SPECIAL MEETING FEB. 7TH-MARINA STATION

There will be a special meeting of the commission at 6:30 p.m. on February 7th.
The meeting will address the Marina Station project.

Please plan to attend and make your opinion and concerns know to the commission.

It is anticipated that the commission will be voting on the project at this meeting.

The resolutions relating to the Marina Station Specific Plan, Tentative Map, Developer’s Agreement, amendment to the General Plan and zoning passed by a vote of 4 to 1.
Commissioner O’Connell voted against the resolutions for the following reasons:

1. The housing to job balance was 1.5 jobs per household. This results in one person out of every two families most likely having to find a job in another city. The city balance is presently 1.26. Some members of the public stated that they planned to move their businesses to Marina and into the project. This does not mean that the employees will be Marina residents, or that Marina residents will be hired. It may mean that employees living in other cities will be traveling into Marina.

2. The water quality is not secure. There is seawater intrusion and at least one source used in the draft of the Environmental Impact Report stated that the seawater that is presently in the two higher aquifers, could flow into the deeper aquifer that will be the source for Marina Station.

(The MCWD obtains all of its groundwater from the Pressure subarea. The Pressure subarea is further defined by distinct aquifers, commonly referred to as the 180-foot, 400-foot and 900- foot or ‘deep aquifer.’
While originally thought to be geologically confined in the Marina area (meaning there was no ready physical connection between the aquifers allowing flow between them) recent stratigraphic analysis has indicated that these aquifers are connected hydraulically, with water from the upper (180-foot and 400- foot) layers recharging the deep aquifer.)
Source-MCWD URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN-DEC. 2005; GROUNDWATER INVENTORY AND STATUS REPORT-MARCH 18 2004 Prepared for MCWD

3. The desalination plant is still not functioning. The MCWD desalination plant breaks down and there is no intention of bringing it back on line. City officials have informed us that it is presently idle, but did not explain the reason for it being idle. It is not a source for water because it was poorly constructed.

4. The SVWP has not been fully funded and there is a need to address the expense of the operation and maintenance of the same. The dam that was to be constructed simply has not been built and the funds needed have not been approved. The SVWP is considered in the EIR as a necessary source of water that will justify the Marina Station project being developed.

(Under the SVWP, additional water to balance basin recharge with pumping will be provided through (1) capture and diversion of reservoir releases down the Salinas River, which would otherwise be lost to the ocean; (2) additional recycled water from the Monterey County Recycled Water Projects; and (3) modification of the spillway at Nacimiento Reservoir, which will allow re-operation of this reservoir and the San Antonio Reservoir, producing the additional system yield. In total, by 2030 an additional yield of 37,000 AFY is expected. Part, of the increased-releases from Nacimiento and San Antonio reservoirs will be impounded and diverted by a new in-stream dam near Marina, and added to the MCWRP water supply Recipients of this water will be required to reduce their coastal groundwater pumping.) Source- DRAFT EIR FOR MARINA STATION SPECIFIC PLAN

5. The “rain garden” concept proposed by the developer has never been fully explained. We asked for research and documentation to support the concept and received three pages consisting of a diagram and a letter. A person came from the company who will oversee the project, but she referenced it as being more of a “filtration system” than a rain garden. Rain gardens are excellent when properly constructed and maintained. No evidence was given that any person who is involved in this project has the knowledge or skill to construct the gardens, and no one explained what the maintenance requirements will be once constructed and the developer leaves.

6. The Traffic Impact Analysis for the project was given to the commission without a copy of the exhibits. This was provided in approximately in March of last year. When asked as to why the exhibits were not provided at the time the text was given, the commission was informed that it is presently on the city website. That did not answer the question.

7. The Traffic analysis did not take into consideration the significance of Golf Blvd. that will run from Del Monte Blvd. to Blanco Road. The intersection of Golf Blvd.and Del Monte was taken into consideration, but, in the opinion of Commissioner O’Connell, a justifiable reason for not considering the traffic on this road was never given.

8. Golf Blvd. will have over 30 residential lots bordering it. It will have 8 intersections with other streets in the project (this does not include Del Monte and Golf Blvd.) How these residences and the intersections cannot be taken into consideration in the Traffic Impact Analysis is unknown to me.

9. There are over 100 street intersections in Marina Station. The Traffic Impact Analysis only considered 23 of them.

10. There are over 60 street segments in the Marina Station project. The Traffic Impact Analysis only considered 15 of them.

11. The developer, although present and willing to cooperate, seemed to be of the opinion that the project was going to be approved before any of the hearings took place. When asked by the commissioners on certain points the answers would sometimes be vague, ambiguous or not accurate. Examples: We were told there would be no storm drains because the rain gardens would handle all of the water. We were then told that there would be storm drains.
We asked about dog parks and it took a considerable amount of time to get a straight answer. We asked about solar paneling on the single family residences and we had to spend several minutes asking questions before we were able to get an answer.

12. The project should be reduced in size so that the housing to job balance is closer to 2.5. More office/industry should be brought into the project.

AGENDA FOR 1/24/08

ACTION ITEMS: Action listed for each Agenda item is that which is recommended by staff. The Planning Commission may, at its discretion, take action on any items. The public is invited to approach the podium to provide up to three (3) minutes of public comment.

a. Recommendation to consider adopting Resolution No. 2008- approving the Marina Municipal Airport Master Plan update. Passed 5-0.

9. COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF INFORMATIONAL REPORTS:

a. Recommendation to receive a report regarding the authorization of the removal of one Monterey Cypress tree on site located at 296 Reservation Road and the removal of one Monterey Cypress tree located at 3227 Seaside Court. The trees had to be removed prior to the meeting. This was due to the danger of further damage to property.

1/10/08 AGENDA-PLANNING COMMISSION

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Time will be set aside during the Public Hearing to receive oral comments on all items listed as Public Hearings. Staff will present the project and staff recommendation and answer questions from the Planning Commissioners. The applicant will then have the opportunity to raise any issues with the staff recommendation. The public will then be invited to approach the podium to provide up to three (3) minutes of public testimony.

a. Use Permit UP 2007-17, and Design Review 2007-18 is requested to allow expansion of the existing recreational facilities on the 37,398 square foot site of the existing skate park and teen center located at 304 Hillcrest Avenue (APN 032-331-039). The proposed expansion includes the construction of a basketball court and new 3,028 square foot teen center building to replace the existing 1,900 square foot teen center building. The project site is located in an area designated for use as Parks and Recreation in the General Plan and “O” (Open Space) District in the Zoning Ordinance. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Class 1 – demolition of small structures having no historical, archaeological or architectural significance and Class 32 – in-fill project consistent with local general plan and zoning requirements, with no impact on sensitive habitat, and no significant impacts related to traffic noise, air or water quality). The City of Marina is the property owner and developer. Passed 6-1. Commissioner O’Connell voted no because, in his opinion, the restroom facilities were too small.

The commission voted 7-0 on a resolution to construct a new basketball court outside and next to the new teen center.

b. Use Permit UP 2007- 09 is requested to allow for proposed contractor’s yard on a 15,000 square foot parcel located at 213 Reindollar Avenue (APN 032-312-032). The installation of a decorative iron fence and gate and the display of metal sculpture are also proposed. The project site is located in an area designated for Light Industrial/Commercial Services in the General Plan and for C-2 (General Commercial) District in the Zoning Ordinance. The project is categorically exempt from the environmental review pursuant to Section 15304 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Class 4 – minor alteration to land use limitations).
Passed 7-0 with a modification to condition of approval #7 that related to an extension of the permit beyond March 2010.