29 1.000 29

1.000 30 1.000 30

1.000 31 1.000 31

1.000 32 1.000 32

1.000 33 1.000 33

1.000 34 1.000 34

1.000 35 1.000 35
Queued
Vehicles
Cumulative
Probability
Cumulative
Probability
Queued
Vehicles

EXHIBIT D
82 Vehicle Queue Estimates - Turning Movements
Intersection: 1. 2nd Avenue - Del Monte Boulevard / Imjin Parkway Movement: SB R
Analysis Period: AM - Baseline
Baseline Conditions Background Plus Project Conditions
Cycle Length (sec) 110 Cycle Length (sec) 65
Lanes 1 Lanes 1
Volume (vph) 69 Volume (vph) 21
Volume (vphpl) 69 Volume (vphpl) 21
Average Queue (veh/ln) 2.11 Average Queue (veh/ln) 0.38 Percentile 0.95 Percentile 0.95
95% Queue (veh/ln) 5 95% Queue (veh/ln) 2

0.121 0 0.684 0

0.377 1 0.944 1

0.647 2 0.993 2

0.837 3 0.999 3

0.937 4 1.000 4

0.979 5 1.000 5

0.994 6 1.000 6

0.998 7 1.000 7

1.000 8 1.000 8

1.000 9 1.000 9

1.000 10 1.000 10

1.000 11 1.000 11

1.000 12 1.000 12

1.000 13 1.000 13

1.000 14 1.000 14

1.000 15 1.000 15

1.000 16 1.000 16

1.000 17 1.000 17

1.000 18 1.000 18

1.000 19 1.000 19

1.000 20 1.000 20

1.000 21 1.000 21

1.000 22 1.000 22

1.000 23 1.000 23

1.000 24 1.000 24

1.000 25 1.000 25

1.000 26 1.000 26

1.000 27 1.000 27

1.000 28 1.000 28

1.000 29 1.000 29

1.000 30 1.000 30

1.000 31 1.000 31

1.000 32 1.000 32

1.000 33 1.000 33

1.000 34 1.000 34

1.000 35 1.000 35
Cumulative
Probability
Queued
Vehicles
Cumulative
Probability
Queued
Vehicles

EXHIBIT D
83 Vehicle Queue Estimates - Turning Movements
Intersection: 1. 2nd Avenue - Del Monte Boulevard / Imjin Parkway Movement: SB L
Analysis Period: PM - Baseline
Baseline Conditions Background Plus Project Conditions
Cycle Length (sec) 124 Cycle Length (sec) 60
Lanes 1 Lanes 1
Volume (vph) 45 Volume (vph) 38
Volume (vphpl) 45 Volume (vphpl) 38
Average Queue (veh/ln) 1.55 Average Queue (veh/ln) 0.63 Percentile 0.95 Percentile 0.95
95% Queue (veh/ln) 4 95% Queue (veh/ln) 2

0.212 0 0.533 0

0.541 1 0.868 1

0.796 2 0.974 2

0.928 3 0.996 3

0.979 4 1.000 4

0.995 5 1.000 5

0.999 6 1.000 6

1.000 7 1.000 7

1.000 8 1.000 8

1.000 9 1.000 9

1.000 10 1.000 10

1.000 11 1.000 11

1.000 12 1.000 12

1.000 13 1.000 13

1.000 14 1.000 14

1.000 15 1.000 15

1.000 16 1.000 16

1.000 17 1.000 17

1.000 18 1.000 18

1.000 19 1.000 19

1.000 20 1.000 20

1.000 21 1.000 21

1.000 22 1.000 22

1.000 23 1.000 23

1.000 24 1.000 24

1.000 25 1.000 25

1.000 26 1.000 26

1.000 27 1.000 27

1.000 28 1.000 28

1.000 29 1.000 29

1.000 30 1.000 30

1.000 31 1.000 31

1.000 32 1.000 32

1.000 33 1.000 33

1.000 34 1.000 34

1.000 35 1.000 35
Cumulative
Probability
Queued
Vehicles
Cumulative
Probability
Queued
Vehicles

EXHIBIT D
84 Vehicle Queue Estimates - Turning Movements
Intersection: 1. 2nd Avenue - Del Monte Boulevard / Imjin Parkway Movement: SB R
Analysis Period: PM - Baseline
Baseline Conditions Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Cycle Length (sec) 124 Cycle Length (sec) 80
Lanes 1 Lanes 1
Volume (vph) 89 Volume (vph) 41
Volume (vphpl) 89 Volume (vphpl) 41
Average Queue (veh/ln) 3.07 Average Queue (veh/ln) 0.91 Percentile 0.95 Percentile 0.95
95% Queue (veh/ln) 6 95% Queue (veh/ln) 3

