County of Monterey - File #: 11-659

• File #: 11-659
• Type: Minutes
• Status: Passed
• File created: 6/14/2011
• In control: Board of Supervisors
• On agenda: 6/14/2011
• Final action: 6/14/2011
• Title: Public hearing to consider: a. Certifying the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Monterey-Salinas Public hearing to consider: a. Certifying the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Monterey-Salinas

Date	Action By	Action	Result
6/14/2011	Board of Supervisors	approved

COMPLETED BOARD ORDER"�|E�
�S-9

Befo a the Board of Supervisors in and for the

C unty of Monterey, State of California

Resolution of Intention

Certify the Envin

SalinasTransit/Whisp

Adopt Ordinance am

rezone approximatel;

Design Review and

with Design Reviev

approximately 58 ac

Review and Site PI

Review and Site Plan

Grant appeal by Mi

County of Montere}

Planning Commiss

Facility/Whispering

Permit consisting of.

1) A Standard Subc

30.3 acres and 8`

101-056-000) int

ranging in size fr,

a drainage deten

Open Space pares

2) A General Devi

allowed, and site

Whispering Oaks

3) A General Dev(

Monterey- Salir

containing the

building; 2) a

o. 11-244

nmental Impact Report prepared for the Monterey-

ring Oaks Business Park project;

nding Section 21-11 of the Monterey County Zoning Maps to

58 acres of the project site from Public Quasi Public with

Site Plan Review Overlays PQP-D-S) to Heavy Commercial

and Site Plan Review Overlays HC-D-S) and to rezone

es of the same section from Public Quasi Public with Design

n Review Overlays PQP-D-S) to Open Space with Design

Review Overlays O-D-S);

nterey-Salinas Transit MST)/Redevelopment Agency of the

from the April 13, 2011 decision of the Monterey County

on denying an application Monterey-Salinas Transit

aks Business Park/ PLN090071) for a Combined Development

ivision Phased Vesting Tentative Map dividing two parcels of

2 acres Assessor's Parcel Numbers 031-101-041-000 and 031-

16 buildable lots including a 24.4 acre lot and 15 smaller lots

m 1 acre to 3 acres, a roadway parcel approximately 7.4 acres),

ion and percolation parcel approximately 1.7 acres), and two

is approximately 49 acres and 8.7 acres);

lopment Plan establishing Allowed Uses, Conditional Uses

development standards and design criteria for the proposed

Business Park;

lopment Plan and Use Permit to allow development of the

as Transit MST) administrative and maintenance facility

ollowing: 1) a 36,000 square foot three-story administrative

6,450 square foot two-story bus maintenance building; 3) an

t fuel/brake/tire building with underground tanks attached by a

18,620 square f

canopy to an

approximately 1

388 automobiles

4) A Use Permit to

a

on Lot 1 MST

1,000 Coast Li

improvements;

development wit

Approve Mitigation

Oaks Business Park

373 square foot bus wash/steam cleaning building; and 4)

acres of paved parking to accommodate up to 281 busses and

llow the removal of approximately 2,400 Coast Live Oak trees

arcel); 5) A Use Permit to allow the removal of approximately

ve Oaks on Lots 2 through 16, and for infrastructure

nd 6) An Administrative Permit and Design Approval for

in the Site Plan Review S") zoning district; and

onitoring and Reporting Plan for the MST Facility/Whispering

roject.

BIB]

40743-U01

COMPLETED-U02

BOARD-U02

ORDER-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104319-U03

C11-U03

BOARD-U03

ORDERS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

COMPLETED BOARD ORDER"�|E��S-9

Monterey-Salinas Tran

Oaks Business Park/PL

Army Landfill site, Fort

Approved staff recom

on July 12, 2011 with

approvals in Resoluti

appropriate responses t

PASSED AND ADOPT

Salinas, and carried this

it Bus Maintenance and Operations Facility and Whispering

110231, Redevelopment Agency of Monterey County, Former

rd Master Plan area)

endations a, b, c, and d listed above; directed staff to return

findings and evidence necessary to effectuate the proposed

n of Intent, including expanding trail analysis and any

comments and correspondence

D upon motion of Supervisor Armenta, seconded by Supervisor

4th day of June, 2011, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Supervisors Arm~nta, Calcagno, Salinas, and Potter

NOES: Supervisor Parke

ABSENT: None

I, Gail T. Borkowski, Clerk o

hereby certify that the forego

made and entered in the minus

Dated: July 8, 2011

the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey, State of California,

ng is a true copy of an original order of said Board of Supervisors duly

es thereof of Minute Book 75 for the meeting on June 14, 2011.

Gail T. Borkowski, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

County of Monterey, State of California

By

Deputy

BIB]

40743-U01

COMPLETED-U02

BOARD-U02

ORDER-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104319-U03

C11-U03

BOARD-U03

ORDERS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�
,�June 14, 2011

S-9

Public Comment

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�From: Wrona, James R CTR DMDC mailto:fames.wrona.ctr(a-)-osd.pentagon.mil]

Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 8:40 AM

To: 100-District 2 831) 755-5022

Subject: Whispering Oaks MST Bus Barn, etc)

Mr. Calcagno: Don't you think it's economically unwise for MST an entity already

under much financial stress and public scorn) to essentially start all over again by

razing trees, plowing the earth, and building from scratch, when an infrastructure

for their bus facilities is essentially already in place? The Marina Airport, as

suggested by the Planning Commission, is the obvious choice. It will prevent the

destruction of open space, fill the transit needs of the MST, and save MST large

sums of money. Please reject the request by MST to use the Whispering Oaks

property. Please recommend that MST use the Marina Airport facilities. Thank

you.

James Wrona

Prunedale CA 93907

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: Alan Ginos adginos@hotmail.com]

Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 10:14 AM

To: mst@mst.org; 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Oppose bus center on coast live oak habitat

Dear MST Directors and Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to MST and County Redevelopment Agency plans to

construct a bus center on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan

MacDonald Cavalry Trail.

While MST provides a good service for which all can be thankful, it is environmentally irresponsible

to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and

satisfactory sites for placement exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that

the County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-

planting seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along

Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old,

diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland.

The proposed placement would be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail

and its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey

Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82

miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior. A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous

value to County residency and draws visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset should

be unthinkable.

I am requesting that the MST directors withdraw their appeal of the Planning Commission's very

sensible denial and that the County of Monterey cooperate with other agencies to find an

appropriate place for the new transit facilities.

Sincerely Yours,

Alan Ginos

California Historical Artillery Society

6/9/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: marinademocrats@gmail.com on behalf of Luana Conley

luana.pipedreamsproductions@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 11:20 AM

To: MST@mst.org; frank@oconnell4us.com; 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Cc: fortordhistory@gmail.com

Subject: Supporting Sgt. Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail

Dear MST Directors and Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to MST and County Redevelopment Agency plans to construct a

bus center on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail.

While MST provides a good service for which all can be thankful, it is environmentally irresponsible to

construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and

satisfactory sites for placement exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison

Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of

trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland.

The proposed placement would be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey

Coastal Bike Trail, to I

miles of federal trails

to County residency a

unthinkable.

I am requesting that t

sensible denial and th,

place for the new tran

Sincerely Yours,

Luana Conley

Marina

831-884-9662

he Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82

n the Fort Ord interior. A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value

id draws visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset should be

he MST directors withdraw their appeal of the Planning Commission's very

t the County of Monterey cooperate with other agencies to find an appropriate

it facilities.

6/9/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: Liz Gheen fridaisy89@hughes.net]

Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 12:21 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Sgt Allen McDonald Trail/Whispering Oaks

Dear MST Directors and Board of Supervisors:

I

am writing to express my opposition to MST and County Redevelopment

Agency plans to construct a bus center on a coast-live-oak habitat and

vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail.

While

MST provides a good service for which all can be thankful, it is

environmentally irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres

of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory sites

for placement exist elsewhere.

Development

at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of

a kind that the County has pledged to protect and preserve. The

proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting seedlings

elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat

along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have

been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature

and biologically diverse woodland.

The

proposed placement would be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald

Cavalry Trail. This trail and its greenway are an irreplaceable link in

the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal Bike

Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access

Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior. A

coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to County

residency and draws visitors from all over California. Squandering this

asset should be unthinkable.

I

am requesting that the MST directors withdraw their appeal of the

Planning Commission's very sensible denial and that the County of

Monterey cooperate with other agencies to find an appropriate place for

the new transit facilities.

Sincerely Yours,

Liz Gheen

6/9/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: MarciHardy@aol.com

Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:13 PM

To: mst@mst.org; 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: no subject)

Dear MST Directors and County Supervisors:

I am in total support of the extensive efforts of Margaret Davis and others to create a permanent greenbelt /

horse trail / pedestrian space in the City of Marina. I ask you to help find a more appropriate space for MST so

that it doesn't impinge on the wonderful, permanent greenspace proposed for the area.

Certainly, this is the time to save whatever beautiful, natural landscape we can, and certainly there must be

plenty of other places to relocate MST. We have a chance now to create a legacy, much like New York's

renowned Central Park, so whatever you can do to help MST find a less invasive location would be greatly

appreciated by residents and visitors now and in the future.

Sincerely,

Marcia Hardy

Monterey

6/9/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: RICHARD EELLS eellsrichard@msn.com]

Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 2:22 PM

To: mst@mst.org; 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Cc: Friends of the Fort Ord Warhorse

Subject: MST/Whispering Oaks they're whispering don't kill us  we're still alive!")

Attachments: Fort Ord Hike

Attention MST Directors and Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my deep opposition to MST and County Redevelopment Agency plans for

constructing a bus depot and industrial park on a tract of land along Intergarrison Road where

there currently exists a thriving coast-live-oak habitat and the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail.

While MST provides a good service for which all can be thankful, it is environmentally irresponsible

to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and

satisfactory sites for placement exist elsewhere. I understand the city of Marina has offered a more

suitable site that would actually cost less to develop.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that

the County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-

planting seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along

Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old,

diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland as you can see by the

attached photos, taken along the trail about 2 weeks ago.

The proposed placement would be catastrophic to the Sgt. Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail

and its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network, taking citizen/voters from the

Monterey Coastal Bike Trail to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor,

and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior. A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds

tremendous value to County residency and draws visitors from all over California. Squandering this

asset would be unthinkable.

I am requesting that the MST directors withdraw their appeal of the Planning Commission's very

sensible denial and that the County of Monterey cooperate with other agencies to find an

appropriate place for the new transit facilities.

Sincerely Yours,

Richard Eells, concerned resident

Marina, County of Monterey, CA

6/9/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: Charles Field cjfield831 yahoo.com]

Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 10:18 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Whispering Oaks MST development

Please vote against the proposed site of this transit hub. The destruction of a beautiful healthy diverse ecosystem when places

exist in the area with infrastructure intact for such a development would be nothing short of criminal. We all watch the

Discovery channel and bemoan the loss of the Rain forest when subsistence farmers burn or Monsanto mines the land. You

have the chance to make a difference right now. That stand of trees can be your line in the sand against further needless

environmental destruction. Vote a resounding NO. Thank you. Mr. and Mrs. Charles N. Field

6/9/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�                     ,�Page 1 of 1

From: Linda OConnell locmom@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 2:37 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Whispering Oaks

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus

maintenance center and industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital

recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote

to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and encourage MST

to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are

offsetting savings in not having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many

sites, such as the Marina Airport, have preexisting infrastructure, adding to the

savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study will be equally

applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is

environmentally irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak

woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist

elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of

a kind that the County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation

to this destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss

of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers

may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature and

biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in

scattered locations about the former Ford Ord is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. This trail and its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall

network, taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina

Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal

trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency

and draws visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Linda O'Connell

6/9/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�

,�Page 1 of 1

From: Joseph Poulos poulosj@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 5:37 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Bus center construction

Dear MST Directors and Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to MST and County Redevelopment Agency plans to

construct a bus center on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan

MacDonald Cavalry Trail.

While MST provides a good service for which all can be thankful, it is environmentally irresponsible

to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while acres of blight go undeveloped

and satisfactory sites for placement exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that

the County has deemed worthy of protection and preservation. The proposed mitigation to this

destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful,

mature habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told,

this is NOT an old, diseased forest, as can be seen easily from the street.

The proposed placement would be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail

and its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey

Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Fort Ord interior, a total of about forty

miles of shared recreational use. A cohesive Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to County

residency and draws visitors from all over the State of California. Squandering this asset would be

a breathtaking waste.

I am requesting that the MST directors withdraw their appeal of the Planning Commission's very

sensible denial and that the County of Monterey cooperate with other agencies to find an

appropriate place for the new transit facilities.

Sincerely Yours,

Joseph Poulos

Matranga Floral Distributors

831) 424-5093

6/9/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�
,�Page 1 of 1

From: PAULA PELOT pfpelot@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 11:07 PM

To: MST@mst.org; 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Opposition to Plans to Construct a Bus Center at Intergarrision and Seventh Avenue

Dear MST Directors and Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to MST and County Redevelopment Agency plans to

construct a bus center on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan

MacDonald Cavalry Trail.

The trails and open space of Fort Ord are a regional resource, used by the ENTIRE County of

Monterey. Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of

a kind that the County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this

destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful

habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is

NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature, and biologically diverse, woodland.

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to reject this proposal because of egregious tree

removal and habitat destruction. The site is a very dense, coastal live oak forest. Preservation of

oak trees is part of California and local policies and no private developer in Monterey County

would ever propose this kind of egregious tree removal and habitat destruction. Legal battles erupt

in Carmel Valley and other parts of the county over just one or two trees. The County should be

held to the same standards it applies to others.

The proposed placement would be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail

and its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey

Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82

miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior. A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous

value to County residency, is a regional resource and asset, and draws visitors from all over

California.

It is environmentally irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while

blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory sites for placement exist elsewhere, such as the Marina

Airport which already has infrastructure. With tree eradication, replanting, and utilities, the cost of

a bus yard at this site probably exceeds one that could be placed at the Marina Airport. Have you

done a cost analysis of a project at the Marina Airport and compared it to this proposal? If not, I

ask that you do so before you rack up unnecessary monetary costs with this proposal and in a

single misinformed act, destroy an irreplaceable asset.

I am requesting that the MST directors withdraw their appeal of the Planning Commission's very

sensible denial and that the County of Monterey cooperate with other agencies to find an

appropriate place for the new transit facilities.

Sincerely,

Paula F. Pelot

728 Landrum Court

Marina, CA 93933

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�

,�Page 1 of 1

From: Donna Schulken dschulken@earthlink.net]

Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 6:57 AM

To: MST@mst.org; 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail

Dear MST Directors and Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to MST and County Redevelopment Agency plans to construct a bus center

on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail.

While MST provides a good service for which all can be thankful, it is environmentally irresponsible to construct a

transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while acres of blight go undeveloped and satisfactory sites for

placement exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the County has

deemed worthy of protection and preservation. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting seedlings

elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful, mature habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to

what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased forest, as can be seen easily from the

street.

The proposed placement would be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and its

greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to

the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Fort Ord interior, a total of about forty miles of shared recreational use. A

cohesive Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to County residency and draws visitors from all over the

State of California. Squandering this asset would be a breathtaking waste.

I am requesting that the MST directors withdraw their appeal of the Planning Commission's very sensible denial

and that the County of Monterey cooperate with other agencies to find an appropriate place for the new transit

facilities.

Sincerely Yours,

Donna Schulken

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�

,�Page 1 of I

From: Rivera, Janice CIV) jlrivera@nps.edu]

Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 8:21 AM

To: MST@mst.org; 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: I vote NO on bus depot on Cavalry tail

Dear MST Directors and Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to MST and County Redevelopment Agency plans to

construct a bus center on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan

MacDonald Cavalry Trail.

While MST provides a good service for which all can be thankful, it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes

undeveloped and satisfactory sites for placement exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a

kind that the County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this

destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the

beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have

been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically

diverse woodland.

The proposed placement would be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail.

This trail and its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers

from the Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith

Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior. A coherent Fort

Ord trail system adds tremendous value to County residency and draws visitors from all

over California. Squandering this asset should be unthinkable.

I am requesting that the MST directors withdraw their appeal of the Planning

Commission's very sensible denial and that the County of Monterey cooperate with other

agencies to find an appropriate place for the new transit facilities.

Sincerely Yours,

Janice Rivera

Monterey

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: Darius Rike darike@yahoo.com]

Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 10:50 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: MST Developement

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere. Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will

devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed

mitigation to this destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the

beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is

NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a

similar number of saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior. A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to

Monterey County residency and draws visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is

unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Darius Rike

3020 Eddy St

Marina, CA 93933

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of I

From: aaglenn@aol.com

Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 11:08 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Rejection of Whispering Oaks Development

From: Alice Ann Glenn

Monterey, CA 93940-6143

AAGlenn@aol.com

To: County Board of Supervisors

Re: MST Regional Bus Hub & Whispering Oaks Development

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance

center and industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan

MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County

Planning Commission and encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

I believe there is a better location for the new MST Regional Bus Hub than the one that

was part of the Whispering Oaks development and would have caused the loss of greenway

surrounding the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail--a senseless and irreparable blow to a

recreational thoroughfare from beach to federal trails. The trails and open space of Fort Ord

are a regional resource, used by the entire County of Monterey.

The County Planning Commission voted unanimously to reject the Whispering Oaks

proposal because of egregious tree removal and habitat destruction. The site is very dense,

coastal live oak forest. Preservation of oak trees is part of California and local policies. The

EIR suggested replanting of oaks elsewhere but the sites named are already mature forest and

grassland and will not benefit.. No private developer in Monterey County would dream of

proposing this kind of destruction. Legal battles erupt all over the county over one or two trees.

The County should be held to the same standards it applies to others.

I believe the Marina Airport would be an ideal location for the Regional Bus Hub.

Besides the potential to be cost efficient, I believe the Marina Airport location is also

Environmentally and geographically advantageous

Truly multimodal and interconnective, including air travel

There is infrastructure already in place

I ask you as Board members to affirm the denial of the Whispering Oaks

Development by the County Planning Commission.

Sincerely,

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: john-bonnie johnwhisler@comcast.net]

Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 11:24 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: MST bus maintenance center

Why destroy another county oak woodland when there is an alternative?

