Marina Heights Is Important For Marina‚s Future

January 3, 2003

Mayor Ila Mettee-McCutchon [Sent By FAX and Email]
City of Marina
Marina City Hall
211 Hillcrest Avenue
Marina, CA 93933

RE: Environmental Review of Cypress Marina Heights Development Project

Dear Mayor Mettee-McCutchon and Council Members:

I am writing to ask the Council to consider clarifying its action of December 3, 2002, relating to environmental review of the proposed Cypress Marina Heights Development Project. For your convenience, I am attaching a copy of the relevant agenda item from your December 3rd meeting.

On December 3rd, the Council authorized its staff to retain a consultant to prepare an environmental impact report on the “Cypress Marina Heights Development Project.” The staff report does not describe exactly what the “project” is that the EIR is to evaluate, which means that the Council has not given any specific direction on that matter. I believe it should do so, and must specify with some particularity the “project” for which the EIR will be prepared. In addition, the December 3, 2002 staff report indicates that the EIR to be prepared will be a “supplemental” Environmental Impact Report. I think that this is probably an error in terminology, which I hope the Council will correct at the beginning of the process.

Project Description

CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require public agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Report on any project that “might” have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The process begins with a “Notice of Preparation” which must, among other things, contain a “description of the project.” [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082]

In this case, it is not clear exactly what the “project” is for which the EIR will be prepared. It seems to be taken for granted that the “project” for EIR purposes is the project generally described in the Option Agreement entered into between the developer and the city. However, it is our understanding that the Council has promised the public to consider possible changes to the project as outlined in the Option Agreement, and that the Council made that commitment in response to concerns voiced at the time the Option Agreement was adopted by the Council. A number of concerns were also expressed by members of the public, and by Planning Commission members, at the November 7, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. A copy of the Minutes is attached.

The project proposed by the developer is significantly inconsistent with the recently adopted Marina General Plan. In addition, it includes no housing that could be afforded by persons with very low, low, or moderate incomes. If the Council is ultimately going to address these issues, and other issues of public concern, they should be addressed at the beginning of the process, not at the end. Therefore, LandWatch urges the Council to decide what project it wants to evaluate prior to undertaking an EIR. If an Environmental Impact Report is prepared on a project that is then significantly changed, it will be necessary to prepare a new, or supplemental, EIR at that time. It is better practice to know what the “project” is supposed to be, before doing the environmental review. LandWatch urges the Council to take this approach.

Even if the Council decides to describe the “project” as the project generally outlined in the Option Agreement, the Council must make that determination. As we understand the procedural situation, the only direction given, so far, is the Council’s action on December 3rd, and that action does not really describe what the “project” is, it just authorizes the staff to enter into an agreement “pertaining to the Cypress Marina Heights Development Project.”

No “Supplemental” EIR

The December 3rd memorandum refers to preparing a “supplemental environmental impact report” for the proposed Cypress Marina Heights Project. We believe that this is an error in terminology, which could have significant consequences, and we urge the Council to correct any such error now, at the beginning of the process.

What is often called a “supplemental” EIR is most accurately termed a “supplement to an EIR.” In other words, a “supplemental” EIR is only prepared when a full EIR on the proposed project has already been prepared, and when there are then changed conditions, or changes in the project, or changed circumstances. [See Public Resources Code Section 21166; CEQA Guidelines Section 15162] In those circumstances, rather than prepare a complete new EIR, a “supplement” to the already prepared EIR is required. This is what is known as a “supplemental” EIR.

There can’t be a “supplement” to an EIR unless an EIR on the project has already been prepared. Unless a previous EIR on the proposed Cypress Marina Heights Project has, in fact, already been prepared, it is not appropriate to direct preparation of a “supplemental” EIR. LandWatch hopes that the Council will correct this error—if in fact it is an error, as we suspect. Failure to prepare an EIR as required by CEQA will make the entire process vulnerable to a lawsuit, and the courts have been quite strong in requiring adherence to the requirements of CEQA.

Conclusion

LandWatch urges the Council to resolve any issues about what the “project” at Marina Heights should be before initiating environmental review. This is not only “best practice,” it has some very practical benefits for all involved, including the developer. If, for instance, the Council directs the preparation of an EIR on the project generally outlined in the Option Agreement, and then decides, after public testimony, to require more affordable housing, or otherwise to make changes, it could well mean that further environmental review—and more delays—will then be required. The fastest way to get to the finish line, where CEQA is concerned, is to make the key project definition decisions at the start of the process.

Second, LandWatch strongly urges the Council not to try to “shortcut” the requirements of CEQA by directing the preparation of some sort of de minimus EIR, calling it a “supplemental EIR.” The law is very clear that an EIR meeting the requirements of CEQA must be prepared on any project that might have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The proposed Cypress Marina Heights Development Project is very clearly a project that requires the preparation of an EIR. Unless such an earlier EIR has already been prepared on the specific project now proposed, there is no basis upon which to prepare a “supplement.”

Thank you for taking our concerns seriously.

RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH AND TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT TO RETAIN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONSULTANT TO CONDUCT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (SEIR) REPORT PERTAINING TO THE PROPOSED CYPRESS MARINA HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MARINA AND THE CHADMAR GROUP FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES AND TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENTS

RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Consider authorizing staff to proceed with and to enter into an agreement to retain a professional services consultant to conduct supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) pertaining to the Cypress Marina Heights Development Project;
   
   
2. Authorize an agreement between the City of Marina and the Chadmar Group to recover all costs related to these consultant services, and;
   
   
3. Authorize execution of the agreements.

BACKGROUND:
At the regular meeting of November 6, 2002, the City Council approved the option agreement setting forth the terms and conditions related to the sale of property to the Watt/Chadmar Group for the construction of the proposed Cypress Marina Heights project.

The Watt/Chadmar Group has proceeded with its request for preliminary review of the proposed Cypress Marina Heights project by the City of Marina Planning Department. In order to assist with the expediting of this review and to facilitate the ongoing planning review necessary to proceed with this project, the principal representatives of the Watt/Chadmar Group, Mr. Charles R. Lande and Mr. Michael Shaw, have requested that the City retain an outside consultant to conduct the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) required for this project to proceed.

ANALYSIS:
City Planning staff has agreed, in concept, with proceeding with this request although there remains some reservation as to the timing and necessity for proceeding with this aspect of the project review at this time.

However, since all costs related to retaining this consultant will be borne by the developer Watt/Chadmar, staff has consented to bring this request before the City Council in order to assist with the timeliness of the necessary review.

Staff is proposing to retain the consulting services of Lamphier/Gregory of Oakland, California to conduct the SEIR process. As the City Council may recall, the City utilized Lamphier/Gregory to conduct the Environmental Impact Report analysis for its 2000 General Plan Update.

Currently, staff has not negotiated an agreement with Lamphier/Gregory for these services. Staff has discussed the possibility of entering into such an agreement with its principals and the firm seems receptive to accepting the consulting services.

Staff is requesting that the City Council approve proceeding with retaining these services now, whether actually with Lamphier/Gregory or some other acceptable consulting firm, and authorize execution of any forthcoming agreement subject to review and approval by the City Attorney’s office in order that the review process may proceed in as timely a fashion as possible.

In order that all costs associated with retaining this consultant may also be recovered, staff is also requesting that the City Council approve the preparation and execution of an agreement between the City and the Chadmar Group to provide for the deposit and draw down of the necessary funds with the City.

FISCAL IMPACT:
Should the City Council approve these requests, there will be no cost to the City’s General Fund. All costs related to this request will be borne by the developer Watt/Chadmar.

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

________________________
Anthony J. Altfeld
City Manager
City of Marina

REVIEWED/CONCUR:

________________________
Jeffery P. Dack
Planning Director
City of Marina
NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT:

_________________________
Linda Downing
Administrative Services Director
City of Marina

F:\1Planning\Marina Heights Watt Chadmar Documents\MarinaHeightsSEIRConsult2.Stf3.doc

MINUTES

SPECIAL MEETING

MARINA PLANNING COMMISSION

Marina City Council Chambers
211 Hillcrest Avenue
Thursday, November 7, 2002, 6:30 P.M.

1. CALL TO ORDER:
   
   Chairman Bradshaw called the meeting to order at 6:32 pm
   
   
2. ROLL CALL AND ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:
   
   Planning Commissioners Present: P. Bradshaw; D. Burnett (arrived at 6:35 pm); A. Cuaderno; B. Drake; K. Gray; G. Powell; G. Wilmot
   
   Planning Commissioners Absent: None
   
   Advisory Present: J. Dack, J. Heiser, J. Paterson
   
   
3. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS by the Commissioners and Staff of upcoming events of possible interest.
   Commissioner Bradshaw announced a ribbon cutting for The Spot on Imjin Road sponsored by The Chamber of Commerce and the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce.
   
   
4. COMMUNICATIONS from the Public to the Commission on planning and related matters that are not on the current agenda.
   
   Chris Fitz, Land Watch Monterey County, announced a November 19 workshop on Public Participation in the Planning Process in the Marina City Council Chambers from 1:30-3:30 p.m. He further announced a presentation on New Urbanism/Neighborhood Design the same evening at 7:30 p.m. at Edward Alvarez High School in Salinas.
   
   
5. STUDY SESSION:
   
   A. PROPOSED MARINA HEIGHTS PROJECT – 1,050 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND RELATED FACILITIES ON 248-ACRE SITE LOCATED EAST OF CALIFORNIA AVENUE AND NORTHWEST OF IMJIN ROAD IN THE AREA OF FORMER FORT ORD MILITARY HOUSING KNOWN AS “UPPER PATTON AND ABRAMS PARK.”
   
   Chairman Bradshaw described the Study Session process to the audience.
   
   Mr. Dack gave a brief background of the project providing a comparison of current key city plan provisions with the Marina Heights proposals, including significant issues such as number of units and type, water, jobs link, school sites, park conveyances, etc.
   