0.046 0 0.403 0

0.189 1 0.769 1

0.408 2 0.935 2

0.632 3 0.986 3

0.803 4 0.998 4

0.909 5 1.000 5

0.963 6 1.000 6

0.987 7 1.000 7

0.996 8 1.000 8

0.999 9 1.000 9

1.000 10 1.000 10

1.000 11 1.000 11

1.000 12 1.000 12

1.000 13 1.000 13

1.000 14 1.000 14

1.000 15 1.000 15

1.000 16 1.000 16

1.000 17 1.000 17

1.000 18 1.000 18

1.000 19 1.000 19

1.000 20 1.000 20

1.000 21 1.000 21

1.000 22 1.000 22

1.000 23 1.000 23

1.000 24 1.000 24

1.000 25 1.000 25

1.000 26 1.000 26

1.000 27 1.000 27

1.000 28 1.000 28

1.000 29 1.000 29

1.000 30 1.000 30

1.000 31 1.000 31

1.000 32 1.000 32

1.000 33 1.000 33

1.000 34 1.000 34

1.000 35 1.000 35
Cumulative
Probability
Queued
Vehicles
Cumulative
Probability
Queued
Vehicles

EXHIBIT D
85 Vehicle Queue Estimates - Turning Movements
Intersection: 1. 2nd Avenue - Del Monte Boulevard / Imjin Parkway Movement: SB L
Analysis Period: AM - Option 1
Option 1 Conditions Background Plus Project Conditions
Cycle Length (sec) 106.8 Cycle Length (sec) 65
Lanes 2 Lanes 1
Volume (vph) 140 Volume (vph) 143
Volume (vphpl) 70 Volume (vphpl) 143
Average Queue (veh/ln) 2.08 Average Queue (veh/ln) 2.58 Percentile 0.95 Percentile 0.95
95% Queue (veh/ln) 5 95% Queue (veh/ln) 5

0.125 0 0.076 0

0.385 1 0.271 1

0.655 2 0.523 2

0.842 3 0.740 3

0.940 4 0.880 4

0.980 5 0.952 5

0.994 6 0.983 6

0.999 7 0.995 7

1.000 8 0.999 8

1.000 9 1.000 9

1.000 10 1.000 10

1.000 11 1.000 11

1.000 12 1.000 12

1.000 13 1.000 13

1.000 14 1.000 14

1.000 15 1.000 15

1.000 16 1.000 16

1.000 17 1.000 17

1.000 18 1.000 18

1.000 19 1.000 19

1.000 20 1.000 20

1.000 21 1.000 21

1.000 22 1.000 22

1.000 23 1.000 23

1.000 24 1.000 24

1.000 25 1.000 25

1.000 26 1.000 26

1.000 27 1.000 27

1.000 28 1.000 28

1.000 29 1.000 29

1.000 30 1.000 30

1.000 31 1.000 31

1.000 32 1.000 32

1.000 33 1.000 33

1.000 34 1.000 34

1.000 35 1.000 35
Cumulative
Probability
Queued
Vehicles
Cumulative
Probability
Queued
Vehicles

EXHIBIT D
86 Vehicle Queue Estimates - Turning Movements
Intersection: 1. 2nd Avenue - Del Monte Boulevard / Imjin Parkway Movement: SB L
Analysis Period: PM - Option 1
Option 1 Conditions Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Cycle Length (sec) 121.7 Cycle Length (sec) 80
Lanes 2 Lanes 1
Volume (vph) 45 Volume (vph) 204
Volume (vphpl) 22.5 Volume (vphpl) 204
Average Queue (veh/ln) 0.76 Average Queue (veh/ln) 4.53 Percentile 0.95 Percentile 0.95
95% Queue (veh/ln) 2 95% Queue (veh/ln) 8