Bonnie Whisler

Seaside

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 2

From: Gowin, Henry M. on behalf of 100-District 2 831) 755-5022

Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 11:52 AM

To: Novo, Mike x5192; 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: FW: Proposed MST project

For the Whispering Oaks project file:

From: Nick Madronio mailto:ncmffd@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 10:27 AM

To: 100-District 2 831) 755-5022

Subject: Proposed MST project

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center

and industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan

MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the

County Planning Commission and encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded

site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting

savings in not having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the

Marina Airport, have preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the

completed building plans and EIR study will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the

need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes

undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a

kind that the County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this

destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful

habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this

is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland.

Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort

is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This

trail and its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 2 of 2

the Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access

Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and

draws visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Nick Madronio

831.710.0119

Sent from my iPhone

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: Michael Do Couto spookx12002@yahoo.com]

Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 11:52 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: MST Project

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Sincerely,

Michael Do Couto

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: Larry Telles larrytelles@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 12:05 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Cc: MST@mst.org

Subject: MST Transit facilities

Please respect and support the findings of the Planning Commission regarding the proposed Transit Facilities at

Ft. Ord.

Larry Telles

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 2

From: James Huggins jameshuggins@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 12:09 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Cc: Margaret Davis

Subject: MST Transit Center Development Proposal in Marina, CA

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center

and industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan

MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County

Planning Commission and encourage MST to find a more appropriate, non wooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting

savings in not having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina

Airport, have preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building

plans and EIR study will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the

wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes

undeveloped and satisfactory, non wooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate robust woodland of a kind

that the County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this

destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful

habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is

NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse Coastal Oak

woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered locations about the former

Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail

and its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the

Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access

Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and

draws visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

President Theodore Roosevelt stated on conservation of our land in 1916

Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if

permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all

useful and beautiful wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying the

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 2 of 2

the game belongs to the people.' So it does; and not merely to the people now

alive, but to the unborn people. The greatest good for the greatest number' applies

to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form

but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn

generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the

heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild

life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are

essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method.

Very truly yours,

James & Judith Huggins

Corral de Tierra, CA

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: Levi Jimenez levi.jimenez123@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 1:22 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone; mst@mst.org

Subject: Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail

Attachments: Support Letter 20110502.docx

Please reconsider development

Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail

Levi R. Jimenez

LEED Green Associate

Intern  BuildingWise, LLC

Phone: 831.214.7345

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�May 3, 2011

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald

Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning

Commission and encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings

in not having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport,

have preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and

EIR study will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes

undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind

that the County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this

destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful

habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is

NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland.

Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is

hardly mitigation.

This tree and habitat removal will upset the balance of local ecology in this area!!! In an

effort for ALL of Monterey County to become more sustainable, development should have

as minimal effect on local ecology as possible. Whe and if the area IS developed, please

consider the highest efficiency buildings as technologically possible.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This

trail and its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the

Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access

Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and

draws visitors from all over California. Please protect the assets that make our area beautiful

and attractive to potential economically stimulating sites such as this!

Very truly yours,

Levi R. Jimenez

LEED Green Associate

Phone 831.214.7345

Email levi.jimenezl23@gmail.com

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: Ken Howat khowat@csumb.edu]

Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 2:41 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: MST Bus Maintenance Center

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Ken Howat MA ATC

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: Elisabeth Gerrity elisabeth.gerrity@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 6:24 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Inappropriate Place for MST

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and industrial

park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I request

that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and encourage MST to

find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study will be

equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

It is environmentally irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight

goes undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been

told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland.

Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is

hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and its

greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal

trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws visitors

from all over California.

Squandering this asset is unthinkable. Please leave this land as your legacy to your county and constituents.

Very truly yours,

Elisabeth L. Gerrity

3209 Susan Avenue

Marina, CA 93933

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: maribeth hogoboom mhogoboom@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 8:07 PM

To: mst@mst.org; 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Redevelopment and Greenspace

Attachments: MST Directors and Board of Supervisors.docx

MST Directors and Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to MST and County Redevelopment Agency

plans to construct a bus center on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital

recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail.

While MST provides a good service for which all can be thankful, it is

environmentally irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak

woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory sites for placement exist

elsewhere.

Development at Intner garrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust

woodland of a kind that the County has pledged to protect and preserve. The

proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will not

compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Inter garrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old,

diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland.

The proposed placement would be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. This trail and its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network

taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian

Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the

Fort Ord interior. A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to

County residency and draws visitors from all over Cahfom a. Squandering this

asset should be unthinkable.

I am requesting that the MST directors withdraw their appeal of the Planning

Commission's very sensible denial and that the County of twn. rite cc cooperate with

other agencies to find an appropriate place for the new transit facilities.

Maribeth

MDBarnmaster Buildings

831) 760 2223

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�MST Directors and Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to MST and County Redevelopment

Agency plans to construct a bus center on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital

recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail.

While MST provides a good service for which all can be thankful, it is

environmentally irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak

woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory sites for

placement exist elsewhere.

Development at Intner garrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust

woodland of a kind that the County has pledged to protect and preserve. The

proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will

not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Inter garrison

Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an

old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland.

The proposed placement would be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald

Cavalry Trail. This trail and its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the

overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the

Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82

miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior. A coherent Fort Ord trail

system adds tremendous value to County residency and draws visitors from

all over Squandering this asset should be unthinkable.

I am requesting that the MST directors withdraw their appeal of the Planning

Commission's very sensible denial and that the County of Monterey

cooperate with other agencies to find an appropriate place for the new

transit facilities.

Regards,

Maribeth Hogoboom

Friends of the Fort Ord Warhorse is dedicated to the recognition and

preservation of the history of the Fort Ord Army warhorses and soldiers, for

the educational and cultural enrichment of the"c te,-f r_,,  its

visitors, and the nation."

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: John Bull toocrows@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 11:18 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Ft Ord Sgt Allen Trail

Attachments: 04302011 Letter to Supervisors.doc

I am an interested hiker and horse person who spends many hours each month in the Ft Ord, BLM

property. It would be a shame to loose this beautiful habitat to development.

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Cut and paste into email to cob@co.monterey.ca.us

Or mail to: Monterey County Board of Supervisors, PO Box 1728,

Must arrive before Friday, May 6>>

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

0

Salinas, CA 93902>>>

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald

Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning

Commission and encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings

in not having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport,

have preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and

EIR study will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes

undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind

that the County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this

destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful

habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is

NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland.

Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is

hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This

trail and its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the

Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access

Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and

draws visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of I

From: Bertrand Deprez bertrand@redshift.com]

Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 9:54 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: MST project at Ford Ord

May 3, 2011

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and industrial park on a coast-live-oak

habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the

County Planning Commission and encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not having to clear cut trees and fauna

or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed

building plans and EIR study will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally irresponsible to construct a transit center on

58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the County has pledged to protect and

preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful

habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is

hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and its greenway are an irreplaceable

link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith

Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws visitors from all over California.

Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Bertrand Deprez

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
� ,�Message Page 1 of 1

From: Pat McNeill pmcneill@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 4:08 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: MST proposal to Burn Rape and Plunder

Attachments: Pat McNeill pmcneill@sbcglobal.net).vcf

As a long time runner and mountain biker, I am appalled at all the claims I'm hearing about any serious

consideration of removing coast live oaks to make a parking lot. I'm certain you are too and I want you to know

that I support the board in resisting such nonsense. If someone really needs a parking lot, Ft. Ord proper is

paved and ready, and so are 10's of acres of Fritzche Field.

Pat McNeill

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Observation>>Hypothesis>>Evidence>>Theory. And Correlation does not denote cause.

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�!,�Message Page 1 of 1

From: Pat McNeill pmcneill@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 4:16 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: MST proposal-NO

Attachments: Pat McNeill pmcneill@sbcglobal.net).vcf

The coast live oaks on Ft. Ord have been returning to nature since the creation of Ft. Ord. It would be

unforgivable to develop that land into anything so drastic as blacktop!

Pat McNeill

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Observation>>Hypothesis>>Evidence>>Theory. And Correlation does not denote cause.

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�",�Page 1 of 1

From: Beth Norelli bethnorelli@yahoo.com]

Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 7:51 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: transit facility

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Elizabeth Colyear, M.A

343 Paradise Road

Salinas, CA 93907

831.663.2899

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�#,�From: Katie Stubbendick katiestubbendick@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 7:08 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Opposition to MST Plan

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in

not having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on

58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist

elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison

Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of

trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in

scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from

the Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor,

and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency--in fact my

partner and I would not have considered our 2009 home purchase without it--and draws visitors from

all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Katie Stubbendick

645 Hamilton Avenue

Seaside, CA 93955

Seaside homeowner, Monterey County cyclist, and Marshall School MPUSD, on the former Fort Ord)

teacher

1

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�$,�Page 1 of 1

From: ROBERT FRISCHMUTH frischmuth@prodigy.net]

Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 4:33 PM

To: MST@mst.org; 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: MST should give up on Fort Ord project Location

To: MST Board of Directors:

Please exercise your power to withdraw your appeal to the Board of Supervisors for

the proposed facility at the Whispering Oaks Business Park. The site has greater

value to the community as recreation and habitat.

Thank you for considering this.

Robert & Denyse Frischmuth

283 Grove Acre Ave

Pacific grove, CA 93950

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�%,�From: Lisa Fimby-Dukart Ifimbydukart@att.net]

Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 8:30 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: URGENT: STOP DESTRUCTION OF FORT ORD HABITAT

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and the Sgt. Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail that my

husband and I regularly enjoy.

Please uphold the Monterey County Voluntary Oak Woodland Stewardship Guidelines" that was

approved by the Board in 2009 by affirming the unanimous denials of this plan by the County

Planning Commission.

I am not against the vital services that MST provides to our community and support their efforts to

expand. However, alternatives are available and must be chosen to avoid destruction of an

environmentally significant area in this community that once lost will never be regained.

Sincerely,

Lisa Fimby-Dukart

314 Bishop Ave

Pacific Grove, CA

1

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�&,�Page 1 of 1

From: Greg Dukart dukieg@att.net]

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:04 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone; 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: URGENT: STOP DESTRUCTION OF FORT ORD HABITAT

Thursday, May 5, 2011

URGENT: STOP DESTRUCTION OF FORT ORD HABITAT

To: cob@co.monterey.ca.us

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and industrial park on a coast-

live-oak habitat and the Sgt. Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail that my husband and I regularly enjoy.

Please uphold the that was approved by the Board in

2009 by affirming the unanimous denials of this plan by the County Planning Commission.

I am not against the vital services that MST provides to our community and support their efforts to expand. However,

alternatives are available and must be chosen to avoid destruction of an environmentally significant area in this community

that once lost will never be regained.

MST also has alternative sites with great access and egress for their buses and vehicles that would prevent the destruction of

a beautiful open space we have in Monterey County.

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�',�Page 1 of 1

From: Trotrider@aol.com

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 11:10 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: stop the permit

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald

Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning

Commission and encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in

not having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison

Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of

trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in

scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey

Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82

miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Lisa Sheridan

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�(,�From: Jan Shriner shrinerforsure@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 11:29 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: MST proposal at Whispering Oaks site

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site. I understand another site has been

offered by the City of Marina to consider near the Blanco Rd/Reservation Rd intersection.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in

not having to clear cut mature trees and the oak woodland habitat. Many sites, such as the Marina

Airport, have preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans

and EIR study will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on

58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist

elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison

Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of

trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in

scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey

Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82

miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California.

Squandering this asset is unthinkable. Please help to relocate this proposal.

Very truly yours,

Jan Shriner

3086 Sunset Ave.

Marina, CA 93933

236-0905

1

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�),�Page 1 of I

From: Gary and/or Anna Courtright gacourtright@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 11:35 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Whispering Oaks

Dear

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the o t i  \ i I E  u  i 7 C t_ v rt i s  i,  r7 and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Gary Courtright

Salinas, California

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�*,�Page 1 of 2

From: Sheila Clark saclark63@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 11:36 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: MST proposed transit facility on Fort Ord

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus

maintenance center and industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital

recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I request that you

vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are

offsetting savings in not having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting.

Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have preexisting infrastructure, adding

to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study will be

equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is

environmentally irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak

woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist

elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust

woodland of a kind that the County has pledged to protect and preserve. The

proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will not

compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old,

diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland.

Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered locations about the

former Fort Ord is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald

Cavalry Trail. This trail and its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall

network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina

Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�+,�Page 2 of 2

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County

residency and draws visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is

unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Sheila Clark

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,,�Page 1 of 1

From: E Lang cdml_lang@yahoo.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 11:54 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Dear \1t

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the t, o u,1  t r< r~ t  i t   and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site, of which there are many to choose from.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from

the \   Coastal  to the Marina!  r  to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor,

and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over, i. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Elizabeth Lang

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�-,�Page 1 of 1

From: Laura.Smith@dole.com

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 12:03 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Fort Ord use

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and industrial park

on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I request that you

vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and encourage MST to find a more

appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not having

to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have preexisting

infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study will be equally

applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally irresponsible to

construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory,

unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the County

has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting seedlings

elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what

decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically

diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort

is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and its

greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal Bike Trail,

to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort

Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws visitors from

all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Laura Dietrich-Smith

Dole Fresh Vegetables

2959 Monterey-Salinas Highway

Monterey, Ca. 93940

831)-641-4312

831)-641-4332 Fax or Email Fax 818)-575-8218

The preceding e-mail message including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential or may be

otherwise intended as non-public information. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are

not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from

your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized

and may be unlawful.

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�.,�Page 1 of 2

From: Monterey Hostel mryhostel@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 12:10 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: MST transit center

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am a regular user of MST. I also manage the Monterey Hostel, which hosts over 10,000 guests each

year, half of which use MST buses we track this). I also live at 6th & Col. Durham, 1/2 mile from the

proposed site. At this location we are currently developing a new hostel integrated with an

environmental learning center, which will be a great addition to the former Fort Ord, which is quickly

becoming a hotspot for Green/Reuse/Environmentally responsible development. The Monterey College

of Law, Chartwell, and CSUMB have led the charge to make this a mecca for green re)development.

Don't make the mistake of undoing that momentum by approving the MST plan!

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�/,�Page 2 of 2

Aaron Ely

Manager

HI-Monterey Hostel

778 Hawthorne St.

Monterey, CA 93940

831-649-0375

manager@montereyhostel.org

www.montereyhostel.org

Our Mission: To help all, especially the young, gain a greater understanding of the world and its people through

hostelling.

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�0,�Page 1 of 1

From: Rina Kempton rinakempton@pacbell.net]

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 12:11 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: MST

I am opposed to the MST plan to construct a center at coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail. Please

vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission.

Thank you,

Rina Kempton

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�1,�Page 1 of 1

From: David Kelly davidmichaelkelly@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 12:28 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Bus maintenance site on Ft.Ord

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

David Kelly

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�2,�Page 1 of 1

From: Laura Cohan laura.cohan@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 12:34 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: I oppose MST's plan, please support our Planning Commission!

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Laura Cohan

1038 1st St #3

Monterey

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�3,�Page 1 of 1

From: Jon Dungan jrdunganl@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 12:55 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: MST transit site in Fort Ord

Dear Supervisors:

I oppose the MST plan to construct a transit maintenance center and industrial park in the coastal live-

oak habitat of Fort ORD. Destruction of the thousands of previous oaks and elimination of recreation

opportunities in this unique area would be unwise.

I urge you to vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planing Commission and to request

that MST find another site that is less damaging to the environment.

Alternate sites that are more appropriate are available. The presently planned site will close off one of

the few entrances to Fort Ord hiking lands.

The Oak forest at Fort Ord is an irreplaceable recreational asset. Hundreds of people use this area for

hiking, bicycling, and horse riding daily, and relatively few people even know about it. Imagine the

importance of this asset when more people are aware of it. As the surrounding cities of Marina and

Seaside and CSUMB become more densely populated, the need for the treed open space for recreation

becomes more pressing.

Destroying thousands of trees, which are principal carbon sinks and great providers of oxygen makes no

sense.

Please support best use of Fort Ord and encourage MS to find more appropriate site for the needed

transit center.

Sincerely,

Jon Dungan

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�4,�Page 1 of 1

From: Paul Liebenberg pliebenberg@earthlink.net]

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 1:04 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Transit facility location

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Sincerely yours,

Paul Liebenberg

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�5,�Page 1 of 1

From: jillechristensen@comcast.net

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 1:08 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Please spare live-oak habitat at Fort Ord

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that

the County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-

planting seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along

Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased

stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of

saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Jill Christensen

408-355-5880

18535 Main Blvd.

Los Gatos, CA 95033

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�6,�Page 1 of 1

From: dra@redshift.com

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 2:05 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a

bus maintenance center and industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat

and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I

request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County

Planning Commission and encourage MST to find a more appropriate,

unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site,

there are offsetting savings in not having to clear cut trees and

fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the

completed building plans and EIR study will be equally applicable at a

new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however

it is environmentally irresponsible to construct a transit center on

58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and

satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a

robust woodland of a kind that the County has pledged to protect and

preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful

habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may

have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar

number of saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is

hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald

Cavalry Trail. This trail and its greenway are an irreplaceable link

in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal Bike

Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access

Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey

County residency and draws visitors from all over California.

Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Dennis Andresen DDS

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�7,�Page 1 of 1

From: Sherry Reiker sreiker@cityofsantacruz.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 3:06 PM

To: MST@MST.ORG'; 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Cc: Friends of the Fort Ord Warhorse'

Subject: Fort Ord MST Development Application Opposition and Plea to Maintain Existing Trails & Trees

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Sharene Reiker

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�8,�Page 1 of 1

From: Jane Baker Birkelbach janebaker.birkelbach@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 3:14 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Proposed bus maintenance center on Fort Ord

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

First, let me state that both I and my family are supporters and users of MST's bus services. We are

grateful to MST for their services, especially at this time of exorbitant fuel charges. However, I felt

compelled to write and express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center

and industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald

Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning

Commission and encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

I recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County  as an MST user, however it is

environmentally irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight

goes undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison

Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of

trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in

scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and its

greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior. If the proposed site is pursued, access to these interior 82 miles

of federal trails will be cut-off for trail users.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Jane Birkelbach

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�9,�RECEIVED

0 L i ER  Cf1 t

y e.a 

v,(

r

KING CITY 2011 MAY 5 PM 4: I I

May 2, 2011

C A L I F 0 R N t A

CLERK OF THE BOARD

t3EPUTY

County of Monterey, Board of Supervisors

Gail T. Borkowski, Clerk of the Board

168 West Alisal St., 1st Floor

Salinas CA 93901

RE: Monterey-Salinas Transit Maintenance Facility Letter of Support

Dear Board of Supervisors:

The City of King is a member of the Monterey-Salinas Transit District MST) and recognizes the

important role that public transit plays in supporting our local economy, environment, and quality

of life in the region. While demand for public transit services continues to increase, Monterey-

Salinas Transit currently lacks suitably sized facilities to maintain and operate its existing fleet of

vehicles. In order to effectively respond to the greenhouse gas and vehicle emissions reduction

targets for our region as required under SB 375 and AB 32, MST will need to expand its fleet to

meet increased demand throughout the Monterey Bay Region.