   Commissioner Gray expressed a concern about the water allocation and how it might affect development in other parts of Marina in the future. He further commented on the use of reclaimed water for landscaping and other uses.
   
   Commissioner Wilmot inquired about the timeline for the development process and asked for further clarification about the option agreement versus the development agreement.
   
   Charles Lande and Michael Shaw, representing Cypress Marina Heights Partners, gave a presentation. Included was a proposed timeline, background, costs, needs assessment regarding jobs/housing, specific site orientation, rebuilding vs. refurbishing issues, diversity of homes, design parameters and principles including new urbanism, city parks, school sites, and traffic including street widths and pedestrian accessibility.
   
   The floor was opened for public comment:
   
   Darlena Ridler, Chairperson for the Recreation And Community Services Commission, indicated a desire for their commission to work closely with the development team during the process of developing the parks and other recreational uses for Marina Heights. She provided a list and drawing of ideas for consideration.
   
   Justina Walsh, Marina resident, expressed the importance of public input for more than just architectural design, but in neighborhood design as well. She also commented on the importance of alternative transportation to serve the project, particularly bus service and it’s convenient access to residents of Marina Heights.
   
   David Rodriguez, resident of Shelter Outreach Plus on Lexington Court, expressed a concern about narrow roads, pedestrian access, and the consideration of disabled citizens. He also commented on crowding and privacy issues and the lack of available housing for those on a fixed income.
   
   Tim Miller, Marina resident, and member of the Greenbelt Committee indicated a concern about the lack of integration between current homes and the proposed new homes. He also expressed a desire to see better circulation between the areas as the population increases.
   
   Lee Hulquist, Marina resident and employee of Shelter Outreach Plus, expressed concerns about rebuilding rather than refurbishing the units and questioned the definition of affordable housing, particularly for low-income residents.
   
   Tim Ledesma, Marina resident, commented on the choice to rebuild rather than refurbish the units due to the substandard conditions of the existing units.
   
   Jane and David Styer, residents of Abrams B, relayed their concern about the segregation of affordable units that could cause those residents to be eternal renters, in specific neighborhoods without an opportunity to buy.
   
   The Commissioners took a brief recess and reconvened at 8:15 p.m.
   Mike Derr, Vice-Chairman of the Recreation and Community Services Commission urged consideration of an agreement with the developers for a funding source for maintenance of parks; either a one-time fee or an annual maintenance agreement. He also indicated a desire of the Community Parks Advisory Committee to meet with development team.
   
   Grace Silva-Santella, Marina resident, raised questions about the lack of response to Staff’s Preliminary Staff Review addressing concerns such as the jobs/housing balance, diversity of homes, phasing of units. She further commented on providing housing for seniors and young families, live/work units, and the segregation of Abrams B to the rest of the project.
   
   Pete Ericksen, Commercial Property Agent, commented on water usage, garage and driveway orientation, parking and the inclusion of retail uses in the neighborhoods.
   
   Chris Fitz, Land Watch Monterey County, commented that a mix of types of homes was appropriate considering the total number of units, but recommended a commitment for very low, and low income housing in perpetuity, He further expressed a desire to see a walkable community with mixed (commercial) uses, with a greenbelt that needs to link up to the existing city. He recommended that the developer respond to the Preliminary Staff Review on a point- by-point basis in the report.
   
   Michael Owen, Marina resident, encouraged the development team to respond to Staff’s comments as they represent the desires of the citizens of Marina.
   
   Quentin Roland, Marina resident, addressed the concept of attracting a management labor force, home sizes, and quality of life.
   
   The floor was closed for public input.
   
   Commissioner Wilmot complimented the development team on their presentation. He reminded them that mixed use including retail was the key to tying into the rest of Marina.
   
   Commissioner Drake mentioned the use of alternative energy sources, the revisiting of FORA fees, jobs/housing balance issues and the removal of the chain link fence that currently separates existing neighborhoods from the project.
   
   Commissioner Gray would like to see the project move forward and encouraged the developers to work on the issues that were raised by Commissioners, the public and staff, particularly with the goals and objectives outlined in the City’s General Plan. He encouraged the use of a landmark or village center with a central location for retail. He also commented on the desire for more diverse neighborhoods, including affordable housing, and the use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation.
   
   Commissioner Powell commented on the lack of affordable housing, possibly revisiting the refurbishing of the units rather than rebuilding and achieving more of a connection with existing Marina.
   
   Chairperson Bradshaw expressed her concern about the jobs/housing balance, the inclusion of retail in neighborhoods, and a desire for the developers to answer the concerns raised during the meeting and previously by staff.
   
   It was the consensus of the Commission to invite the development team back to respond to the issues and concerns raised.
   
   
6. ADJOURNMENT:
   
   At 9:07 p.m., Chairman Bradshaw adjourned the meeting.

   
   ATTEST: ________________________
   Judy Paterson, Secretary

   _______________________________ ____________________
   Patti Bradshaw, Chairperson Date