0.468 0 0.011 0

0.823 1 0.060 1

0.958 2 0.170 2

0.992 3 0.337 3

0.999 4 0.526 4

1.000 5 0.698 5

1.000 6 0.827 6

1.000 7 0.911 7

1.000 8 0.958 8

1.000 9 0.982 9

1.000 10 0.993 10

1.000 11 0.997 11

1.000 12 0.999 12

1.000 13 1.000 13

1.000 14 1.000 14

1.000 15 1.000 15

1.000 16 1.000 16

1.000 17 1.000 17

1.000 18 1.000 18

1.000 19 1.000 19

1.000 20 1.000 20

1.000 21 1.000 21

1.000 22 1.000 22

1.000 23 1.000 23

1.000 24 1.000 24

1.000 25 1.000 25

1.000 26 1.000 26

1.000 27 1.000 27

1.000 28 1.000 28

1.000 29 1.000 29

1.000 30 1.000 30

1.000 31 1.000 31

1.000 32 1.000 32

1.000 33 1.000 33

1.000 34 1.000 34

1.000 35 1.000 35
Cumulative
Probability
Queued
Vehicles
Cumulative
Probability
Queued
Vehicles

EXHIBIT D
87 Vehicle Queue Estimates - Turning Movements
Intersection: 1. 2nd Avenue - Del Monte Boulevard / Imjin Parkway Movement: SB L
Analysis Period: AM - Option 2
Option 2 Conditions Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Cycle Length (sec) 106.8 Cycle Length (sec) 90
Lanes 2 Lanes 1
Volume (vph) 140 Volume (vph) 153
Volume (vphpl) 70 Volume (vphpl) 153
Average Queue (veh/ln) 2.08 Average Queue (veh/ln) 3.83 Percentile 0.95 Percentile 0.95
95% Queue (veh/ln) 5 95% Queue (veh/ln) 7

0.125 0 0.022 0

0.385 1 0.105 1

0.655 2 0.264 2

0.842 3 0.467 3

0.940 4 0.662 4

0.980 5 0.811 5

0.994 6 0.906 6

0.999 7 0.958 7

1.000 8 0.983 8

1.000 9 0.994 9

1.000 10 0.998 10

1.000 11 0.999 11

1.000 12 1.000 12

1.000 13 1.000 13

1.000 14 1.000 14

1.000 15 1.000 15

1.000 16 1.000 16

1.000 17 1.000 17

1.000 18 1.000 18

1.000 19 1.000 19

1.000 20 1.000 20

1.000 21 1.000 21

1.000 22 1.000 22

1.000 23 1.000 23

1.000 24 1.000 24

1.000 25 1.000 25

1.000 26 1.000 26

1.000 27 1.000 27

1.000 28 1.000 28

1.000 29 1.000 29

1.000 30 1.000 30

1.000 31 1.000 31

1.000 32 1.000 32

1.000 33 1.000 33

1.000 34 1.000 34

1.000 35 1.000 35
Cumulative
Probability
Queued
Vehicles
Cumulative
Probability
Queued
Vehicles

EXHIBIT D
88 Vehicle Queue Estimates - Turning Movements
Intersection: 1. 2nd Avenue - Del Monte Boulevard / Imjin Parkway Movement: SB L
Analysis Period: PM - Option 2
Option 2 Conditions Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Cycle Length (sec) 121.6 Cycle Length (sec) 90
Lanes 2 Lanes 1
Volume (vph) 45 Volume (vph) 153
Volume (vphpl) 22.5 Volume (vphpl) 153
Average Queue (veh/ln) 0.76 Average Queue (veh/ln) 3.83 Percentile 0.95 Percentile 0.95
95% Queue (veh/ln) 2 95% Queue (veh/ln) 7

0.468 0 0.022 0

0.823 1 0.105 1

0.958 2 0.264 2

0.992 3 0.467 3

0.999 4 0.662 4

1.000 5 0.811 5

1.000 6 0.906 6

1.000 7 0.958 7

1.000 8 0.983 8

1.000 9 0.994 9

1.000 10 0.998 10

1.000 11 0.999 11

1.000 12 1.000 12

1.000 13 1.000 13

1.000 14 1.000 14

1.000 15 1.000 15

1.000 16 1.000 16

1.000 17 1.000 17

1.000 18 1.000 18

1.000 19 1.000 19

1.000 20 1.000 20

1.000 21 1.000 21

1.000 22 1.000 22

1.000 23 1.000 23

1.000 24 1.000 24

1.000 25 1.000 25

1.000 26 1.000 26

1.000 27 1.000 27

1.000 28 1.000 28

1.000 29 1.000 29

1.000 30 1.000 30

1.000 31 1.000 31

1.000 32 1.000 32

1.000 33 1.000 33

1.000 34 1.000 34

1.000 35 1.000 35
Cumulative
Probability
Queued
Vehicles
Cumulative
Probability
Queued
Vehicles

EXHIBIT D
89 Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Southbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 16 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,332 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 90 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.03647214 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

1. Calculation methodology cited from 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2020 and Queue Length Models for All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections, Zong Tian and Michael Kyte, Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. 1988, Transportation Research Board, 2006.