Recognizing the need to grow, and in order to achieve efficiencies in operation, the MST Board

seeks to combine its transit bus operations, maintenance, and administration functions within a

single facility at the Whispering Oaks parcel on the former Ft. Ord as part of a joint development

project with the Redevelopment Agency of Monterey County. The site is perfectly located

adjacent to Intergarrison Road, which is planned to be the primary major east-west multi-modal

traffic corridor between the Salinas Valley and the Monterey Peninsula.

To date, MST has invested $4.7 million dollars in planned development on this site that is

consistent with the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan, Monterey County General Plan, and applicable

zoning ordinances. The development plan implements measures that go above and beyond the

requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and County General Plan for replacement/replanting of

oak trees removed from the site by exceeding the 1:1 replacement requirement. The Project

conforms to and promotes the Base Reuse Plan and County General Plan and will help to correct

the current job/housing imbalance on the Base. It represents a significant investment of

resources and jobs that will only benefit the residents of the communities within Monterey County.

Further delays to the approval of this project will result in increased costs and decreased

efficiency to Monterey-Salinas Transit which will have a negative impact on the services they

provide to the communities in our region.

The City of King encourages the Board of Supervisors to approve the proposed Monterey-Salinas

Transit/Redevelopment Agency development plan.

Sincerely,

Michael Powers,

City Manager

City of King

212 So. Vanderhurst Ave., King City, CA. 93930

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�:,�Page 1 of 1

From: Cathy Rivera rivera.cathy@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 9:01 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Transit maintenance center appeal by MST

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center

and industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan

MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County

Planning Commission and encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting

savings in not having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina

Airport, have preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building

plans and EIR study will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the

wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes

undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind

that the County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this

destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful

habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is

NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland.

Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort

is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This

trail and its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the

Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access

Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and

draws visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Cathy Rivera

Homeowner and Resident

2035 Cross Street

Seaside, CA 93955

831-915-7260

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�;,�Page 1 of 1

From: Larry Martin Im.landscapes@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 9:10 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Save our trees and trails!

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a

bus maintenance center and industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat

and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I

request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County

Planning Commission and encourage MST to find a more appropriate,

unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site,

there are offsetting savings in not having to clear cut trees and

fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the

completed building plans and EIR study will be equally applicable at a

new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however

it is environmentally irresponsible to construct a transit center on

58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and

satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a

robust woodland of a kind that the County has pledged to protect and

preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful

habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may

have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar

number of saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is

hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald

Cavalry Trail. This trail and its greenway are an irreplaceable link

in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal Bike

Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access

Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey

County residency and draws visitors from all over California.

Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Lawrence Martin

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�<,�Page 1 of 1

From: Caroline Ravan cheermom7263@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:33 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Stop the destruction of Fort Ord oak trees

Dear Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and industrial park on a coast-

a coast-live-oak habitat and the Sgt. Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail that my family and I regularly enjoy.

Please uphold the Monterey County Voluntary Oak Woodland Stewardship Guidelines" that was approved by the Board in

in 2009 by affirming the unanimous denials of this plan by the County Planning Commission.

I am not against the vital services that MST provides to our community and support their efforts to expand. However,

alternatives are available and must be chosen to avoid destruction of an environmentally significant area in this community

community that once lost will never be regained.

Sincerely,

Caroline Ravan

320 Bishop Ave

Pacific Grove, CA 93950

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�=,�Page 1 of 1

From: Shawn Lohay shawn@icogitate.com]

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 7:36 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Withdraw the MST Appeal

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

On behalf of Monterey Bay Equestrians, a club representing over 150 individuals, I am writing to express my

opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and

vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the UNANIMOUS

denials of the County Planning Commission and encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not having to

clear cut trees or replanting. Many sites, such as the open 25 acre parcel located near the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study will be equally

applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally irresponsible to

construct a transit center on 58 acres of land semi-forested with oak woodlands, while blight goes undeveloped on

the open corridor along Reservation Road, and other alternate satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the County has

pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will not

compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may

have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland.

Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered locations around the former Ford Ord lands is hardly

mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and its greenway

are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina

Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws visitors Equine

and otherwise from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable. Many members of our club use the Fort

Ord trails on a frequent basis and ride there several times each month. Our membership consists of individuals who

live in Monterey, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Benito and Santa Barbara counties. As President of our

organization I urge you to seriously consider WITHDRAWING the MST appeal.

Sincerely,

Shawn Lohay

President

Monterey Bay Equestrians

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�>,�From: Chris Mack gelffmack@gmail.comj

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 7:46 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: MST Regional Yard

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in

not having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on

58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist

elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison

Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of

trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in

scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey

Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82

miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California.

Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

1

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�?,�From: Chris Mack gelffmack@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 7:48 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: MST Regional Yard

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in

not having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on

58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist

elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison

Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of

trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in

scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey

Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82

miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California.

Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours, Chris Mack

i

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�@,�Page 1 of 1

From: Lindsay Overton lindsayao@yahoo.com]

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 7:57 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Ft Ord, proposed MST development  AGAINST

Hello, I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct bus facilities on irreplacable

habitat in Ft Ord. It is my opinion that a more appropriate alternate site could and should be found. I

visit Ft Ord frequently to ride my horse, ride my mountain bike or just run/hike. If this bus facility were

constructed it would impact the train network severely so that much of the current trail system would not

be accessible: Please do not let this happen.

Thank you for your consideration.

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�A,�Page 1 of 1

From: Marie Edgemon marieswindow@yahoo.comj

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 7:58 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Bus Maintenance Center

1~7~~i~c,

Dear

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the our,,.\ W;1111~ lone and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from

the ti Coastal to the Marina to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor,

and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Marie Edgemon

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�B,�Page 1 of 1

From: Slugmp@aol.com

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 8:17 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: MST Directors' meeting 5/9/11

Country Board of Supervisors:

As a member of Monterey Bay Equestrians, a bike rider and also a dog walker I am one of thousands of

recreational enthusiasts who use the trails at the former Fort Ord on a daily basis. Although we support MST

and public transit we agree with the Planning Commission's unanimous refusals to rezone open space for MST

Facility and Whispering Oaks Business Park. We urge MST to find an alternative site for their facility. We

support the greenway and Sgt. Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. The trails and open space of former Fort Ord is

an important regional resource. This is an opportunity for you all to do the right thing and preserve this

resource and yet still support MST by directing their focus to a different site. Thank you for your attention to

this very important matter.

Most respectfully,

Margaret and Phillip Pare'

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�C,�Page 1 of 1

From: Evan Francis efrancis@mbayaq.org]

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 8:21 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: new transit facilities location

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to begin anew.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Evan Francis

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�D,�Page 1 of 1

From: Brighde Indigo brighdeindigo@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 8:37 AM

To: MST@mst.org; 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Development plans for MacDonald Cavalry Trail

Dear MST Directors and Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to MST and County Redevelopment Agency plans to construct a bus center on a coast-

live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail.

While MST provides a good service for which all can be thankful, it is environmentally irresponsible to construct a transit

center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while acres of blight go undeveloped and satisfactory sites for placement exist

elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the County has deemed

worthy of protection and preservation. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will not

compensate for the loss of the beautiful, mature habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have

been told, this is NOT an old, diseased forest, as can be seen easily from the street.

The proposed placement would be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and its greenway are an

irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian

Center, to the Fort Ord interior, a total of about forty miles of shared recreational use. A cohesive Fort Ord trail system adds

tremendous value to County residency and draws visitors from all over the State of California. Squandering this asset would

be a breathtaking waste.

I am requesting that the MST directors withdraw their appeal of the Planning Commission's very sensible denial and that the

County of Monterey cooperate with other agencies to find an appropriate place for the new transit facilities.

Sincerely Yours,

Kay Allen

Board Member, California Historical Artillery Society

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�E,�Page 1 of 2

From: Marty Davis martydavis2005@yahoo.com]

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 9:14 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Re: MST Development Threat  Send Letters and Plan to Attend Monday, May 9 meeting

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

martha davis seaside

resident

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�F,�Page 2 of 2

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

T

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�G,�Page 1 of 1

From: Rose Ashbach besaflores@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 9:47 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Save Fort Ord

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Ruth Ann Ashbach

Today is the first day of the rest of your life.

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�H,�I

Page 1 of 1

From: hohos4@aim.com

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 11:03 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: MST plan for bus maintenance center.

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and industrial park

on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I request that you

vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and encourage MST to find a more

appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not having to

clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have preexisting infrastructure,

adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study will be equally applicable at a new

site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally irresponsible to

construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory,

unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the County has

pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will

not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers

may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland.

Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and its greenway

are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina

Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws visitors from all

over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Robbie Hohstadt

Salinas, CA

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�I,�Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald

Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning

Commission and encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings

in not having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport,

have preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and

FIR study will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes

undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind

that the County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this

destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful

habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is

NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland.

Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is

hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This

trail and its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the

Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access

Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and

draws visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

As a staff member of CSUMB and resident of Schoonover Park, it is important to me and our

community to maintain the open spaces left in Monterey County and plan future development on

existing abandoned infrastructure.

Very truly v ours,

Chris Villanukevj1

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�J,�Page 1 of 1

From: Chris Villanueva chvillanueva@csumb.edu]

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 11:34 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Urgent  MST Development on Open Spaces

Attachments: MST.pdf

Good Afternoon,

Please reconsider approval of the MST development along Inter-Garrison. As a bike commuter and trail

user, this type of development will Beverly impact the area in multiple ways!

Chris Villanueva

Credential Analyst

CalStateTEACH, Monterey Bay Region

100 Campus Center, Valley Hall B

Seaside, CA 93955

Office  831) 582-3106

Fax  831) 582-4620

chvillanueva cr csumb.edu

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�K,�Page 1 of 1

From: cm_crockett@sbcglobal.net

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 11:43 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Proposed MST Regional Bus Hub

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my apposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and repair

yard on 58 acres that currently sustains a mature oak woodland that is a vital recreational and ecological

resource or the County of Monterey. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the

County Planning Commission and that you encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site,

for example, near the Marina Airport, with its pre-existing infrastructure.

I support MST and public transit because they serve the community and help preserve our environment,

however MST's proposed site for the regional bus hub encompasses a wealth of trails and biologically

diverse woodland. The bull-dozing of 4,400 trees and destruction of the inter-connected wildlife habit

for this project is a senseless and short-sighted plan, especially when other locations are available.

Very truly yours,

Catherine Crockett

Seaside, CA

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�L,�Page 1 of 1

From: Diana & Jerry Cooley Cooleyfarm@razzolink.com]

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 12:47 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Cc: Margaret Davis; Cooleyfarm; Christrian Wood; Adore AlpacasJeanne Dorrance; Bob & Toni

DeGeorge; BRADWYN HUGGINS; Bunny Riley; Carol Brandt; Carol OBrien; Cheryl Camany;

Cheryl Pritchett; Cheryl Pritchett; Chris Kluga; Chuck McDonald; Cindy Councell; Dana Cefalu;

Debbie Conaway; dee murphy; Diann Frost; Ernie Huggins; Gene Smith;

gilroycarriage@earthlink.net; Gwen; Harry Councell; Jacqui Cole; Jan Jeffers; Joe Galvez; Judy

Malone; Kathy Smith; Kendra Wilson; Kim Hutchison; Linda Harbertson; Lisa Urzua; Melinda

Takeuchi'; Norma Tucker; RoxyMontana2@aol.com; Stan Botto; Sue Castro; Suzy Caston; Tina

Bowman

Subject: Please reaffirn your denial to MST on their appeal

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

We travel to Fort Ord at least once a week to use these trail and spend time and money locally while

there. This is a wonderful resource and the current MST plan would ruin more that the trail connections

but also destroy local habitat. They have other options!!!

Lets protect this area and honor previous committments and visions for trail connections that we

currently use; and, attracts many from outside the area as well, to this wonderful resource.

We speak not only for ourselves; but for the Western States Draft and Driving Association membership,

out of Hollister, California

Diana & Jerry Cooley

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�M,�Page 1 of 1

From: Bill Weigle billweigle@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 1:32 PM

To: sbannister@mst.org; mst@mst.org

Cc: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Withdraw your appeal of Planning Commission's unanimous decision

Friday, May 06, 2011

MST Board of Directors:

I request that the MST Board of Directors withdraw its appeal to the Monterey County Board of

Supervisors in pursuit of a new transit facility on Intergarrison Road.

The use permit to allow the removal of 4,400 Coast Live Oaks at the proposed MST/Whispering Oaks

site has been unanimously denied twice by the Monterey County Planning Commission. I'm sure as

responsible MST Board Members you have read the Planning Commission's findings. If you have not,

please go online to http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/cca/pc/2011/04-13-

11 /S Rpc_PLN090071 0413,11.pdf

and do so before your Board Meeting on May 9. I ask you please to notice on page 2 the finding that

Alternate sites may exist near the multi-modal corridor that need to be redeveloped and would be

environmentally superior locations for the proposed project."

Here is what is now well known by readers of the Monterey County Herald see Opinion Page on

Wednesday, May 4), by hundreds of recreational users at the former Fort Ord, and by our local

Sustainability communities, as well as friends of all of the foregoing: the MST Board has filed an appeal

and wants to remove 4,400 Coastal Live Oaks for a new center; alternative sites that are equally-well

situated are available; at least one such site the Marina Airport) will require no trees to be removed.

To further pursue the removal of this Coastal Live Oak Woods is a decidedly environmentally

unfriendly act which will not go unnoticed by those of us who otherwise fully support MST and public

transportation.

Please do the right thing and withdraw your appeal of the Planning Commissions unanimous decision.

Respectfully,

William F. Weigle

Seaside resident

Prof. Emeritus of Mathematics and Environmental Studies, University of Maine

831-899-7934

When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world."

 John Muir

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�N,�Page 1 of 1

From: JANE E KLOPP janek@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 2:14 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: opposition to the MST plan

TO THE SUPERVISORS

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Jane E. Klopp

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�O,�Page 1 of 1

From: Larry Parrish Iparrish@toast.net]

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 4:23 PM

To: MST@mst.org; 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail

Dear MST Directors and Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to MST and County Redevelopment

Agency plans to construct a bus center on a coast-live-oak habitat and

vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail.

While MST provides a good service for which all can be thankful, it is

environmentally irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58

acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory

sites for placement exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a

robust woodland of a kind that the County has pledged to protect and

preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful

habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may

have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland.

The proposed placement would be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan

MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and its greenway are an

irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the

Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the

Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the

Fort Ord interior. A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous

value to County residency and draws visitors from all over California.

Squandering this asset should be unthinkable.

I am requesting that the MST directors withdraw their appeal of the

Planning Commission's very sensible denial and that the County of

Monterey cooperate with other agencies to find an appropriate place

for the new transit facilities.

Sincerely Yours,

Larry Parrish

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�P,�Page 1 of 1

From: Harry Councell cdhma@garlic.com]

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 4:53 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Put MST Elsewhere!

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

We travel to Fort Ord on a regular basis, use these trails and spend time and money locally while there.

This is a wonderful resource and the current MST plan would ruin more that the trail connections but

also destroy more local habitat. They have other options!!!

Lets protect this area and honor previous committments and visions for trail connections that we

currently use; and, attracts many from outside the area as well, to this wonderful resource.

We speak not only for ourselves; but for the Western States Draft and Driving Association membership,

out of Hollister, California.

Harry Councell

President, Western States Draft and Driving Association

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�Q,�Page 1 of 1

From: Todd tr75773@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 9:17 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Protect Precious Woodlands

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Todd Paulson

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�R,�Page 1 of 1

From: Jennifer Anderson jka@cruzio.com]

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 9:41 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Monterey Salinas Transit Center at Fort Ord

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Jennifer Anderson

290 Sims Road

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�S,�Page 1 of 1

From: Caroline Rodgers caro414@earthlink.net]

Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 10:06 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Transit facilities plan

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�T,�Page 1 of 1

From: hummingdeer hummingdeer@yahoo.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 2:42 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and industrial park on

a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote

to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and encourage MST to find a more

appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not having to

clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have preexisting infrastructure,

adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study will be equally applicable at a new site,

allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally irresponsible to

construct a transit center on 58acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded

sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the County has

pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will

not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road  Contrary to what decision makers

may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland.

Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford On is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and its greenway

are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina

Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws visitors from all

over California  Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�U,�Page 1 of 2

From: Me surfbird04@me.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 2:54 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Please protect our live oak habitat

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the MarinaAirport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat alonglntergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina EquestrianCenter, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�V,�Page 2 of 2

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey Countyresidency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Sarah Lane

Monterey Co resident

And I VOTE.

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�W,�Page 1 of 1

From: sjupie sjupie@aim.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 5:09 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Whispering Oaks greenway

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center

and industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan

MacDonald Cavalry Trail.] request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County

Planning Commission and encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting

savings in not having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina

Airport  have preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building

plans and EIR study will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the

wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes

undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind

that the County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this

destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful

habitat along Intergarrison! Road  Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this

is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland.

Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort

is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This

trail and its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the

Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access

Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and

draws visitors from all over California  Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Sincerely,

Jenny and Todd Chaffey

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�X,�Page 1 of 2

From: Michael Geneau michaelgeneau@yahoo.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 7:20 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Whispering Oaks Transit Facility

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�Y,�Page 2 of 2

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Much Appreciation,

Michael Geneau

Santa Cruz, CA

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�Z,�Page 1 of 1

From: susan hawthbrne suejhawthorne@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 7:28 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Reloacte MST Development: It Threatens Thriving Woodland

Attachments: 04302011 Letter to MST.doc; 04302011 Letter to Supervisors.doc

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote, to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a ttansit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded bites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrisonp and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to proteqt and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement wilt be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Eqestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Susan Hawthorne

1752 St. Helena St.

Seaside, CA 93955

suejhawthorne@gmail.com

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�[,�Cut and paste into email to mst@mst.org

Or mail to: MST, One Ryan Ranch Road, Monterey, CA 93940>>>

Dear MST Directors:

I request that MST withdraw its appeal of the Planning Commission's unanimous denials and

find a more appropriate place for the transit facilities.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings

in not having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport,

have preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and

EIR study will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes

undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Interganrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind

that the County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this

destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful

habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is

NOT an old, diseased sttnd of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland.

Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is

hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This

trail and its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the

Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access

Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and

draws visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�\,�Page 1 of 1

From: Rocky Lewycky rlewycky@hotmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 9:20 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: trees are the answer

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and industrial park

on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I request that you

vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and encourage MST to find a more

appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not having to

clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have preexisting infrastructure,

adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study will be equally applicable at a new

site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally irresponsible to

construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory,

unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the County

has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-

will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision

makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse

woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly

mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and its greenway

are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina

Equestrian Center, to the Jerry, Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws visitors from all

over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�],�Page 1 of 1

From: Diana Wilson diartammorris@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 9:21 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Fort Ord

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and industrial park on

a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote to

affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and encourage MST to find a more appropriate,

unwooded site.

Although there may be costs in olved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not having to

clear cut trees and fauna or re lanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have preexisting infrastructure,

adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study will be equally applicable at a new site,

allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally irresponsible to construct

a transit center on 58 acres of Oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist

elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the County has

pledged to protect and preserv The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will not

compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may

have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland.

Replacement of a similar numb r of saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will bO catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and its greenway are

an irreplaceable link in the over network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina

Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws visitors from all

over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Diana Wilson

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�^,�Page 1 of 2

From: cooper scollan scbllancooper@yahoo.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 07,'2011 9:37 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: MST Plan

Dear Monterey County Boajrd of Supervisors,

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-li e-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vot to affirm the unanimous denials of the  oxrm i'iit nnur::, and

encourage MST to find a metre appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be cost involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport  have

preexisting infrastructure, aiding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable a~ a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MAST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a Transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded Sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrisqn and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�_,�visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Cooper Scollan

Page 2 of 2

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�`,�From: natasha n.fraley@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 9:43 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: MST plan

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors,

I am writing to express my opposition to the planned MST bus maintenance center. I urge you to vote

to affirm the County Planning Commission's denial. The planned site violates the County's oak

woodland conservation guidelines. MST asserts that it's the equestrian's opposing. But I'm not a

horse rider, but a hiker and someone who believes the County does the right thing in preserving oak

woodlands and not allowing projects that destroy oak habitat. Why not move the proposed MST

centertot the Marina Airport?

Thank you for your leadership on this matter.

Natasha Fraley

301 Crocker Ave.

Pacific Grove, CA 93950

i

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�a,�From: josh1728@juno.com

Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 10:51 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: proposed transit facility

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in

not having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport  have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes

undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destructiona�"planting

seedlings elsewherea�"will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison

Road  Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of

trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in

scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey

Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center  to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82

miles of federal trails in the Fdrt Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California  Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

1

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�b,�Very truly yours,

josh davidson

Groupon&#8482 Official Site

1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city&#39;s best!

http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131 /4dc586967d4af2c3949st03vuc

z

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�c,�Page 1 of 1

From: Loren Stirling loren@stirlingdesign.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 10:57 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: I object to bus maintenance center

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and industrial park on a coast-live-oak

habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the

County Planning Commission and encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not having to clear cut trees and

fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the

completed building plans and EIR study will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally irresponsible to construct a transit center on

58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the County has pledged to protect

and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the

beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of

trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered locations about the

former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and its greenway are an irreplaceable

link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith

Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws visitors from all over California.

Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Loren Stirling

www.stirlingdesign.com

loren@stirlingdesign.com

Tel: 831 464-3855

Cell: 408 691-2110

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�d,�Page 1 of 1

From: Dermott F Corr dfcorr@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 11:20 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Proposed Transit Facility

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport  have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road

Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California  Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Dermott Corr

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�e,�Page 1 of I

From: Aurora Bliss onetoadofyellow@yahoo.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 12:07 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald

Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning

Commission and encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in

not having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport  have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR

study will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes

undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison

Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of

trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings

in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail

and its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey

Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82

miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California  Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Aurora Reordan-Hartzell

3015 Sherman Rd.

PB, CA 93953

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�f,�From: Suzanne Muller suzmuller@comcast.net]

Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 12:46 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Transit Center Project

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in

not having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on

58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist

elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison

Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of

trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in

scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey

Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82

miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California.

Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Suzanne Muller

1

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�g,�Page 1 of 1

From: Melinda Travis melindaetravis@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 12:49 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Bus Maintenance Center

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

As a homeowner and resident, r am writing to express my opposition

to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and industrial

park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt

Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the

unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site,

there are offsetting savings in not having to clear cut trees and

fauna or replanting. Many sites,,such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the

completed building plans and EIR study will be equally applicable at

a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County,

however it is environmentally irresponsible to construct a transit

center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a

robust woodland of a kind that the County has pledged to protect

and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the

beautiful habitat along Intergarrlson Road. Contrary to what decision

makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of

trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement

of a similar number of saplings in scattered locations about the

former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan

MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and its greenway are an

irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the

Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the

Jerry Smith Access Corridor, andto 82 miles of federal trails in the

Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system odds tremendous value to Monterey

County residency and draws visitors from all over California.

Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�h,�Page 1 of 2

From: Elizabeth Murray omurray@elizabethmurray.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 12:54 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: opposition to the MST plan

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I walked the entire project and I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus

maintenance center and industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat. This is a beautiful environment of

mature 4400 oak trees!!! It is also a vital recreational trail, for walkers, mountain bikers and horseback riding

on the historic Sgt. Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote NO to MST and request them to

find a more appropriate, unwooded site. There are many with blighted decapitated buildings that need to

be removed and will only improve the site not deter from it. The land is all sand dunes and the removal of

the oak wood land will turn it, back to erosion and destroy beauty, habitat and history for Ft. Ord. Please

stand with the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission, they are correct in not approving

this building project.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt. Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and its

greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal Bike

Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in

the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws visitors

from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable. If the MST is well placed it can be an assist so

the public can take Public Transit to come here and hike and bike. MST put in an oak woodland makes no

sense to destroy one of the beauty spots of north county. Not only for visitors but residents of Salinas,

Marina and Seaside in particular need outdoor spaces to enjoy this is in their back yard and is a gate way

to the Monterey Penn. Lets make it a place we can all be proud of that brings recreation and beauty to

our area for the benefit of all Ft. Ord needs to be cleaned up and made safe so lets build new projects

like MST and future shops, cafes, and housing where building has already been and needs to be removed.

This takes creative planing which we are certainly up for.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally irresponsible to

construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory,

unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

This is a mature habitat of oak trees, a biologically diverse woodland, contrary to what decision makers

may have been told. Oak trees need to be in groves with mature understory to create a habitat to survive

and thrive on the sand dunes;. Most transplanted oak saplings will not survive- on their own with out proper

habitat being established first and having them planted in groves. Even an equal number planted is

not mitigation for beauty, air quality and beauty.

Development at Inter-garrisorh and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of this beautiful habitat along Inter-garrison Road.

I invite you to take a walk and have photographs to share with you of the habitat. I can see this area can

get cleaned up of poison oak and make into more lovely walking trails like Garland Park in Carmel Valley,

a jewel of the area.

Very truly yours,

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�i,�Page 2 of 2

Liizabetk Murray

62 Ave Maria Road

Monterey, CA 95940

T: 851.575. 1615

emurre3y6adizabetknuirmit).com

www.eliLabethmurrat).com

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�j,�Page 1 of 1

Hancock, Denise 796-3077

From: Susan Stirling swan@stirlingdesign.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 1:31 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Please consider that this can never be undone..

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws visitors from all

over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable, so I add my request, so I am writing to express my opposition to

the plan to construct a bus maintenance center and industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational

trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County

Planning Commission and encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not having to clear

cut trees and fauna or replanting, Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have preexisting infrastructure, adding to the

savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the

need to recreate the vheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally irresponsible to construct

a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist

elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the County has

pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will not

compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers may have

been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of

a similar number of saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and its greenway are

an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina

Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws visitors from all

over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Susan Stirling

www.stirlingdesign.com

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�k,�Page 1 of 1

From: Michael Rieser carmelbird@yahoo.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 4:12 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable atia new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit M$T services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrisoi and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision m ikers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Michael Rieser

Avid bird-watcher

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�l,�From: Steve Jackson steve.jwholdings@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 5:21 PM

To: mst@tnst.org; 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone; 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Fort Ord Rec Use

To whom it may concern,

I support MST and public transit.

I affirm the Planning Commislsion's unanimous refusals to rezone open space for MST Facility and

Whispering Oaks Business Park.

I affirm the Planning Commission's unanimous refusals to permit clear cutting of 4400 trees.

I urge MST to accept these refusals and find an alternative site.

I support the Greenway and Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail connecting the beach and BLM trails.

We must recognize the trails land open space of former Fort Ord as an important regional resource.

I am part of a community of thousands of rec enthusiasts who use and maintain trails at former Fort

Ord.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Steve Jackson

Sent from my iPad

1

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�m,�Page 1 of 1

From: Nickie Zavinsky ngckiezee@yahoo.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 07,12011 11:00 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Transit Facilities

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-li'e-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry

Trail. I request that you voto to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and

encourage MST to find a m~re appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be cost involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees andl fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport  have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable ata new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit M$T services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory, unwooded ites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrisoni and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will n4k compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road.

Contrary to what decision m4kers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of trees, but a

mature and biologically divese woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered

locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

its greenway are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail, to the Marina Eqiiestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of

federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

visitors from all over California  Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

Nickie Zavinsky

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�n,�Page 1 of 1

From: David Camner dcemner9@yahoo.com]

Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 7:25 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Save the Oaks!

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and industrial park on a coast-live-oak

MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I equest that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning Commission and encoura

site.

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not having to clear cut trees and

Marina Airport, have preexisking infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study will be

need to recreate the wheel. I

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally irresponsible to construct a transit cen

goes undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarriso and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the County has pledged to protec

destruction-planting seedli gs elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road. Cont

told, this is NOT an old, dice ed stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number

former Ford Ort is hardly mi igation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and its greenway are an irreplace

from the Monterey Coastal B~ke Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of fedei

A coherent Fort Ord trail sys~em adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws visitors from all over California.

Very truly yours,

David Camner

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�o,�Page 1 of 1

From: chris hartzell c.hartzeHl@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 10:14 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Re: MST Transit Plazo

Dear Monterey County Board 4f Supervisors:

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and industrial park on

a coast-live-oak habitat and vit l recreational trail, the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote

to affirm the unanimous denial of the County Planning Commission and encourage MST to find a more

appropriate, unwooded site.

Although there may be costs in olved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not having to

clear cut trees and fauna or repl nting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have preexisting infrastructure,

adding to the savings. Much of he completed building plans and EIR study will be equally applicable at a new site,

allaying the need to recreate th wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST ervices provide to the County, however it is environmentally irresponsible to

construct a transit center on 58 cres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded

sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergarrison al~ d Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the County has

pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting seedlings elsewhere-will

not compensate for the loss of t e beautiful habitat along Intergarrison Road. Contrary to what decision makers

may have been told, this is NO an old, diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland.

Replacement of a similar number of saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be

are an irreplaceable link in the o

Equestrian Center  to the Jerry

catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and its greenway

ierall network taking trekkers from the Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina

smith Access Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws visitors from all

over California  Squandering te asset is unthinkable.

Chris Hartzell

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�p,�Page 1 of 1

From: jkaras@sonic.net

Sent: Monday, May 09, 01 7:18 AM

To: mst@mst.org

Cc: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Proposed plan for MST maintenance facility

Greetings: As a lifelong resident 4f Monterey--and bus rider on and off for 40 years--I ask MST to withdraw its current plan

for development on Ft. Ord lands. The Planning Commission has twice rejected the plan, based on solid testimony that the

location would not serve the inter sts of the community at large and NOT best develop and protect the lands that have been

put in stewardship by city and cou ty officials. Instead, the facility could and should be relocated to an area near the Marina

airport. It may cost more, but it i truly the best outcome for the MST operations and the residents.

I was upset to read that the M T manager said that the trees would be replaced and more planted. Cutting down mature

trees is of no concern? These at living trees, not little mounds of earth that can be moved around. I am grateful for the green

practices put in place by MST. I t ust that the Board of Supervisors will eventually hear the arguments made pro or con, if

MST continues with its current pla  It isn't too late to reconsider and look at the more viable and environmentally sound

options. In the long run, they usu Ily are the more cost-efficient ones, I suspect. When one considers that our region

encompasses Salinas and the Mo terey area cities--and there will be light-rail connections and other transit links, the airport

site is a better one for all. If not t at one, then another may be available that also serves the requirements of the facility and

MST.

Thank you for considering my comments. 60 Boronda Lane, Monterey, CA

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�q,�From: CAB ulann62@yahoo.com]

Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:47 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Save the trees!

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my o position to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance center and

industrial park on a coast-liv oak habitat and the only recreational trail--the Sgt Allan MacDonald

Cavalry Trail--that links a sta e park, Fort Ord Dunes, to a de factor wilderness area--the BLM

overseen Fort Ord backcoun y. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County

Planning Commission and a courage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.

The hisory of land use planning on the old Fort Ord is riddled with mistaken early decisions that may

have seemed logical or were well intentioned at the time, but had dubious results. You probably can

think of a few yourself. Some of these have been retroactively corrected as when the Army and city of

Seaside exchanged land recntly. If the Army was unable to predict its own future land use needs

and had to make changes, it is no surprise now, given entirely changed circumstances with the

economy, etc., that it is appropirate for Monterey County to rethink the planned MST development

that will unnecessarily destroy some four thousand live oaks and make nearly impossible a

reasonable coast to backcouitry trail in Monterey County.

Although there may be costsl,involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in

not having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting and there is no sustitute for the loss of existing

biological diversity that will p evail with site destruction. Although it is a mitigation, you CANNOT

rebuild a diverse existing habitat by replanting new trees. A landscape, even if contiguous, will take a

generation or more to recover. Meanwhile, many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have preexisting

infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study will be

equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

I recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes

undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

I

Development at Intergarrisonj and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind that the

County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction-planting

seedlings elsewhere-will no

Road. Contrary to what decis

trees, but a mature and bioloc

scattered locations about the

The proposed placement will

its greenway are an irreplace;

Coastal Bike Trail, to the Mar

miles of federal trails in the F(

A coherent Fort Ord trail syst

visitors from all over Californi

Very truly yours,

compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along Intergarrison

on makers may have been told, this is NOT an old, diseased stand of

ically diverse woodland. Replacement of a similar number of saplings in

former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This trail and

able link in the overall network taking trekkers from the Monterey

na Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, and to 82

rt Ord interior.

m adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and draws

 Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

1

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�r,�Cameron Binkley

213 Sicily Road

Seaside, Ca 93955

z

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�s,�Page 1 of 1

From: Sandra Gray sanorag394@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 1:09 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: You are invited to view Sandra Gray's photo"

View Photo

Message from Sandra

They say that 1 picture is

proposed area for the MST

recreational Sgt Allan Mac

destroyed. Notice the beau

old growth? Where will the

ay:

rth a thousand words. Please enjoy this virtual hike through the

new transit center which would replace part of the beautiful

onald Calvary Trail. After viewing, ask yourself if you want this to be

iful wild flowers. How long would it take for saplings to replace all this

ild life go?

https://picasaweb.google.com/li/photo/3OFRydnrTG8wC7BquejORmKovSQ6-6W5a3fnRAegQdE?feat=email

get your own free Picasa Web

Albums account

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�t,�CITY OF DEL Rs,. t f, KS

650 CA ANPOHONEE(831) 394-8511 RE FAX B`'1)-~ 14F14l42N 93940

A 2: 10

CLERK OF THE BOARD

County of Monterey, Boa d of Supervisors May 9, 2Q1�L_,,,.

Gail T. Borkowski, Clerk f the Board

168 West Alisal St., 1st Fl or

Salinas CA 93901

RE: Monterey-Salinas Transit Maintenance Facility Letter of Support

Dear Board of Supervisors:

The City of Del Rey Oaks i a member of the Monterey-Salinas Transit District MST) and recognizes

the important role that pub transit plays in supporting our local economy, environment, and quality of

life in the region. While de and for public transit services continues to increase, Monterey-Salinas

Transit currently lacks appr priately sized facilities to maintain and operate its existing fleet of vehicles.

In order to effectively resp nd to the greenhouse gas and vehicle emissions reduction targets for our

region as required under SB 375 and AB 32, MST will need to expand its fleet to meet increased demand

throughout the Monterey B y Region.

Recognizing the need to gr w, and in order to achieve efficiencies in operation, the MST Board seeks to

consolidate its. transit bus o erations, maintenance, and administration functions within a single facility at

the Whispering Oaks parcel on the former Ft. Ord as part of a joint development project with the

Redevelopment Agency of onterey County. The site is ideally located adjacent to Intergarrison Road,

which is planned to be the rimary major east-west multi-modal traffic corridor between the Salinas

Valley and the Monterey Pe insula.

To date, MST has invested $4.7 million dollars in planned development on this site that is consistent

with the Fort Ord Base Reu e Plan, Monterey County General Plan, and applicable zoning ordinances.

The development plan impl ments measures that go above and beyond the requirements of the Zoning

Ordinance and County Gen ral Plan for replacement/replanting of oak trees removed from the site by

exceeding the 1:1 replaceme t requirement. The Project conforms to and promotes the Base Reuse Plan

and County General Plan an will help to correct the current job/housing imbalance on the Base. It

represents a significant investment of resources and jobs that will only benefit the residents of the

communities within Monter

y County.

Further delays to the approi1 of this project will result in increased costs and decreased efficiency to

Monterey-Salinas Transit w ch will have a negative impact on the services they provide to the

communities in our region.

The City of Del Rey Oaks eicourages the Board of Supervisors to approve the proposed Monterey-

Salinas Transit/Redevelopm nt Agency development plan.

Siiely,

Jerry E44en

Mayor

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�u,�r

Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

20 i I MAY I I PM 2:27

I am writing to express my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maint pc;n4er n

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt Aft h olid. i'\RD

Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning

Commission and encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.-  DEPUTY

Although there may be costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings

in not having to clear cut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport,

have preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and

EIR study will be equallj applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MS I services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes

undeveloped and satisfa tort', unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Intergar ison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind

that the County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction

planting seedlings elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along

Intergarrison Road. Con rary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old,

diseased stand of trees, but a mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a

similar number of saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placement will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This

trail and its greenway ar' an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the

Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access

Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord trail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and

draws visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�v,�Industrial Park/Bus Maintenance Center  NO!