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

2. Del Monte Boulevard / Private Driveway
Baseline
AM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
90 Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Northbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 131 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,257 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 90 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.34880699 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

3. Del Monte Boulevard / East-West Road
Baseline
AM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
91 Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Southbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 2 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,571 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 105 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.00382407 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

3. Del Monte Boulevard / East-West Road
Baseline
AM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
92 Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Southbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 4 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,188 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 90 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.01013496 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

2. Del Monte Boulevard / Private Driveway
Baseline
PM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
93 Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Northbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 149 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,416 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 90 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.35260563 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

3. Del Monte Boulevard / East-West Road
Baseline
PM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
94 Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Southbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 7 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,367 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 105 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.01544083 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

3. Del Monte Boulevard / East-West Road
Baseline
PM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
95 Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Northbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 129 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,243 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 90 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.34718037 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

2. Del Monte Blvd / Commercial Access - Private Dwy
Option 1
AM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
96 Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Southbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 16 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,500 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 90 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.0323436 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

2. Del Monte Blvd / Commercial Access - Private Dwy
Option 1
AM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
97 Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Northbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 2 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,257 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 90 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.00478084 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

3. Del Monte Boulevard / East-West Road
Option 1
AM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
98 Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Southbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 2 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,522 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 105 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.00394735 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

3. Del Monte Boulevard / East-West Road
Option 1
AM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
99 Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Northbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 144 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,397 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 90 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.34458302 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

2. Del Monte Blvd / Commercial Access - Private Dwy
Option 1
PM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
100
Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Southbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 4 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,356 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 90 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.00887562 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

2. Del Monte Blvd / Commercial Access - Private Dwy
Option 1
PM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
101
Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Northbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 5 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,416 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 90 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.0106306 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

3. Del Monte Boulevard / East-West Road
Option 1
PM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
102
Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Southbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 7 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,307 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 105 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.01615344 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

3. Del Monte Boulevard / East-West Road
Option 1
PM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
103
Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Northbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 94 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,243 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 90 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.24532605 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

2. Del Monte Blvd / Commercial Access - Private Dwy
Option 2
AM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
104
Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Southbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 16 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,500 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 90 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.0323436 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

2. Del Monte Blvd / Commercial Access - Private Dwy
Option 2
AM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
105
Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Northbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 2 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,257 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 90 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.00478084 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

3. Del Monte Boulevard / East-West Road
Option 2
AM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
106
Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Southbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 2 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,522 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 105 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.00394735 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

3. Del Monte Boulevard / East-West Road
Option 2
AM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
107
Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Northbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 98 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,397 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 90 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.22624913 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

2. Del Monte Blvd / Commercial Access - Private Dwy
Option 2
PM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
108
Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Southbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 4 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,356 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 90 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.00887562 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

2. Del Monte Blvd / Commercial Access - Private Dwy
Option 2
PM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
109
Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Northbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 5 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,416 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 90 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.0106306 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

3. Del Monte Boulevard / East-West Road
Option 2
PM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
110
Queue Length Estimation
All-Way, Two-Way and One-Way Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Controlled Approaches
Intersection:

Analysis Scenario:

Time Period:

Movement/Lane: Southbound Del Monte Blvd Left Turn
Data:

Analysis Period Length: 1 hours
Lane Traffic Demand: 7 vehicles/hour
Lane Capacity: 1,307 vehicles/hour
Available Storage: 105 feet
Calculation:

Queue Length: 0.01615344 vehicles
(95th percentile) 25 feet
Storage Adequate? Yes
Notes:

2. Queue length in feet is estimated assuming 25 feet per vehicle and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 25.

3. Del Monte Boulevard / East-West Road
Option 2
PM Peak Hour

EXHIBIT D
111

APPENDIX C

DEL MONTE BOULEVARD EXTENSION

SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
Del Monte Blvd Extension Segment
AM
Peak
2-Lane
LOS
PM
Peak
2-Lane

Cumulative Plus Project

1. Source of Volumes: "Imjin Parkway & 2nd Avenue Queue Evaluation," Kimley-Horn and Associates, May 19, 2020

2. Levels of service are based on segment planning thresholds for a two-lane arterial (with left turn lanes) included in Appendix D.