From: Melinda Takeuchi thkeuchi@stanford.edu]

Sent: Thursday, May 12, 011 9:13 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Boprd Everyone

Subject: Industrial Park/Bus

Maintenance Center  NO!

Page 1 of 1

Dear Monterey Count Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express

center and industrial p

Allan MacDonald Cai

the County Planning C

unwooded site.

We travel to Fort Ord

locally while there. T

more that the trail con

my opposition to the MST plan to construct a bus maintenance

rk on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt

alry Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of

ommission and encourage MST to find a more appropriate,

4t least once a week to use these trail and spend time and money

his is a wonderful resource and the current MST plan would ruin

hections but also destroy local habitat. They have other options!!!

Lets protect this area

nd honor previous committments and visions for trail connections

that we currently use; nd, attracts many from outside the area as well, to this wonderful

resource.

We speak not only for

ourselves; but for the Western States Draft and Driving Association

membership, out of Hollister, California.

Melinda and Norishige Takeuchi

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�w,�CITY OF DEL R; Y,E.`A<S

650 CAN DEL

831) 394-85DEL RE FAXA`8`3'~)~i2'~ 4FJo442 A 93940

M2:'0

CLERK OF THE BOARD

May 9, 2QU___

RE: Monterey-Salinas Transit Maintenance Facility Letter of Support

Dear Board of Supervisors:

The City of Del Rey Oak is a member of the Monterey-Salinas Transit District MST) and recognizes

the important role that pi iblic transit plays in supporting our local economy, environment, and quality of

life in the region. While demand for public transit services continues to increase, Monterey-Salinas

Transit currently lacks appropriately sized facilities to maintain and operate its existing fleet of vehicles.

In order to effectively respond to the greenhouse gas and vehicle emissions reduction targets for our

region as required under B 375 and AB 32, MST will need to expand its fleet to meet increased demand

throughout the Montere Bay Region.

Recognizing the need to row, and in order to achieve efficiencies in operation, the MST Board seeks to

consolidate its. transit buoperations, maintenance, and administration functions within a single facility at

the Whispering Oaks parcel on the former Ft. Ord as part of a joint development project with the

Redevelopment Agency f Monterey County. The site is ideally located adjacent to Intergarrison Road,

which is planned to be t 4e primary, major east-west multi-modal traffic corridor between the Salinas

Valley and the Monterey Peninsula.

To date, MST has invest~d $4.7 million dollars in planned development on this site that is consistent

with the Fort Ord Base Meuse Plan, Monterey County General Plan, and applicable zoning ordinances.

The development plan elements measures that go above and beyond the requirements of the Zoning

Ordinance and County General Plan for replacement/ replanting of oak trees removed from the site by

exceeding the 1:1 replacement requirement. The Project conforms to and promotes the Base Reuse Plan

and County General Play and will help to correct the current job/housing imbalance on the Base. It

represents a significant investment of resources and jobs that will only benefit the residents of the

communities within Mo terey County.

County of Monterey, Board of Supervisors

Gail T. Borkowski, Clerk of the Board

168 West Alisal St., 1st Floor

Salinas CA 93901

Further delays to the ap roval of this project will result in increased costs and decreased efficiency to

Monterey-Salinas Transi which will have a negative impact on the services they provide to the

communities in our regi n.

The City of Del Rey Oal s encourages the Board of Supervisors to approve the proposed Monterey-

Salinas Transit/Redevelipment Agency development plan.

Mayor

Jerry E4ee en

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�x,�Dear Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

E;EG I V D

ON! Y

2011 MAY I I PM 2: 27

I am writing to expres my opposition to the MST plan to construct a. bus maintp en1 a klIJ

industrial park on a coast-live-oak habitat and vital recreational trail, the Sgt A17odrl

Cavalry Trail. I request that you vote to affirm the unanimous denials of the County Planning

Commission and encourage MST to find a more appropriate, unwooded site.-  DEPUTY

I

Although there may b costs involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings

in not having to clear ut trees and fauna or replanting. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport,

have preexisting infra tructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and

EIR study will be equally applicable at a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

We recognize the benefit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to const et a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes

undeveloped and satisfactory, unwooded sites exist elsewhere.

Development at Interl

that the County has pl

planting seedlings t

Intergarrison Road. C

diseased stand of tree;

similar number of sax

arrison and Seventh Avenue will devastate a robust woodland of a kind

edged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this destruction

lsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of the beautiful habitat along

ontrary to what decision makers may have been told, this is NOT an old,

but a mature and biologically diverse woodland. Replacement of a

dings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly mitigation.

The proposed placem nt will be catastrophic to the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. This

trail and its greenwa are an irreplaceable link in the overall network taking trekkers from the

Monterey Coastal Bike Trail, to the Marina Equestrian Center, to the Jerry Smith Access

Corridor, and to 82 miles of federal trails in the Fort Ord interior.

A coherent Fort Ord rail system adds tremendous value to Monterey County residency and

draws visitors from all over California. Squandering this asset is unthinkable.

Very truly yours,

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�y,�From: Claudial Vasquez Claudia.Vasquez@cityofsoledad.com]

Sent: Tuesda  May 17, 2011 4:16 PM

To: 112-CI rk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Letter f Support

Attach me nts: D0005~1711.pdf

D00051711.

pdf 50 KB)

Greetings Mrs. lorkowski,

Attached please find the sign~d letter of support. The original will follow in the mail.

Thank you,

Claudia Vasquez

Executive Assistant to the Ci

Administration Department

City of Soledad

831-223-5012

831-678-3965  Fax

248 Main Street

P.O. Box 156

Soledad, CA 93960

claudia@cityofsoledad.com

Manager

Please consider the environ l ent before printing this email.

Original Message-----

From: Toshiba_copier mailt svc-toshiba@cityofsoledad.com]

Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 201 4:05 PM

To: Claudia Vasquez

Subject: Scanned from MFP~04431180 05/17/2011 16:05

Scanned from MFP-044311 0.

Date: 05/17/2011 16:05

Pages:2

Resolution: 200x200 DPI

i

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�z,�May 17, 2011

County of Monte

Gail T. Borkowsl3

168 West Alisal S

Salinas CA 93901

RE: Monterey-

ey, Board of Supervisors

1, Clerk of the Board

 1st Floor

alinas Transit Maintenance Facility Letter of Support

Dear Board of Supervisors:

The City of Sol

recognizes the it

environment, an(

continues to incr

to maintain and

greenhouse gas a:

375 and AB 32, P

Monterey Bay Re

Recognizing the

Board seeks to

functions within

of a joint develo

site is ideally loc

major east-west

Peninsula.

To date, MST h

consistent with

applicable zonin

and beyond the

replacement/rep

requirement. T

General Plan an

represents a si

of the communi

dad is a member of the Monterey-Salinas Transit District MST) and

iportant role that public transit plays in supporting our local economy,

quality of life in the region. While demand for public transit services

ase, Monterey-Salinas Transit currently lacks appropriately sized facilities

perate its existing fleet of vehicles. In order to effectively respond to the

id vehicle emissions reduction targets for our region as required under SB

ST will need to expand its fleet to meet increased demand throughout the

ion.

need to grow, and in order to achieve efficiencies in operation, the MST

consolidate its transit bus operations, maintenance, and administration

i single facility at the Whispering Oaks parcel on the former Ft. Ord as part

ment project with the Redevelopment Agency of Monterey County. The

ated adjacent to Intergarrison Road, which is planned to be the primary

nulti-modal traffic corridor between the Salinas Valley and the Monterey

s invested $4.7 million dollars in planned development on this site that is

e Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan, Monterey County General Plan, and

ordinances. The development plan implements measures that go above

requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and County General Plan for

ring of oak trees removed from the site by exceeding the 1:1 replacement

e Project conforms to and promotes the Base Reuse Plan and County

will help to correct the current job/housing imbalance on the Base. It

ficant investment of resources and jobs that will only benefit the residents

es within Monterey County.

248 Main Street, P.O~ Box 156, Soledad, CA 93960  Phone: 831) 223-5000  Fax: 831) 678-3965  CityofSoledad.com

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�{,�r

Further delays to the approval of this project will result in increased costs and decreased

efficiency to Monterey-Salinas Transit which will have a negative impact on the services they

provide to the communities in our region.

edad encourages the Board of Supervisors to approve the proposed

Transit/Redevelopment Agency development plan.

Box 156, Soledad, CA 93960  Phone: 831) 223-5000  Fax: 831) 678-3965  CityofSoledad.com

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�|,�Regional Transportati n Planning Agency  Congestion M9tpa ernpr Pfannin

Local Transportation Commission  Monterey County Service Aut~ar dee d#ys~pissways

May 10, 2011

County of Monterey, I

Gail T. Borkowski, Cl

168 West Alisal Street

Salinas CA 93901

hoard of Supervisors

erk of the Board

 1st Floor

EPUTY

RE: Monterey-Salin*s Transit Maintenance Facility Letter of Support

Dear Board of Supervisors:

The Transportation A ency for Monterey County recognizes the important role that public transit

plays in supporting our local economy, environment and quality of life in the region. While

demand for public transit services continues to increase, Monterey-Salinas Transit MST)

currently lacks appropriately sized facilities to maintain and operate its existing fleet of vehicles.

In order to effective) respond to the greenhouse gas and vehicle emissions reduction targets for

our region as require under Senate Bill 375, MST will need to expand its fleet to meet increased

demand throughout t e Monterey Bay Region.

Recognizing the ne to grow, and in order to achieve efficiencies in operation, the MST Board

seeks to consolidate i s transit bus operations, maintenance and administration functions within a

single facility as part f a joint development project with the Redevelopment Agency of

Monterey County at e Whispering Oaks parcel on the former Ft Ord. The site is ideally located

adjacent to Intergarri on Road which is planned to be the primary major east-west multi-modal

traffic corridor betw n the Salinas Valley and the Monterey Peninsula. To date MST has

invested $4.7 million dollars in planned development on this site that is consistent with the Fort

Ord Base Reuse Plan and the Monterey County Regional Transportation Plan. The Project

represents a significa it investment of resources and jobs that will only benefit the residents of

the communities wit in Monterey County.

Further delays to the approval of this project will result in increased costs and decreased

efficiency to MST w ich will have a negative impact on the services they provide to the

communities in our r gion. The Transportation Agency therefore strongly encourages the Board

of Supervisors to ap rove the proposed MST Maintenance Facility project.

P: \Correspondence\2011\Outgoing\Sedoryk  Letter of Support for MST Facility.doc

55-B Plaza Circle, Salinas, qA 93901-2902  Tel: 831) 775-0903  Fax: 831) 775-0897  Website: www.tamcmonierey.org

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�},�C

y of Salinas

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR

RECEIVED

01211TEREY C01

200 L~ncoln Avenue Salinas. California PFFMAY 19 q8 117.5 201 Fax 831) 758-7368

GI-ERK OF THE BOARD

May 4, 2011

Gail T. Borkowski, Cl

County of Monterey B

168 West Alisal St. is

Salinas CA 93901

rk of the Board

ard of Supervisors

Floor

DEPUTY

RE: Monterey-Salinas Transit Maintenance Facility Letter of Support

Dear Board of Supervi

The City of Salinas is

the important role tha

quality of life in the

Monterey-Salinas Tral

existing fleet of vehic

emissions reduction to

to expand its fleet to n

Recognizing the� need

seeks to consolidate it

single facility at the

development project

located adjacent to Int

modal traffic corridor

To date, MST has it

consistent with the F,

zoning ordinances. T.

requirements of

replacement/replant

replacement require

County General Plan

represents a significa

the communities with

Further delays to th

efficiency to Montere

provide to the comma;

\\salsvr38\deptpvt\AdminCM\A

sors:

a member of the Monterey-Salinas Transit District MST) and recognizes

r public transit plays in supporting our local economy, environment, and

region. While demand for public transit services continues to increase,

sit currently lacks appropriately sized facilities to maintain and operate its

sles. In order to effectively respond to the greenhouse gas and vehicle

rgets for our region as required under SB 375 and AB 32, MST will need

feet increased demand throughout the Monterey Bay Region.

to grow and in order to achieve efficiencies in operation, the MST Board

transit bus operations, maintenance, and administration functions within a

Whispering Oaks parcel on the former Fort Ord as part of a joint

vith the Redevelopment Agency of Monterey County. The site is ideally

irgarrison Road, which is planned to be the primary major east-west multi-

between the Salinas Valley and the Monterey Peninsula.

vested $4.7 million dollars in planned development on this site that is

brt Ord Base Reuse Plan, Monterey County General Plan, and applicable

he development plan implements measures that go above and beyond the

the Zoning Ordinance and County General Plan for

ng of oak trees removed from the site by exceeding the 1:1

ment. The Project conforms to and promotes the Base Reuse Plan and

and will help to correct the current job/housing imbalance on the Base. It

it investment of resources and jobs that will only benefit the residents of

n Monterey County.

approval of this project will result in increased costs and decreased

y-Salinas Transit which will have a negative impact on the services they

pities in our region.

MIN\Mayor\Mayor 201 l\Ltr 051 May 4 Gail T. Borkowsk county of Monterey Board of Supervisors-MST

Maintenance Facility Letter of upport.doex Page I of 2

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�~,�Monterey County Board of Supervisors

May 4, 2011

The City of Salinas a courages the Board of Supervisors to approve the proposed Monterey-

Salinas Transit/Redevelopment Agency development plan.

cc: Salinas City Couny 1

Salinas City Mang r

Salinas Public Wo ks Director

\\salsvr38\deptpvt\AdminCM~ADMIN\Mayor\Mayor 2011\Ltr 051 May 4 Gail T. Borkowsk county of Monterey Board of

Supervisors-MST Maintenan~Ife Facility Letter of Support.dOCX Page 2 of 2

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�From: Louise & Peter Berry p lberry850@com cast. net]

Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 10:18 AM

To: 112-Clark of the Board Everyone

Subject: Pleas uphold your planning commission decision to deny MST in Ft Ord open space.

PLEASE DELIVER THIS MESSAGE TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. Thank

you.

Dear Supervisors,

I am totally in favor of increased public transportation and therefore support Monterey County

Transportation Services. That is not the problem. The problem lies in the misjudgment of trying to

again encourage commercial development while ignoring the needs of all citizens for open spaces

and the need to protect our trees. We have plenty of sand, but desperately need our vegetation!

The Monterey County Redevelopment Agency has neglected to consider the need for open space

Seaside has the least open space in the county) and for preserving trees and trails when it suggested

that MST build their maintenance yard right smack in the middle of trails and thousands of oaks. One

argument, that MST will plan trees to replace those bulldozed, does not hold water- it will be many

years- a very many

years- before the replaced tr es would mature!

Perhaps it will cost more money to change the location now, but in the long run, considering the long

term effects to our ervironm nt and open spaces, that is not so much. I understand that the powers

that be have spent a long time in this process and I am sorry that we, the public, took so long to

become involved. Perhaps i the future, public hearings could be available when open space is

considered for development.

Perhaps there were public h arings, advertised by the developer, before this. As I am a new comer,

of a year and a half, to Seasi e I don't know the answer to that.

I urge you to uphold the deci;ion of your planning commission to deny this permit. Please advise

MST that Marina airport is much more appropriate and has the support of the Marina community.

Thank you for your attention,

Louise Berry

24 Yerba Buena Ct

Seaside Ca 93955

831-920-1799

1

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of I

From: Joshua Soto joshu

Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2(

To: mst@mstjorg; 112-

Cc: fortordrecu@gmail.

Subject: Fort Ord Trails

Hello,

I am writing to get ignore info

to be developed in the wood

maintaining the are surrour

recreation. I wouldilike to k

the impact it would have on

you in advance for your tim(

Respectfully,

Josh Soto

m.soto@gmail.com]

i11 5:49 PM

clerk of the Board Everyone

om

irmation on a proposed bus maintenance yard and industrial park scheduled

and space along Inter-garrison road on the old Fort Ord. My concern is for

ding my community as well as keeping a green space for community

now more about the impact this development would have on the area and

traffic, flora and wildlife. I can most easily be reached by email. Thank

and quick response.

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of I

From: SUSAN L SCHIAV NE s.schiavone@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 9:34 AM

To: MST@M$T.ORG; 12-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Whispering Oaks Business Park, Ft Ord in general

Please add my support to mov

ng the MST Corpioration Yard and business park to the Marina airport area.....If

portance of forested areas for the health of the environment as well as people, this

people really understood the i

decision would be a rjo-braine

alone  incidentallyj someo

highway..... this piecle of prop

state beach.....if access for pe

really good idea would be to to

continuous corridor of wild are

get moved a bit and still work

use the areas aleady polluted and paved over.. leave what is left of nature

e shoudl look at the proposed shopping center at Lightfighter off the

erty is the only wildlife corridor that appears to be connecting to the Dunes

ple is an issue, then certainly access for wildlife should be considered as well  a

k over the current map of Fort Ord and think from their perspective  making a

that accesses the beach park would be the most sensible way to go.....things culd

ut. Thank you for listening.

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 2

From: jkeyes keymac@o snet.net]

Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 011 8:16 AM

To: 112-Clerly of the Bo ard Everyone

Subject: Letter concerning the County Planning Affirmation of the MST Yard.

To all Members of'the Monterey County Board of Supervisors,

My name is John Keeyes; I a Chairman of the California Equestrian Trails and Lands Coalition;

CET&LC represents 16 horse organizations that have a combined equine representation of over thirty

five thousand members.

I request that you the Count Supervisors affirm the April 13, 2011, decision of the County Planning

Commission concerning the MST corporation yard and industrial park, and that you urge MST to

withdraw its appeal.

Although there may be cost involved in choosing an alternative site, there are offsetting savings in not

having to clear cut trees an fauna or replant oaks. Many sites, such as the Marina Airport, have

preexisting infrastructure, adding to the savings. Much of the completed building plans and EIR study

will be equally applicable a a new site, allaying the need to recreate the wheel.

CET&LC recognizes the be efit MST services provide to the County, however it is environmentally

irresponsible to construct a transit center on 58 acres of oak woodlands while blight goes undeveloped

and satisfactory sites exist e sewhere.

Development at In ergarris n Road and Seventh Avenue will devastate a healthy woodland area a kind

of area that the County has pledged to protect and preserve. The proposed mitigation to this

destruction-planting seedl ngs elsewhere-will not compensate for the loss of a beautiful habitat along

Intergarrison Road, Contra to what decision makers may have been informed this is not an old,

diseased stand of trees but t riving and biologically diverse woodland.