EXHIBIT D
112
2010 Threshold Volumes ADT

APPENDIX D

LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLD VOLUMES FOR VARIOUS ROADWAY TYPES

TOTAL DAILY VOLUMES IN BOTH DIRECTIONS (ADT)

ROADWAY TYPE CODE LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E
10-Lane Freeway 10F 71,000 110,000 154,000 178,000 202,000 8-Lane Freeway 8F 56,000 88,000 124,000 151,000 162,000 6-Lane Freeway 6F 43,900 66,400 95,600 114,800 123,800
8-Lane Expressway 8E 35,000 54,000 75,000 90,000 98,000 6-Lane Expressway 6E 28,000 42,000 56,000 67,000 74,000 4-Lane Freeway 4F 29,300 45,000 64,100 77,600 83,300
8-Lane Divided Arterial (w/ left-turn lane) 9 40,000 47,000 54,000 61,000 68,000 6-Lane Divided Arterial (w/ left-turn lane) 7 32,000 38,000 43,000 49,000 54,000 4-Lane Expressway 4E 18,000 27,000 36,000 45,000 50,000 4-Lane Divided Arterial (w/ left-turn lane) 5 22,000 25,000 29,000 32,500 36,000 4-Lane Undivided Arterial (no left-turn lane) 4 16,000 19,000 22,000 24,000 27,000 2-Lane Rural Highway 2R 4,000 8,000 12,000 17,000 25,000 2-Lane Arterial (w/ left-turn lane) 3 11,000 12,500 14,500 16,000 18,000 2-Lane Collector 2 6,000 7,500 9,000 10,500 12,000
2-Lane Local 1 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000
1-Lane Freeway Diamond Ramp 1D 11,000 12,800 14,700 16,500 18,300 2-Lane Freeway Diamond Ramp 2D 22,000 25,600 29,400 33,000 36,600 1-Lane Freeway Loop Ramp 1L 9,000 10,500 12,000 13,500 15,000 2-Lane Freeway Loop Ramp 2L 16,000 18,700 21,300 24,000 26,700 Notes:

1. The above threshold volumes for preliminary planning purposes only. If available, the results of detailed level of service analyses will typically have priority over the levels of service derived from this table. In that case this table can be used by the analyst for providing additional considerations for recommending the appropriate general roadway type for the specific condition being analyzed.

2. All above facilities assume a 60%/40% peak hour directional split. All above facilities assume peak hour representing approximately 10% of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT), except for mainline freeway facilities, which assume peak hour representing 8% of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT).

3. Based on Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010.

4. Freeway thresholds are consistent with conditions utilizing a .95 peak hour factor, with 2% trucks and slightly over a one-mile average interchange spacing.

5. Expressways are consistent with the average of a multi-lane highway (with no signals) and Class 1 arterial (with an average signal spacing of 0.8 signals per mile and a .45 G/C ratio).

6. Arterial thresholds are consistent with the average of Class 1 and Class 2 arterials with an assumed signal density of two signals per mile. This assumes a divided arterial with left-turn lanes. Thresholds for four-lane undivided arterials assume approximately three-fourths the capacity of a four-lane divided arterial due to the impedance in traffic flow resulting from left-turning vehicles waiting in the inside through lane, thus significantly reducing the capacity of the roadway.

7. Rural highways are generally consistent with the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual rural highway, assuming 8% trucks, 4% RV’s, 20% no-passing, and level terrain. The greatest difference is that it assumes a maximum capacity (upper end of LOS E) of 25,000 rather than the 28,000 calculated using the new Highway Capacity Manual.

8. Two-lane collectors assume approximately three-fourths of the capacity of a two-lane arterial with left-turn lanes. This is based on the assumption that left-turn channelization is not provided on a two-lane collector.

9. Local street level of service thresholds are based upon “Neighborhood Traffic Related Quality-of-Life Considerations” which assumes a standard suburban neighborhood, 40-foot roadway width, and 25 mile per hour speed limit with normal speed violation rates.

10. Capacities for Diamond Ramps and Loop Ramps may be slightly higher or lower than the planning level capacities indicated above. The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (2010
HCM) states that the capacity of a one-lane diamond to be 2,200 vehicles per hour (vph), and 1,800 vph for a small radius loop ramp. Two-lane freeway ramp capacities are estimated in the 2010 HCM to be 4,400vph for a two-lane diamond, and 3,200vph 20 for a two-lane small radius loop. Varying intermediate capacities are provided for incremental conditions between these extremes. Capacities given for each service level assume the same level of service for the adjoining merging roadway as well as level of service being determined by volume-to-capacity and not attainable speed. Level of service will be controlled by freeway level of service if worse than ramp. Mitigations of level of service deficiencies may include the addition of a lane on the freeway ramp, the addition of an auxiliary lane on the freeway mainline, the addition of approach lanes at the ramp junction with the local intersecting street, and/or geometric modifications to improve the efficiency of the ramp itself or its termini. The appropriate mitigation should be determined on a case-by-case basis, considering freeway main line volumes and weaving, the extent that the freeway ramp volume exceeds the above planning thresholds, and the level of service of the ramp intersection with the local street.

11. All volumes are approximate and assume ideal roadway characteristics.

EXHIBIT D
113
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Edrie De Los Santos, P.E., City of Marina
From: Frederik Venter, P.E. and Chris Gregerson, P.E., T.E., PTOE, PTP, Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc.

Date: June 3, 2021
Re: The Dunes – Del Monte Boulevard Extension Transportation Peer Review

1. Introduction
This technical memorandum presents the findings and recommended improvements from the peer review of the Del Monte Boulevard Extension project as a part of The Dunes development in Marina, California.

2. Transportation Peer Review

2.1. Trip Generation & Trip Distribution
A review of the trip generation and trip distribution calculations and assumptions found in Section A and Section B were reviewed for accuracy and reasonableness. Of particular concern was the choice to continue to use the trip generation rates found in the 7th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rather than the current 10th Edition. The following comments are provided based on the review conducted:
 The size of the convenience market that is included as part of the gas station should be stated  A trip generation comparison should be provided that compares using the Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition and the Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition published by ITE to better justify using the 7th Edition rather than the 10th Edition. o If more trips are produced by the 10th Edition, those rates should be used, though it is likely that more trips will be produced by the 7th Edition.  It should be explained why the 10th Edition was used for Hotel, but not for any other land use type.
 Trip generation used 12 fuel pumps. No site plan was provided. How was this estimate arrived at?
 Internal capture may be high considering there is no employment in the proposed Project’s land use mix. With residential, hotel , and gas station as trips, it is likely that a 5% or lower internal capture mix would be appropriate. 5% is the highest internal capture reduction that Caltrans allows.
 It should be stated which edition of the Trip Generation Manual was used to estimate the trips generated by the office park. A comparis on should also be shown for the number of trips generated between the 7th and 10th Editions of the Trip Generation Manual.  It would be helpful to state that the volumes used for Cumulative conditions at the Imjin Parkway intersection with 2nd Avenue/Del Monte Boulevard Extension were also used to develop through trips at intersections 2 and 3.
 The distribution of project trips for Cumulative conditions north and south seems reasonable.  It would be helpful to understand the choice in distribution of trips at the gas station driveways for Option 2.

Attachment 4

EXHIBIT D
114
The Dunes – Del Monte Boulevard Extension
Transportation Peer Review

2 2.2. Design Volumes, Intersection Operations, and Intersection Vehicle Queues The Derivation of Design Volumes (Section B), Intersection Operations (Section C), and Intersection Vehicle Queues (Section D) were reviewed to determine the reasonableness of stated assumptions and findings. The main concern pertains to how the vehicle operations along Del Monte Boulevard were determined, but other concerns and clarifications are needed. The following commen ts are provided based on the review conducted:

 There is discussion of the differences in lane geometry and project access between the Baseline, Option 1, and Option 2 scenarios. One concern is with Option 2 and the two gas station driveways occurring along an added deceleration lane that is also being comb ined with the relocated bus turnout. The concern is that there could be conflicts with the bus and vehicles entering and exiting the driveways, especially the western driveway.  It is reasonable to assume that all vehicles will turn left rather than make an illegal U‐turn to access the gas station under Op
tion 2.
 Only the worst movement needs to be reported at intersections that are side street stop controlled. It seems all movements or approaches are reported in the LOS results table.  While not stated in the text, based on the Synchro reports it seems that HCM 2000 methodology was
used to determine delay and Level of Service (LOS). As Synchro 10 was used, HCM 6th Edition methodology should be used to determine delay and LOS at all intersections.  It is unclear from the text as to whether the land configuration modifications from Option 1 and 2 will improve conditions to LOS D for the PM peak‐hour under Baseline conditions. It is possible only a text cl arification is required.
 The text describes the queuing estimation method used as using the Highway Capacity Manual method for stop‐controlled intersections and the Poisson approximation method for signal‐ controlled intersections. The edition used for the Highway Capacity Manual was not included and the reasoning used for using the Poisson method is that the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) uses it for signalized intersections. Due to the close spacing of all study intersections, the best tool to use to estimate vehicle queues would be the Simtraffic software included in the Synchro software package. Simtraffic is a microsimulation tool that more accurately estimates que
uing as it takes into account upstream and downstream
intersections and queues from those intersections. The queuing analysis should be redone using Simtraffic to determine if there is adequate storage for all turn pockets, especially the left turn lanes along Del Monte Boulevard at the intersection with Imjin Pakrway and the Commer cial driveway.
 It is unclear what the safety or operational implications are of reducing the taper lengths of the northbound Del Monte left turn lane at the Commercial Access and southbound Del Monte left turn lanes at Imjin Parkway. This discussion should be included in the text.