Replacement of a s~imilar number of saplings in scattered locations about the former Ford Ort is hardly

mitigation. The proposed cl ar-cutting of 4,400 trees will be catastrophic to the beach-to-BLM

greenway that was Iset forth early on by FORA planners. The development will sever an irreplaceable

link in the overall network at takes trekkers from Pacific Grove north along the Monterey Coastal

Bike Trail to the m lti-use 4arina Equestrian Center trail hub, and along the Sgt Allan MacDonald

Cavalry Trail to historical cavalry features and 82 miles of federal trails.

A coherent trail system, such as Fort Ord, only adds to the tremendous value to Monterey County

residency and draws visitor from all over California. The Marina City Council is taking a stand

consistent with the'Plannin Commission's decision and is offering an alternative site. I ask you the

Monterey County Board of Supervisors to weigh in to prevent this loss of beautiful land and the loss of

historical trails.

Sincerely,

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 2 of 2

John Keyes: Chairman California Equestrian Trails and Lands Coalition

www.calequestriancoalition.

om/

5/31/2011

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: Karen Benzel Kan nBenzelPR@comcast.net]

Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 6:21 AM

To: 112-Clerks of the Board Everyone

Subject: Say NO to MST bu yard in Fort Ord!

Dear Board Members,

As a user of the space MST plans to build a bus yard in, I want to say that this is a

terrible thing tol do to he public who uses the trails at old Fort Ord. Surely they

can find another spot that doesn't require destroying a forest of oaks and historic

trails.

I am other lovers of o

hope is that you, the

Sincerely,

en space and natural lands will be fighting this and our only

oard of Supervisors, force them to change their plans.

Karen Benzel &IDan B umlik

PO Box 5334

Carmel, CA 939121

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�From: Harrie Mitteldorf harriet@redshift.com]

Sent: Friday June 03, 2011 12:33 PM

To: 112-C erk of the Board Everyone

Subject: PLEASE DENY MST REZONING REQUEST

1

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�6/3/2011 Obama Admin Rescinds Wilderness Prot...

real food

trailblazers for good

education

animal welfare

global warming

ernironment & wildlife

politics

health policy

human rights

women's rights

civil rights

join this cause

Digg Reddit Care2 StuntleUpon

care2 search web search

est from GinaMarie C.

lated actions

1/5

4E3O.''

DEPUTY

Objinv. ldrnirl Rescinds Wilderness Protection

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of I

From: Seth parisopolis@

Sent: Saturday, June 04

To: 112-Clerk of the B

Cc: mst@mst.org

Subject: Please Do Not Api

gmail.com]

2011 7:40 PM

ard Everyone

11

rove the MST plans

Dear Monterey County Supervisors,

Please do not overturn the

approval for the building of

concerned at the potential lc

and natural scenery of Fort

thousands of residents and v

lie within Fort Ord land. It i

important to bulldoze and di

could accomodate their nee

animals is a precious natura

meeting where you will disc

for other residents of the are

issue as this will not be a re,

Sincerely,

Seth Paris

Seth Paris, GCFP, CEES

seth@parishealingerts.com

http://www.parishe,alingarts

831.655.9611

ise and considered decision by the county planning commission to deny

the MST maintenance yard. As a Seaside homeowner and resident I am very

ss of these rec trails that provide access to the currently serene, beautiful,

Ord. This will affect the property values here as well as the quality of life of

isitors who will loose the hiking, biking, and horseback opportunities that

a huge natural resource that adds so much value to our area. This is far too

stroy for the purposed proposed by MST. I am sure there is another site that

s. Also the 4400 oak trees and the habitat they provide for many important

I resource that we need to be diligent in protecting. I am unable to attend the

uss this but it is still very important to me and my family and I know I speak

a that cannot attend. Please be very careful in your consideration of this

rersible situation once the destruction of the land and resources ensues.

com

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�I

Page 1 of 1

From: Patricia Puterbaug

Sent: Sunday, June 05,

To: 112-Clerk of the B

Cc: mst@mst.org

Subject: Greenway

Hello Monterey County Bo

Firstly, thank you very muc

bulldoze and clearcot acres

and rapidly disappearing. I

i pmputerbaugh@yahoo.com]

011 2:28 PM

and Everyone

m

rd of Supervisors and the Transit company of Monterey County

to the Board for turning down the request of the transit company to

f coastal oak woodland. Oak woodlands are a treasure for all California

is imperative that another place be found for the site. We have used the

on our trips to Monterey county. We have a home at Monterey Dunes and

1 tourists and residents use this trail for biking, walking and riding. It

bike trail many, many times

our family, friends and man

should be preserved.

I am a strong advocate for r4pid transit, but it has to be put in a place that will have the lowest impact on

scenery, traffic and the ecos

There are other sites in the

south of the landfill? Use a

Thank you,

Patricia Puterbaugh, 176 M

n

stem.

ounty that could be utilized. What about the area on the East side of Hwy 1

eas of the county that are already not functioning as habitat.

nterey Dunes Way, Castroville, CA

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of I

From: Susan Morse smo se@csumb.edu]

Sent: Sunday, June 05, 011 10:31 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone; Margaret Davis

Subject: No MST on FT Or

Dear Supervisors.

I am opposed to placing the MST terminal on Ft. Ord. This is not vacant land for the taking. This land

is used by people and animals, it is part of our Natural Capital, and is very important. Green

development demands that ST terminal should be in a location that is already barren as a result of

development. The Airport i ideal for this. There are lots a properties that are not empty as a result of

the economic decline. We o not want to reduce our Natural Capital, is it one of our most valuable

assets.

Economics Instructor,

School of Businessi

CSUMB

Susan Morse

Instructor, School of Busin0s

Office 82C #5

California State University, Monterey Bay

831 915-8691 cell

Never doubt that a small g~oup of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the

only thing that eves} does"

Margaret Mead

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�From: Paul T rner paturner@me.com]

Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 12:43 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Cc: mst@rnst.org

Subject: MST tree destruction

If this project goes ahead, I v

Monterey County Green" ap

ill support the making of a video for broadcast on Earth Day as the

proach to protection of the environment

i

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�T

From: John Sibert jsibert6@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Monday, June 06, 011 2:20 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Cc: mst@mst.org

Subject: MST / FORMER F'-. ORD

Page 1 of 1

We write:

In support of the Monterey County Planning Commission's unanimous decision

reccommending agains the MST current plan for the location of their hub".

In support of the Mari a Airport Business Park as a location. A reasonable site;

convenient to major ro dways; infrastructure already in place; less pristine habitat to

destroy.

In support of maintainiig a rich 8a diverse habitat that reflects the values, needs and

contributions of its citi ens in all stages of life.

It is our hope that you ill concur with the reccommendations of your planning

commission and avoid he destruction of one more natural ecosystem while

overlooking the blighte ghost town that was once Ft.Ord.

John D. Sibert

Mary A. Sibert

43 San Felipe Ct.

Salinas, CA 93901

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of I

From: Doug Smith dosm th@csumb.edu]

Sent: Monday, June 06, 011 3:38 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone; 100-District 4 831) 883-7570

Subject: Against MST on F rt Ord

Dear Monterey County Sup4rvisors,

I am writing to strongly obj ct to the proposed MST operations yard/Business Park proposed for Intergarrison

Road.

I travel past that site each da as I commute to CalState Monterey Bay for work. I also live close enough

to the site that I would probably hear the daily operations. I very much cherish the native oak woodland

forest that lines Intergarriso  and I highly value the ecosystem that it supports.

Please do not permit MST to relocate to the Intergarrison site.

Thank you.

Douglas Smith

1322 Patch Court

Marina, CA 9393

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of I

From: Suzy Worces er suzanne.worcester@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, Jun 06, 2011 4:19 PM

To: 112-Clerk of he Board Everyone

Subject: Reject appea by MST for Whispering Oaks site

Attachments: Letter to Boa d of Supervisors_MST_June5_2011.docx

Dear Supervisors,

Please see the attached le

Marina Airport is an excelle

Commission to deny the N

County.

Sincerely,

Suzanne Worcester

ter describing why moving the the MST Whispering Oaks project to the

it idea. I strongly encourage you to follow the advise of the Planning

T's appeal. Thank you very much for your time and service to Monterey

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Dear Supervisors Armenta, Calcagno, Salinas, Potter and Parker,

June 6, 2011

I thank you f r all of the service you do on behalf of Monterey County. However

I urge you to REJECT the appeal by MST to build both a bus operations hub and a

business park at the Whispering Oaks site on Fort Ord. I also urge you to support

building the MST hub at the Marina Airport. It is not too late to change locations

indeed changing locations will likely save taxpayers money. Please support the

unanimous recommendations your own Planning Commission on April 13.

Here is a list of r asons of why the Whispering Oaks site is the wrong location for the

bus operations yard nd business park:

1. The Whispers g Oaks site was designated as open space/habitat management by

FORA for almost all of the past 15 years. FORA only recently changed this site

to an MST location in just the last few years).

2. This project ill create blight on Fort Ord rather than alleviate existing blight. I

write this because East Garrison is a perfect example of taking open space and

turning it int blight. The economy will not support another business park beyond

the Marina A rport. Thus leveling intact oak woodland and letting more than half

of the site sit mpty, growing noxious weeds that are a problem elsewhere, is

creating blight. This opposes the goals of redeveloping Fort Ord.

3. The Whispering Oaks project will destroy thousands of oak trees including likely

heritage oak trees which are protected by Monterey County law. These oak

woodlands are currently used by deer, bobcats, coyotes, turkeys and other

wildlife. I ha e seen these animals at this location myself. Individual oak trees

are protected throughout Monterey County, why not on Fort Ord?

4. This land use is inconsistent with the CSUMB campus. The development around

campus should be student-friendly  light industrial" is not student-friendly.

Indeed the ca pus has moved strongly in the direction of more ridership on MST.

Introducing any different buses to the campus that are not intended for students

will confuse students and decrease ridership. It will also reduce the quality of

campus life b increasing outside, non-campus traffic.

5. The project is inconsistent with the 2010 Monterey County General Plan. The

Monterey County Planning Commission made that clear in their April 13 meeting.

6. The project destroys the Sgt Allan MacDonald trail as a recreational trail for

horses. It also destroys the planned scenic corridor from the coast to the BLM

lands. Anyone who has ridden horses knows that it will convert the current trail

through the oods into a dirt road through an industrial area. This will not be a

sufficient rep acement for the recreational corridor horse riders currently have.

7. Removing 4400 oak trees is increasing the carbon footprint of Monterey County.

This is inconsistent with AB 32 which is intended to have all of California reduce

its carbon foo print. Although MST says they will replant these trees, small I

gallon-pot trees are hardly a replacement for 100 year old oaks. To actually

replace these magnificent, slow-growing trees in-kind would a tremendous

amount of money. Any appropriate location for mitigation already has oak

woodlands on the site. If the idea is to replace blighted parking lots with oak

trees, it would, be much easier to build a business park and bus operations on old

parking lots then to try to coax oak trees on sites currently covered in parking lots.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�This just su

buildings anc

8. Why aren t tt

virgin habita

are just waiti

its buses on

Whispering

and from Gig

to be redevel

some clear a

Here is a list of reas

1. The Marina

has its own si

2. Because the i

of money. In

locations at tl

woodland are

3. The Marina /

immediate ac

Reservation I

thoroughfare;

for that high

4. We need a str

development

solution.

5. The Marina A

for wildlife.

the county's

intended for t

ports keeping oak trees where they currently grow, and keeping

concrete where they already are.)

sere efforts to get rid of blighted areas on Fort Ord? Why take out

when there are miles of parking lots and abandoned buildings that

ig to be redeveloped? Even the current location where MST parks

rigling between 7th and 8th Avenue would be greatly preferable to the

aks site. Indeed the area could be expanded from 6t Ave to 8th Ave

ling to Col. Durham. This would be a large area that actually needs

Aped. That is a good use of our tax dollars. The Marina Airport has

vantages as a building site that I will describe below.)

ns why the Marina Airport is the right location for the MST hub:

irport already has most of the infrastructure ready for MST. It even

oplight onto Reservation Rd. It also has sewer, water, power, etc.).

nfrastructure has already been built at the airport, this will save a lot

deed it may more than recoup the costs of switching project

ts date. Especially when the costs of trying restore an oak

included.)

irport is much better location as a regional bus hub. It has

cess to Salinas via Blanco Rd and immediate access onto

d and thus the Monterey Peninsula. Both roads are large

intended for high volumes of traffic. Intergarrison is not intended

f a volume of traffic.)

ong and vibrant public transportation system. I encourage the

of MST. Moving the site to an appropriate location is a win-win

irport site is covered with weeds that do not provide prime habitat

Phere is very little impact on habitat values and much less impact on

arbon footprint by developing at the Marina Airport. This parcel is

its type of development.

Here are some respo ses to the arguments made for the appeal by MST:

1.

2.

Most of the

just like all of

young trees, r

vibrant ecosy

Integrative Bi

example, I jug

on Fort Ord.

hawks, etc.) a

demonstrates

Too much in

fallacy of this

put in addition

being lost in t

also be extren

ak trees are dead at the site." The oak woodlands at this site are

0

the oak woodlands on the central coast. It has a combination of

edium-aged trees, older trees and dead trees. This is a healthy and

tem that provides habitat for many species. I have a Ph.D. in

ology.) Dead trees provide habitat as well as live trees. As an

t saw a pair of Western bluebirds nesting in the cavity of a dead tree

have seen many types of wildlife deer, coyotes, red-shouldered

the Whispering Oaks site. There very presence at the site

it is high quality habitat.

oney has already been spent on the Whispering Oaks site." The

argument is that the cost to level the site, install infrastructure, and

al traffic mitigation on Intergarrison, will likely cost more than is

e planning phases. The cost to effectively replace the oak trees will

ely high.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�3. It is too late  It is never too late to step away from a wrong decision  a

decision that will undoubtedly increase blight on Fort Ord. A right decision is

just down the road at the Marina Airport.

As a Fort Ord home wrier who pays all of my taxes to the County of Monterey I live in

unincorporated Monterey County), I want my taxes to be used in responsible ways that

benefit the local community. I see plenty of benefit in expanding MST services in the

county. I strongly encourage public transportation in Monterey County. However I don't

see any benefit in haying the project at the Whispering Oaks site when environmentally-

suitable alternatives xist in close proximity.

Sincerely,

Suzanne Worcester, Ph.D.

1604 Hodges Ct

Marina, CA 93933

sent via e-mail)

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�I

Page 1 of 1

From: h_neuwirth@comc

Sent: Monday, June 06,

To: 112-Clerk of the Bc

Cc: mst@mst.org

Subject: don't take the publi

Please re-consider that th

landlock access to prescri

Move it some where else

Hallie Neuwirth

Overhead trail maintenan

1980 Dolphin Dr.

Aptos, Ca 95003

ist.net

1011 10:34 PM

and Everyone

lands we have worked for

0 recreational trails are public open space. The MST project will

pted use.

pr expect civil suites.

e on HORSE BACK.

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: Kevin Johnson kej hnson@csumb.edu]

Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:08 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone; mst@mst.org

Subject: MST

Hello,

I am a writing today to enco rage you that it is not to late to move the MST location in Fort Ord. The

proposed MST transit system will needlessly destroy a large portion of the already heavily impacted

Oak Woodland of Fort Ord. With the presence of so many large open cement lots surrounding the

CSUMB campus and the Marina Airport I feel there are many viable options for the needed MST to

consider that will not permanently remove a large section of oak woodland from this small reserve.

Thank you,

Kevin Johnson

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 3

From: Daniel Shapiro ds apiro@csumb.edu]

Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 11:32 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: MST Operations Yard/Business Park

To the Monterey County Bo4rd of Supervisors,

I am writing in strong oppos tion to the proposed building of the MST Operations Yard/Business Park

along Intergarrison Rd. on the former Fort Ord. This is important and valuable habitat that supports a

vibrant ecosystem and is treasured by many, including myself. Please consider an alternative site that

does not require this level o destruction of natural habitat.

Why am I and many others) against this project? I support MST and more public transit in the area and

I even ride MST), but this is not the right location for the bus operations buildings and especially the

added business park!).

1. The project is large. It wi 1 clear all of the land from Fredrik's Park to main campus on the North side

of Intergarrison and turn it into a Bus Operations Yard and Business Park. It will cover 58 acres. This

alone will radically change the character of campus.

2. There is an alternative sit that is much better at the Marina Airport. At that site the infrastructure

sewer, water, electricity, etc.) has already been built. There is already a street light on Reservation Rd

that would work beautifully or this. The Marina Airport is a much better site for a bus hub as it it

centrally located between Salinas has access to Blanco Rd) and the Monterey Peninsula. Both

Reservation Blvd. and Blanc Rd are large streets that can handle high volumes of bus traffic. Our

campus is not intended to have large volumes of traffic. Huge volumes of bus traffic will not reduce our

campus climate. We do want buses on campus that are for carrying us to and from campus  we don't

want all other buses in the ar a to use campus as a thoroughfare.

3. Light Industrial" and co lege campus" don't go together. As Fort Ord redevelops, we need either

small businesses like pizza and coffee ships or open space next to campus. We don't need light

industrial areas. We need to improve the feel of the campus, not make it worse.

3. Why do we want to remove beautiful habitat when Fort Ord is covered in parking lots and abandoned

buildings which are just calli g to be redeveloped"? The MST/Whispering Oaks project will destroy

oak woodland habitat that is actively used by deer, coyotes, bobcats, turkeys and more as seen by my

own eyes). It doesn't make sense to waste redevelopment dollars on prime open space when there is

plenty of blighted land that need redevelopment. MST currently parks its buses on Gigling and 7th

Ave. If the Marina Airport s to is unsatisfactory, why not redevelop the parking lots between 7th and

8th Ave and Gigling? Or even add the abandoned buildings all the way over to 6th Ave to make a larger

project site? This is much preferred to the Whispering Oaks site.)

4. The project will cut down 400 oak trees. Heritage really large) oak trees are protected by the

County of Monterey. Other people have to get permits to cut down even one oak tree and this project

will remove 1,000's of trees. MST says they plan to plant 4400 oak trees, but they have proposed no

location where they would d this. Plus a bus station will grow" a lot better on abandoned parking lots

then thousands of tiny planted trees which will most likely die if planted in the blighted areas of Fort

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 2 of 3

Ord.) The project will also be removing coast live oaks which take many decades sometimes more than

a century) to become large tr.-es. Replanting such magnificent trees with a ton of little tiny 1 gallon

potted trees won't even come close to compensating the lost habitat. It is ironic the project is called

Whispering Oaks"  they won't be whispering much when they are buried in our landfill!)

5. The area has been zoned a Open Space since the mid-1990's. FORA the Fort Ord Reuse Authority)

designated it as open space a least as early as 1995 and only recently 2008?) changed its designation to

allow MST to develop the si e. It has been zoned as open space because it is part of a large recreational

trail system that intends to connect the ocean with the Bureau of Land Management's Fort Ord Public

Lands. Changing the zomin is inconsistent with open space and it is inconsistent with having a BLM

to the sea" trail system. It al o really negatively impacts the horse riders at the stables just north of

campus. They have just put in the Sgt. Allan MacDonald trail that crosses campus open space and

connects to the BLM land n to the newly painted stripes across Intergarrison for horse crossings). This

projects would remove this trail completely or turn it into an industrial corridor which doesn't work

well for skiddish horses vwhi h all of you who have owned/ridden horses before will know).

6. The project will create bli ht on Fort Ord. This is my opinion  but it is clear that the economy will

not fill a business park on In ergarrison for years possibly decades) to come. To see what I mean just

look at the Marina Airport B siness Park that has been sitting mostly empty for more than 10 years. To

see created blight" even mo e close to campus just go to the east end of Intergarrison past the

barricades) and see the East Garrison housing project. It is has been sitting idle for years. They cleared

all of the land including ma y acres of oak woodland  some beautiful land) and now it is just sitting

there accumulating weeds. I looks horrible and it was a beautiful place full of trails to walk before it

was razed).

7. Removing all of these oak trees increases the carbon footprint of our area. Rather than taking in CO2

and storing it as wood which oaks do), we'll just be releasing CO2 into the atmosphere from buses and

other people uses. This com ounds our climate problem. Our land mark CA climate bill AB32)

encourages measures to be adopted statewide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The County of

Monterey should not be exempt from following AB32.

8. It is a poor use of our tax ollars to redevelop prime open space. We've already spent tax dollars on

renovating the Marina Airport  and it is sitting only partially used. There is plenty of space at the

airport for this project. When we are all feeling the state budget cuts on our wallets, why waste our

money to create new blight? What does the campus community gain?

9. The Monterey County Pla ning Commission thinks the MST/Whispering Oaks project is a bad idea

too. In April they concurred that alternative sites exist that are environmentally superior, the

Whispering Oaks project re oves to many oak trees, and the oak tree loss has not been minimized to the

maximum extent possible. he County of Monterey should support their own staff recommendations to

move this project to another site.

Sincerely,

Dan Shapiro, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Science and Environmental Policy

California State University, Monterey Bay

Seaside, CA 93955

Phone: 831-582-3090

Fax: 831-582-4122

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 3 of 3

email: dshapiro acsumb.edu

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: JoAnn Cannon jca non@csumb.edu]

Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 011 12:20 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Support DENIAL of MST's proposed location on Intergarrison

Board of Supervisors  On ehalf of almost all of my students and myself as a faculty at CSUMB, I

respectfully and strongly urge you to NOT ALLOW MST to destroy wooded oak lands and build a huge

fleet operations facility at the Intergarrison location. We members of the CSUMB community are a

growing university. We are of an industrial site! It is not too late to change locations. MST will

undoubtedly save money by oving the project to the Monterey Airport because the infrastructure has

already been built. We beg ou to deny MST's appeal. Support the Planning Commission's denial to

MST to rezone our valuable, appreciated and needed woodlands.

As a citizen of Marina, I als believe our Mayor is correct that the MST should be at the Airport

location. It is appropriate' Ito have MST there as it is an industrial site that needs an anchor for it's

development and the access s best for the comings/goings/ fixing and parking for all those buses.

Why in the world would you not support the already studied Monterey Planning Commission's action

stating that MST can NOT rezone, tear up, build and pollute? Intergarrion Road isabsolutely not the

right location for bus ope-ati ns buildings and especially the added business park! Please stand up to

MST and do the right thing for our university community, the woodlands, our enjoyed trails, the wildlife

that needs a home too and th overall environment.

Help MST understand ands e they belong in the industrial park. Thank you for your consideration. We

shall be watching.

Dr. J.A. Cannon

CSUMB faculty &

Marina Citizen

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�NI 1, 11 11

N1  grey Co. my I? gird of S

PC:  x 1728

Sa its CA 93'?02

RE: isperf g Opt Busire!

Dr r Supervisors:

I  cannon affo 1 to ign

cu native ccntribt! ions oFr

on ves to he Jo ng oi`

Ac nistration U5 I inth C:ir(

Ba

ha

ac

Ad

Ca

d on the fates-: Iniversit

converted 325,1: 0 acres

s of oak forest 1:  help re

ILionally, 1 he es  dating d

iynia's goal of ducing f

even modest conrribut i,ns o g bai i'arming. j I global vorming s ths, result 13I-

c:r sot rces, any one moc' stir itsE  is tl re not o cifinger of losing the Jores: b y closing 1

individual tree?" Centei for Bic gica Diversity  National Highwa',, Traffic Safety

i ourt, 2007)]

I C lifo-nia figures 2007), CWF/Cal ern a Ciaks has es:imated that since 1S90 alifornia

1)a wcodlands to non-foi st u e.  its rn ans in California there are substanti;i lly less

e s atE C02 emissions to 1.990 eve by 2:)20 as regUi rl::d by Assembly Bill 32  006).

es ati n of oak woodlands wil I ma a it tl at much mc. re difficult and expensive to meet

n house gas emissicns to 1:10 PE rcer belo v 1990 levels by 2050.

Th peer-revii:roved f ublical:ic i a s 2D40: The Status and Fut ire if Oalk' in California" 2006) estimates that up to

75 000 acres of oaf resourc  re at rsk of conversion c) non for( t use by 2040. A, companion study, Carbon

Re urces in California Oak V'  cll nds" 2008), calculates that Ca orrii oak woodlands and forests could sequester a

bil n tons of carbc and] ui, 1:: 3 million tons of sequestered cai Iron ai a at risk by 2.340] of entering the atmosphere

sh iId develcpmer' process:. li rillina these Oakwood lands and rarest;, and their associated carbon pools."

Ca' ornia's green-house gas i IG) policy has placec a premiurl on once wing native Forests, specifically recognizing the

un: ure capacity of er:isting tr: to naturally sequester large qr ante ties of C02 over time and the adverse public health

eff Cts of disc hiargin,l; that sto 1 c rbon back into the atmosphere when wrests are unnaturally impacted.

Ca: I'ornia has officially design t:: I 02 a grave human health risk. id lie U5 has been the biggest GHG emitter in the

wc: d and California is the sec: i id-1 rgest C02 emitter in the U:>. Ir fact, i II the California Environmental Quality Act

CL'.  overriding r_c: nsiderati it  o er the past 40 years have been a significant contributor to the current GHG crisis.

Loy:. l indiscretion has been th r lra ddaddy of carbon cumulati re it pacts

Mc iterey County rni.ist ask its  if lowing the removal of 84 a cre<_ of oak woodland habitat is a globally responsible

act and the loss of 4400 coas:live ak trees healthy for its citi::ens.

CVi I'/California Oaks asks that an al ernate site be chosen for Whispering Oaks Business Park.

Janir 3. Cobb, Executive Of?fic( r

CWF/California Oaks / 428 13' Street, Suite 10A / Oakland, CA 94612 / 510/763-0282 / www.californiaoaks.org

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�From: Heather Kramp hk

Sent: Tuesday, June 07,

To: 112-Clerk of the, Bo

Subject: Please DENY MST

Yard

As a CSUMB student, I am

yard along the north side of

utilize frequently), and SOW

acres of Fort Ord next to CS

My desire to move to Monte

campus. The surrounding re

CSUMB's east campus hous

enriched my education. I ca

integrate into this education

enticing new students to enr

like restaurants, coffee shop

and horse trails that are pies

The site next to the Marina

operations park and busirles

Fort Ord. The airport and M

designed to handle higher a

will further diminish the 4u

transferred from a very larg

subdued and quaint nature o

this business yard continues.

will ruin the educational tin

facility.

In addition, there are acres o

could be reclaimed for a bus

environment, preserve habit

could minimize the traffic i

student, staff, and faculty, ho

road will clear thousands' of

practical options for MST's

I light of these facts, please

Commission to DENY ro'zo

Previously, the Monterey PI

sites, including the Marina a

this area of Fort Ord for the

Page 1 of 2

amp@csumb.edu]

011 4:04 PM

rd Everyone; mst@mst.org

s appeal for rezoning of Fort Ord land for a Bus Operations Park and Business

reatly opposed to the building of MST's bus operations park and business

ntergarrison road. I avidly support public transportation, MST which I

rt increased public transit; however, I cannot support the clearing of 58

MB for a business park.

ey and enroll at CSUMB was largely dependent on the character of the

reational and educational opportunities within Fort Ord, as well as

ng, supports a unique and wonderful learning environment that has greatly

not fathom any reasons for how an industrial park would positively

I setting. Considering CSUMB's college atmosphere and growth potential,

11 and supporting an educational environment through small businesses,

 and retail stores, or the recreational opportunities like the hiking, biking,

ntly used, is much more conducive to the current uses for Fort Ord.

irport already has the infrastructure and space necessary to support a bus

yard. In light of this, I strongly oppose using more tax dollars to develop

T's operations are conducive to one another and the airport site was

ounts of traffic that CSUMB is not designed to support. Increased traffic

ities of CSUMB that I was, and I'm sure other students are, attracted to. I

college in a very large city, which CSUMB and Monterey are not. The

CSUMB will be negatively and irreparably influenced if the building of

I cannot condone transforming Fort Ord into a conflicting use zones that

recreational qualities that make CSUMB a unique and exemplary learning

abandoned structures as well as empty and overgrown parking lots that

ness park, if absolutely necessary. This would minimize impact on the

t and recreational opportunities, and if placed appropriately near campus, it

pact along Intergarrison road, which is the primary connection between

sing and the campus. Clearing the site along the north side of Intergarrison

rotected oaks which need not be removed considering there are other, more

usiness park.

upport the previous decision by the Monterey County Planning

ing of the 58 acres on the north side of Intergarrison road in Fort Ord.

nning Commission determined there were other, environmentally superior

rport. Please support the Monterey Planning Commission on NOT rezoning

ST business park.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 2 of 2

I have, and will continue, to fully enjoy my educational experiences at CSUMB and the beauty of

Monterey which I now consider my home. Please don't allow the building of MST's business park

tarnish my future experiences here. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Heather Kramp

*********:******************************************************

Heather E. Kramp

Environmental Science, Technology & Policy Major

Concentration in Marine an Coastal Ecology

Mathematics Minor

California State University, 4onterey Bay

*********************** ****************************************

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�e

June 8, 201 1

NT VIA EMAIL TO: cob@co.monterey.ca.us

Itihas come to the attention of the Institute for Canine Studies ICS) that the

Bard of Supervisors will be considering some land use issues at Fort Ord that

ay impact the existing trail system and land we have some interest in.

e would like you to know that the Board of ICS strongly supports creating

a td maintaining a comprehensive and interconnected multi-purpose trail

s stem to allow people of all ages and abilities access to the wonderful and

v ried recreational opportunities provided by the natural lands throughout the

f rmer Fort Ord.

e believe such a network serving residents and visitors will provide an

ir1portant economic attraction as well as a valuable public amenity. ICS will

b glad to work with all the jurisdictions and stakeholders involved to help

ake such a concept a reality.

e also want you to know the ICS Board is unequivocally supportive of the

r cent unanimous decision of the Monterey County Planning Commission on

t is subject.

hank you for considering our point of view.

J el Gambord

resident & CEO

I istitute for Canine Studies

arina, California

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 2

From: Brittney Quon bquo

Sent: Wednesday, June 0

To: 112-Clerk of the i Bo,

Subject: Save Fort Ord!!!

Why am I and many others)

I support MST and more I,pu

location for the bus operatioi

1. The project is large. It!wi

of Intergarrison and turn it it

alone will radically change t

n@csumb.edu]

B, 2011 4:01 PM

ird Everyone

against this project?

lic transit in the area and I even ride MST), but this isnot the right

s buildings and especially the added business park!).

I clear all of the land from Fredrik's Park to main campus on the North side

to a Bus Operations Yard and Business Park. It will cover 58 acres. This

ie character of campus.

2. There is an alternative] sit that is much better at the Marina Airport. At that site the infrastructure

sewer, water, electricity, etc.) has already been built. There is already a street light on Reservation Rd

that would work beautifully or this. The Marina Airport is a much better site for a bus hub as it it

centrally located between] Sa inas has access to Blanco Rd) and the Monterey Peninsula. Both

Reservation Blvd. and Bltnc Rd are large streets that can handle high volumes of bus traffic. Our

campus is not intended tq ha e large volumes of traffic. Huge volumes of bus traffic will not reduce our

campus climate. We do wart buses on campus that are for carrying us to and from campus  we don't

want all other buses in the area to use campus as a thoroughfare.

3. Light Industrial" and'"college campus" don't go together. As Fort Ord redevelops, we need either

small businesses like pizza d coffee ships or open space next to campus. We don't need light

industrial areas. We need to improve the feel of the campus, not make it worse.

3. Why do we want to remo e beautiful habitat when Fort Ord is covered in parking lots and abandoned

buildings which are just calling to be redeveloped"? The MST/Whispering Oaks project will destroy

oak woodland habitat that is actively used by deer, coyotes, bobcats, turkeys and more as seen by my

own eyes). It doesn't make sense to waste redevelopment dollars on prime open space when there is

plenty of blighted land that need redevelopment. MST currently parks its buses on Gigling and 7th

Ave. If the Marina Airportite is unsatisfactory, why not redevelop the parking lots between 7th and

8th Ave and Gigling? Or e en add the abandoned buildings all the way over to 6th Ave to make a larger

project site? This is much p eferred to the Whispering Oaks site.)

4. The project will cut dow 4,400 oak trees. Heritage really large) oak trees are protected by the

County of Monterey. O{the people have to get permits to cut down even one oak tree and this project

will remove 1,000's of trees MST says they plan to plant 4400 oak trees, but they have proposed no

location where they would o this. Plus a bus station will grow" a lot better on abandoned parking lots

then thousands of tiny pla nt d trees which will most likely die if planted in the blighted areas of Fort

Ord.) The project will a so e removing coast live oaks which take many decades sometimes more than

a century) to become lar e trees. Replanting such magnificent trees with a ton of little tiny 1 gallon

potted trees won't even qo close to compensating the lost habitat. It is ironic the project is called

Whispering Oaks"  they v on't be whispering much when they are buried in our landfill!)

5. The area has been zoled s Open Space since the mid-1990's. FORA the Fort Ord Reuse Authority)

designated it as open sp ce t least as early as 1995 and only recently 2008?) changed its designation to

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 2 of 2

allow MST to develop the s

trail system that intends to c

Lands. Changing the zoom

to the sea" trail system. It a

campus. They have just put

connects to the BLM Ian

projects would remove this

well for skiddish horses vhi

6. The project will creat

not fill a business park o

look at the Marina Airpo

see created blight" even

barricades) and see the

e. It has been zoned as open space because it is part of a large recreational

nnect the ocean with the Bureau of Land Management's Fort Ord Public

is inconsistent with open space and it is inconsistent with having a BLM

so really negatively impacts the horse riders at the stables just north of

in the Sgt. Allan MacDonald trail that crosses campus open space and

ote the newly painted stripes across Intergarrison for horse crossings). This

rail completely or turn it into an industrial corridor which doesn't work

h all of you who have owned/ridden horses before will know).

blight on Fort Ord. This is my opinion  but it is clear that the economy will

tergarrison for years possibly decades) to come. To see what I mean just

usiness Park that has been sitting mostly empty for more than 10 years. To

re close to campus just go to the east end of Intergarrison past the

Garrison housing project. It is has been sitting idle for years. They cleared

ny acres of oak woodland  some beautiful land) and now it is just sitting

It looks horrible and it was a beautiful place full of trails to walk before it

all of the land includinglm

there accumulating weeds.

was razed).

7. Removing all of these loa

and storing it as wood vwhi

other people uses. This o

encourages measures to be

Monterey should not be exe

8. It is a poor use of ourlta

renovating the Marina Arrp

airport for this project.

money to create new blight',

9. The Monterey County PI

too. In April they conc

Whispering Oaks projec4 re

maximum extent possibl.

move this project to ano he

Brittney L. Quon

Third Year

trees increases the carbon footprint of our area. Rather than taking in CO2

h oaks do), we'll just be releasing CO2 into the atmosphere from buses and

pounds our climate problem. Our land mark CA climate bill AB32)

dopted statewide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The County of

pt from following AB32.

dollars to redevelop prime open space. We've already spent tax dollars on

rt  and it is sitting only partially used. There is plenty of space at the

en we are all feeling the state budget cuts on our wallets, why waste our

What does the campus community gain?

nning Commission thinks the MST/Whispering Oaks project is a bad idea

that alternative sites exist that are environmentally superior, the

oves to many oak trees, and the oak tree loss has not been minimized to the

The County of Monterey should support their own staff recommendations to

site.

Social and Behavioral Sciences, Archaeology

Global Studies

Resident Adviser, Avocet Fall

California State University,

Monterey Bay

Leb' die Sekunde"

 Bill Kau~itz

IMPORTANT NOTICE This message is intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential,

privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose any

information contained it th message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the

sender by reply e-mail a d elete the message.

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: Therese Potter tp ter@csumb.edu]

Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2011 8:03 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Bo ard Everyone

Subject: MST center in Fort Ord lands near CSUMB

This is a simple plea for he enial of the MST center in the Fort Ord Lands near CSUMB. I am a female

student who often 5 to 7I da s per week) hikes, runs and bikes in the Fort Ord area. I am extremely

uncomfortable with the p os ect of the MST development in Fort Ord near CSUMB. It is undeniable

that transit centers bring ra sient/homeless peoples into an area. Look around any major bus station in

America if you need prof. m sorry if this sounds prejudice but I am honestly worried for my safety

and the safety of my fell w tudents. The Fort Ord is pocked with abandoned military buildings and

perfect hidden campsite clearings. I feel illegal encampments in the Fort Ord have potential to be a

major issue should the ST center be developed. Please exercise precaution and do not jeopardize mine

or my fellow students sa ety

Thank you for your time.

Therese Potter

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: john-bonnie Uo nw isler@comcast.net]

Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2011 9:13 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Bard Everyone

Subject: Oak woodland

Dear Supervisors,

I urge you to follow the ec mmendation of the Planning Commission. I urge you not to allow the

destruction of another ak oodland in Monterey County. I urge you to advice MST to find another

location.