2.3. Section E
No on‐site design was available at the time of review, and therefore, no on‐site circulation and interaction with the driveways can be determined. Imjin Pkwy is a primary regional arterial connecting Salinas with the Monterey Peninsula. Driveways along primary arterials are discouraged. Only one driveway exists along Imjin Pkwy at the existing Ord Market at Abra ms Drive. No recent developments have direct access

EXHIBIT D
115
The Dunes – Del Monte Boulevard Extension
Transportation Peer Review

3 to Imjin Pkwy. Below is a summary of comments for the proposed gas station site with redline comments provided in the Appendix:

 The memo states that if a bus is stopped, the sight distance for vehicles wishing to exit the western driveway will be reduced to approximately 70‐feet. Given this potential safety is sue, it is unclear why a second driveway is needed, or that the driveways should share the bus pullout area, especially given the low volume of vehicles.
 It is recommended to remove the proposed driveway closest to the signal and keep the existing bus pullout. The western driveway shou ld not be included as part of the bus pullout, should not include a deceleration lane, and should access Imjin Parkway at the existing curb line. Keeping the bus pullout and driveway separate is recommended to eliminate potential safety issues and conflicts between the bus and driveway vehicles sharing the same space. 
It is understood from communication with Whitson that bus pullout modifications have been discussed with MST. We would need written authorization from MST to concur with modifying the existing bus pullout, although it is not Kimley‐Horn’s recommendation to modify the bus pullout.
 It is recommended to move the propo sed western driveway on Imjin Pkwy to existing curb line, not within bus pullout. This would limit bus/vehicle conflicts and remove the potential safety issue of reduced sight distance for vehicles exiting the western driveway.  It is also recommended to allow for cross access/shared driveway to the future hotel site at the driveway along Imjin Parkway.
 It is recomm
ended to provide a driveway on Future Road for the proposed gas station.  No driveway is recommended along the Del Monte Boulevard Extension.  Add "No U‐turn" sign at the western end of the existing Imjin Pkwy median west of the Project site.

No discussion is given for truck access and egress for the proposed gas station. Refueling trucks will need to access the gas station on a regular interval and their access and egress should be discussed to ensure they can safely enter and exit the gas station.

2.4. Section F
Provide SimTraffic queuing results in order to inform cross section review.

2.5. Section G
The conclusions in this section are subject to change based on the comments provided in previous sections. In particular, the conclusions related to queuing along the Del Monte Boulevard extension and the proposed driveways along Imjin Road. Any change in findings due to addressing the above comments should be incorporated into the conclusions section.

2.6. Exhibits
The exhibits were reviewed, and the following comments are offered:

 Exhibit 3 should be updated to include a comparison of trips generated using the 10th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual.
 Exhibit 4 should be updated to include a comparison of trips generated using the 10th Edition of the Trip Generation Manua l.

EXHIBIT D
116
The Dunes – Del Monte Boulevard Extension
Transportation Peer Review

4 3. Appendix
 Del Monte Blvd at Imjin Parkway – Intersection Layout – Phase 1A Opportunity Site Redlines

EXHIBIT D
117
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
129' R.O.W
104' R.O.W.
34'
54' R.O.W.
104' R.O.W.

R=30'
R=420'
R=30'
R=534'
R=30' R=30'
R=30'
R=30' R=30'
R=30' R=30'
35'
10'
50'
20'
35'
50' FLARE
110'

BUS STOP

DRIVEWAY

DRIVEWAY
52' R.O.W.
24'
24'
52' R.O.W.
63'
73'

IMJIN PARKWAY

FUTUREROAD
100' STORAGE
115' TAPER
90' TAPER
90' STORAGE

FUTURE SINGLE

FAMILY LOTS

FUTURE HOTEL
SITE

FUTURE GAS

SERVICE STATION

IMJIN OFFICE PARK

POTENTIALUNDERGROUND

STORMWATERRETENTION AREA
FUTURE
ROAD
FUTURE
ROAD
90' STORAGE90' STORAGE90' STORAGE

FUTURE HOTEL
SITE

PARCEL A

6.8± AC

PARCEL B

2.7± AC

PARCEL C

1.4± AC

DEL MONTE BOULEVARD

FUTURE SINGLE

FAMILY LOTS

FUTURE SINGLE

FAMILY LOTS

MARINA, CALIFORNIA
DEL MONTE BLVD AT IMJIN PARKWAY - INTERSECTION LAYOUT - PHASE 1A OPPORTUNITY SITE

THE DUNES ON MONTEREY BAY
Sheet 1 of 1
Civil Engineering
Land Surveying
6 Harris Court
Monterey, California
831.649.5225
whitsonengineers.com03/ 10/ 2021
Project No.:3140.13

EXHIBIT D
118

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Edrie De Los Santos, P.E., City of Marina
From: Frederik Venter, P.E.

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Date: November 18, 2021
Re: The Dunes – Del Monte Boulevard Extension Transportation Peer Review

1. Introduction
This technical memorandum presents a response to Keith Higgins’s, Traffic Engineer, memorandum titled The Dunes – Del Monte Boulevard Extension – Response to Kimley Horn Peer Review Comments, June 3, 2021, Marina, California and dated September 1, 2021. The peer review comments and responses are in relation to the Del Monte Boulevard Extension project as a part of The Dunes development in Marina, California.

2. Responses
Responses to Keith Higgins’s response memorandum are summarized below:

1. Keith H
iggins defers the following additional analyses requested to a later plan submittal, which is acceptable:
a. Trip generation rates using the latest ITE Trip Generation Manual edition b. Internal capture adjustments
c. HCM 6th Edition, or latest edition, methodology
d. SimTraffic queuing analysis
e. Truck access and circulation for gas station

2. “It
also verifies that a driveway connection can be provided to Imjin Parkway for a future gas station with convenience market on the northwest corner of the Im jin Parkway / Del Monte Boulevard Extension intersection. The recommendations provided by Kimley Horn provide general guidance for this driveway. The precise design and location will be determined when a specific project is proposed for this site.”
a. Response: This paragraph from the Keith Higgins response to comments confirms the provision for one driveway to the gas station on Imjin Parkway. This driveway shall be located at the lot line furthest away from the intersection of Imjin Parkway and 2 nd
Ave
nue. The provision of one driveway at this location is acceptable.

Attachment 5

EXHIBIT D
119
kimley-horn.com 10 South Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1250 San Jose, CA 95113 (669) 800-4130

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Guido Persecone, Edrie De Los Santos, City of Marina From: Frederik Venter P.E., Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Date: May 27, 2026
Re: Dunes Gas Station Drive Through Peer Review

1. Introduction
This memorandum presents a traffic peer review of the proposed Dunes on Monterey Bay Phase II North Project located on the northwest corner of the 2 nd Avenue / Del Monte Boulevard and Imjin Parkway intersection in the City of Marina. The Project currently proposes to construct a drive-through facility on the west side of the lot in addition to the convenience store, the fuel pumps, the carwash, and the EV charging stations. The drive-through entry road would be off Breakwater Street and exit onto Imjin Parkway.

2. Peer Review
Kimley-Horn’s general peer review comments on the proposed drive-through are indicated below:

Project Trip Generation and Distribution

1. Daily trip generation estimates using a smaller convenience store and the drive-through facility yields 4,273 daily trips.

2. The 2022 trip generation with only the convenience store yields 3,383 daily trips.

3. The Keith Higgins 2026 memo yields 3,036 trips.

4. The addition of the fast food drive-through will yield higher gross trips compared to the approved project (convenience store plus gas station) and the trip generation prepared by Keith Higgins (using interpolated square feet trip generation rates).

5. Drive through traffic would enter from Breakwater Street side (north side) and exit at the Imjin Parkway driveway (south side).

Site Circulation

EXHIBIT E
120
Dunes Phase 2 Drive-Through Review

Page 2 ends

Marina City CouncilJune 2, 2026

Marina City Council
June 2, 2026