Sincerely,

Bonnie Whisler

Seaside

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�From: Rita Brown sadsack454@aol.com]

Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 10:05 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Oak trees & pg&e

Why is pg&e being allowed t clear cut oaks under the power lines? PG&E has made a decision to

clear cut rather than trim a h s been done in generations past. The notification has been sorely

lacking. There is absolutely no negotiation being done.

There is no consideration to property owners loss of value, loss of quite enjoyment our property.

Should I now find that the *al

now just walk away from it an

their easements. Who los s

and their easement maint na

property to abandonment, E

What can be done to stop th

David Brown 214 2058

Sent from my iPad

e of my property has declined as such that it can't recover, should I

turn the whole thing over to PG&E. Then who is going to maintain

hen? The county, it's 10,000 a year in property taxes surely, PG&E

rice that we now do, the Prunedale community that loses another

ERYONE LOSES, except the contractor who cut the trees.

is abuse of power and protect our environment for future generations?

1

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 3

From: Leslie Turrini-Smith turrinismith@yahoo.com]

Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2011 11:21 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone; mst@mst.org

Subject: MST operations] yard/business park on Intergarrison

Dear Board of Directors and M$T,

I am writing to strongly erco rage you to relocate the MST operations yard/Business Park along

Intergarrison Rd. next to he SUMB campus. Bottom line: the project will degrade the quality of life for

the campus community, cues roy valuable habitat and can be effectively located at another location at the

Marina Airport without the di advantages. Please vote to deny the MST operations yard/business part

from Intergarrison Rd next t the CSUMB campus.

Why am I and many others) a0ainst this project?

I su ort upp MST and more p bli transit in the area and I even ride MST), but this is not the right location for the

bus operations buildings ahd specially the added business park!).

1. The project is large and will adically change negatively) the character of campus.

2. There is an alternative site that is much better at the Marina Airport. At that site the infrastructure sewer,

water, electricity, etc.) has aIre dy been built. There is already a street light on Reservation Rd that would work

beautifully for this. The Marina Airport is a much better site for a bus hub as it it centrally located between Salinas

has access to Blanco Rd) and the Monterey Peninsula. Both Reservation Blvd. and Blanco Rd are large streets

that can handle high volumes of bus traffic. Our campus is not intended to have large volumes of traffic. Huge

volumes of bus traffic will not reduce our campus climate. We do want buses on campus that are for carrying us

to and from campus  we don' want all other buses in the area to use campus as a thoroughfare.

3. Light Industrial" and coIleg campus" don't go together. As Fort Ord redevelops, we need either small

businesses like pizza and doff e ships or open space next to campus. We don't need light industrial areas. We

need to improve the feel of the campus, not make it worse.

3. Why do we want to rem

which are just calling to be

that is actively used by dee

sense to waste redevelop

redevelopment. MST curr

unsatisfactory, why not red

abandoned buildings all th

Whispering Oaks site.)

ve beautiful habitat when Fort Ord is covered in parking lots and abandoned buildings

re eveloped"? The MST/Whispering Oaks project will destroy oak woodland habitat

coyotes, bobcats, turkeys and more as seen by my own eyes). It doesn't make

ent dollars on prime open space when there is plenty of blighted land that need

sntl parks its buses on Gig ling and 7th Ave. If the Marina Airport site is

We op the parking lots between 7th and 8th Ave and Gigling? Or even add the

w y over to 6th Ave to make a larger project site? This is much preferred to the

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 2 of 3

4. The project will cut down 4,4 0 oak trees. Heritage really large) oak trees are protected by the County of

Monterey. Other people have to get permits to cut down even one oak tree and this project will remove 1,000's

of trees. MST says they plan o plant 4400 oak trees, but they have proposed no location where they would do

this. Plus a bus station will g ow" a lot better on abandoned parking lots then thousands of tiny planted trees

which will most likely die if plan ed in the blighted areas of Fort Ord.) The project will also be removing coast live

oaks which take many decade sometimes more than a century) to become large trees. Replanting such

magnificent trees with a tong of ittle tiny 1 gallon potted trees won't even come close to compensating the lost

habitat. It is ironic the project s called Whispering Oaks"  they won't be whispering much when they are buried

in our landfill!)

5. The area has been zoned a Open Space since the mid-1990's. FORA the Fort Ord Reuse Authority)

designated it as open space at least as early as 1995 and only recently 2008?) changed its designation to allow

MST to develop the site. It has been zoned as open space because it is part of a large recreational trail system

that intends to connect the ocean with the Bureau of Land Management's Fort Ord Public Lands. Changing-the

zoning is inconsistent with o en space and it is inconsistent with having a BLM to the sea" trail system.

It also really negatively impact the horse riders at the stables just north of campus. They have just put in the

Sgt. Allan MacDonald trail that crosses campus open space and connects to the BLM land note the newly

painted stripes across Interoar ison for horse crossings). This project would remove this trail completely or turn it

into an industrial corridor Whit doesn't work well for horses.

6. The project will create blilght on Fort Ord. This is my opinion  but it is clear that the economy will not fill a

business park on lntergarrison for years possibly decades) to come. To see what I mean just look at the Marina

Airport Business Park that has been sitting mostly empty for more than 10 years. To see created blight" even

more close to campus just go t the east end of Intergarrison past the barricades) and see the East Garrison

housing project. It is has bee sitting idle for years. They cleared all of the land including many acres of oak

woodland  some beautiful Ian  and now it is just sitting there accumulating weeds. It looks horrible and it was

a beautiful place full of trail$ to walk before it was razed).

7. Removing all of these oak tr es increases the carbon footprint of our area. Rather than taking in CO2 and

storing it as wood which ooks o), we'll just be releasing CO2 into the atmosphere from buses and other people

uses. This compounds ouricli ate problem. Our land mark CA climate bill AB32) encourages measures to be

adopted statewide to reduce g eenhouse gas emissions. The County of Monterey should not be exempt from

following AB32.

8. It is a poor use of our tax d liars to redevelop prime open space. We've already spent tax dollars on

renovating the Marina Airprt  and it is sitting only partially used. There is plenty of space at the airport for

this project. When we are all feeling the state budget cuts on our wallets, why waste our money to create new

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 3 of 3

blight? What does the campus community gain?

9. The Monterey County Plan ping Commission thinks the MST/Whispering Oaks project is a bad idea too.

In April they concurred that alternative sites exist that are environmentally superior, the Whispering Oaks project

removes too many oak tree, and the oak tree loss has not been minimized to the maximum extent possible.

The County of Monterey sho Id support their own staff recommendations to move this project to another

site.

I think the above list indludts plenty of reasons to request the County and MST to move the project location.

I will be at the meeting next Tu sday to show my support of a location change for the MST facility.

Thank you,

Leslie Turrini-Smith

resident, Schoonover Park

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: Jennifer Young mil syoung@cruzio.com]

Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2011 2:23 PM

To: 112-Clerk of the Bo rd Everyone

Subject: Fort Ord and MOT

I am writing to ask you to pl ase uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous vote to not allow MST

to put their new facility in the Fort Ord/Coast corridor. There are many other open areas of land, not far

from there, that world be be ter and less destructive to the environment and would not destroy the

connection from the coa t t the interior of the BLM lands of Fort Ord.

Thank you,

Jennifer Young

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�From: JoeN G mbord jg@newjg.com]

Sent: Wedne day, June 08, 2011 2:37 PM

To: 112HCI rk of the Board Everyone

Subject: Fort Or J Trails

Attachments:

LETTE

RHEAD  ICS-k  Board of Suprevisors.jpg

LETTERHEA

CS-k  Board,

Please see altta hed letter.

1

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�7

Page 1 of 2

From: Stephanie Holland

Sent: Thursday, June,09,

To: 112-Clerk of the, Bo

Subject: MST ope~ationsi yai

Please do not build the MST

change locations a d money

infrastructure has a ready be

MST), but CSUM is no th

business park). The large a

atmosphere and en iron en

There is an alternat ve site t

sewer, water, elect icity, et

that would work be utifu.ly

centrally located between S

Reservation Blvd. nd Bl n

campus is not intended t ha

our campus climate. We o

don't want all other buse in

campus" don't got gethe

coffee ships or open spac n

feel of the campus, not mak

Why do we want t remove

buildings which arc! just all

oak woodland habitat th is

own eyes). It doesn't make s

plenty of blighted 1 nd that

Ave. If the Marina Airport s

Ave and Gigling? Or eve a

project site? This i much pr

The project will cu dow 4,

of Monterey. Other people

remove thousands of trees.

location where the wou

than thousands oft ny pl

Ord. The project w 1l als

a century) to become lar

potted trees won't even c

Whispering Oak- the

The area has been;

designated it as op(

MST to develop the

system that intends

sreis@csumb.edu]

2011 12:51 AM

and Everyone

d/Business Park along Intergarrison Rd

operations yard/Business Park along Intergarrison Rd. It is not too late to

will be saved if the project is moved to the Monterey Airport because the

n built. I support MST and more public transit in the area and I even ride

right location for the bus operations buildings and especially the added

ount of space that it would alter would greatly affect the CSUMB

at is much better at the Marina Airport. At that site the infrastructure

 has already been built. There is already a street light on Reservation Rd

or this. The Marina Airport is a much better site for a bus hub as it is

inas has access to Blanco Rd) and the Monterey Peninsula. Both

o Rd are large streets that can handle high volumes of bus traffic. Our

e large volumes of traffic and huge volumes of bus traffic will not reduce

ant buses on campus that are for carrying us to and from campus  we

he area to use campus as a thoroughfare. Light Industrial" and college

s Fort Ord redevelops, we need either small businesses like pizza and

xt to campus. We don't need light industrial areas. We need to improve the

it worse.

eautiful habitat when Fort Ord is covered in parking lots and abandoned

ng to be redeveloped"? The MST/Whispering Oaks project will destroy

actively used by deer, coyotes, bobcats, turkeys and more as seen by my

rise to waste redevelopment dollars on prime open space when there is

eeds redevelopment. MST currently parks its buses on Gigling and 7th

to is unsatisfactory, why not redevelop the parking lots between 7th and 8th

d the abandoned buildings all the way over to 6th Ave to make a larger

ferred to the Whispering Oaks site.

00 oak trees. Heritage really large) oak trees are protected by the County

ave to get permits to cut down even one oak tree and this project will

ST says they plan to plant 4,400 oak trees, but they have proposed no

this. Plus a bus station will grow" a lot better on abandoned parking lots

d trees which will most likely die if planted in the blighted areas of Fort

removing coast live oaks which take many decades sometimes more than

ees. Replanting such magnificent trees with a ton of little tiny 1 gallon

close to compensating the lost habitat. It is ironic the project is called

n't be whispering much when they are buried in our landfill.

pen Space since the mid-1990's. FORA the Fort Ord Reuse Authority)

t least as early as 1995 and only recently changed its designation to allow

as been zoned as open space because it is part of a large recreational trail

t the ocean with the Bureau of Land Management's Fort Ord Public Lands.

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 2 of 2

Changing the zoning is inco

sea" trail system. It also real

They have just put in the Sgt

BLM land. This projects' w

doesn't work well for skiddi

The project will create bl

Intergarrison for ye rs p

sistent with open space and it is inconsistent with having a BLM to the

y negatively impacts the horse riders at the stables just north of campus.

Allan MacDonald trail that crosses campus open space and connects to the

uld remove this trail completely or turn it into an industrial corridor which

horses, which those who have owned/ridden horses before will know).

gh on Fort Ord. It is clear that the economy will not fill a business park on

ss'bly decades) to come. Just look at the Marina Airport Business Park that

has been sitting mo tly e pt

campus just go tote east en

project. It is has ben sitting

woodland  some b auti 1 1

whereas before it was a b

Removing all of these oa tr

and storing it as wood w is

other people uses. This c m

encourages measures to b a

Monterey should not bee e

It is a poor use of our tax 1ol

renovating the Marina Aii-po

airport for this prof ct an in

feeling the state budget c is

campus community! gain?,,

The Monterey County Pl nn

In April they concurred that

Oaks project removes too in

extent possible. The Cour ty

project to another si e.

for more than 10 years. To see created blight" even more close to

of Intergarrison past the barricades) and see the East Garrison housing

dle for years. They cleared all of the land including many acres of oak

nd) and now it is just sitting there accumulating weeds. It looks horrible,

iful place full of trails to walk before it was razed.

es increases the carbon footprint of our area. Rather than taking in CO2

oaks do), we'll just be releasing CO2 into the atmosphere from buses and

ounds our climate problem. Our land mark CA climate bill AB32)

opted statewide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The County of

pt from following AB32.

ars to redevelop prime open space. We've already spent tax dollars on

 and it is sitting only partially used. There is plenty of space at the

y even help bring more business to the Marina Airport. When we are all

n our wallets, why waste our money to create new blight? What does the

ng Commission thinks the MST/Whispering Oaks project is a bad idea too.

lternative sites exist that are environmentally superior, the Whispering

ny oak trees, and the oak tree loss has not been minimized to the maximum

f Monterey should support their own staff recommendations to move this

Please do the right thing and move this project. Do not allow the MST/Whispering Oaks project to occur

and ruin our beauti 1 canpu

Thank You.

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 2

From: margaretdavis fo ordrecu@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 10:39 AM

To: 100-Distr ct 1 8j31) 647-7991

Cc: 112-Clerk of th Bard Everyone; mst@mst.org

Subject: Health status o Whispering Oaks" woodland

Dear Supervisor Arun re ta,

When we met with

support of a permit

It was clear fro 0

was dead or dying.

observed a healthy

and dying trees."

August 2009 to rese

According to th

MST/Whisperin young.." Also

majority of oal

Fo

Oi

fro

s o

weaker trees within

defoliation and oth

is low. An estimate

are about 5% d

good condition

At the same tirr

was suffering ti

Under Tree Stz

noted that Cos

California oakw

on the property

the past two y(

appear somein

Visual inspectio

have fully reco

old, and dying

species. When

good and norm

The county ad

Stewardship G

you in May, you urged everyone to review the tree report in

to cut 4400 trees for the MST/Whispering Oaks Development.

r conversation that you were of the opinion that the woodland

As I traverse the property several times each week, I have

woodland and am startled by the frequent reference to dead

herefore, as you suggested, I went back to the tree report of

arch this seeming contradiction.

es Resource Evaluation Appendix D: Biological Report of the

ks EIR), the Coast live oak stands appear to be fairly

he Forest Management Plan in the same appendix, The

t e property are in good health. There are several of the

the densely covered areas that have succumbed to effects of

r pests, however the percentage of poor condition individuals

f tree condition after observing the entire stand is that there

ad trees, 10% poor condition trees, 40% fair condition trees, 40%

reeol, and 5% trees in excellent condition."

I

e, the report emphasizes that at the time of survey, the woodland

e effects of a severe but temporary California oakworm infestation.

nd Condition," in the Forest Resource Evaluation, for example, it is

diti n evaluations for oaks were complicated by the presence of

rm P aryganidia californica). At the time of the survey the oaks

are recovering from being significantly defoliated by this pest over

ars. Most trees are recovering well and most of those that

hat w akened are expected to recover." Emphasis added.]

of th property today proves this to be correct, most of the trees

ere

rees

n in

pte(

ideli

nd are thriving. In an oak woodland, a mixture of young,

is desirable and creates a variety of habitat niches for native

ividual dies, it leaves space for a seedling to spring up. This is

I policy, the Monterey County Voluntary Oak Woodland

ne  September 2009, to protect just such coast-live-oak

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 2 of 2

woodlands. I urge you

Planning Comrhissioh'

Very truly yours,

Margaret Davisl

forU

Fort Ord Rec U~ers

to vote in accordance with this county policy and uphold the

strong and unanimous decision.

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

I agree with our Plan

an MST bus service

Please direct MST to

harriet mitteldorf

Harfriet Mitteldorf harriet@redshift.com]

Thursday, June 09, 2011 4:28 PM

11 CI rk of the Board Everyone

mst@rist.org

PLEAlc: E DENY MST AT WHISPERING PINES

ling commission's recommendation against rezoning 58acres of open space for

neter.

utilize some of the vast regions of already abused land.

1

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�I

Page 1 of 2

From: Go in, Henry M.

Sent: Thu sday, Jun e 09, 2011 5:14 PM

To: 100 BoS E ver yone

Cc: Nov o, Mik e x 192; 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: FW Lette of 3upport request for MST Facility

Attachments: 201 0609 0 48296.pdf

Please deliver this l tter to yur Supervisor.

Thank you,

rfenry 9li. Go`in

Aide to Supervisor alcagn  2nd District

County of Montere  Board of Supervisors

831) 755-5022

Mailing Address: 1 O Bo* 787 Castroville, CA 95012

Physical Address: 1 140 SPe gle Street, Castroville

From: Chris Orman mailto:c5 00@ncfpd.org]

Sent: Thursday, Jun 09, 01 3:52 PM

To: Gowin, Henry M.

Subject: Fwd: FW: Letter f Support request for MST Facility

Henry,

Chief Urquides wa is thi~ leer of support for the MST facility to get to all the Supervisors as quickly as

possible. Can you get it to hem?

Chris

 Forwarded mes ag

From: Michael Ur uide  hiefurquides@hotmail.com>

Date: Thu, Jun 9, 2 11 a 2:39 PM

Subject: FW: Letter of Supp rt request for MST Facility

To: Chief Orman El-mail c-5200 ncfpd.org>

Please have Henry rwatd tr the board of supervisors.

thank you

Michael Urquides, ire Monterey County egion l ire District & Carmel Valley Fire District

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 2 of 2

19900 Portola Dr  alinas, a 93908

Office 831-455-18.

Fax 831-455-0646

8

www.mcrfd.org &

CONFIDENTIA ITY ST TEMENT

This message and any included attachments are from Monterey County Regional Fire District and are

intended only forte ad res ee. The information contained in this message is confidential and may

constitute inside o non-pub is information under international, federal, or state securities laws.

Unauthorized forty rdin  p inting, copying, distribution, or use of such information is strictly

prohibited and ma be a la ful. It you are not the addressee, please promptly delete this message and

notify the sender o the eli ery error by e-mail or you may call Monterey County Regional Fire

District in Salinas, California, U.S.A. at +1) 831) 455-1828.

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�MONTEREY CO NTY REGIONAL FIRE DISTRICT

CARMEL AL Y FIRE DISTRICT

19900 Portola Drive, S linas,iCaifornia 93908

831) 455-1828 Fax 831) 45_-0646

Michael B. Urquides, Fire hief Ron L. Lemos, Division Chief/Operations

David J. Sargenti, Division Chief/ do inistration Miles J. Schuler, Division Chiet%Fire Prevention

Paul R. Pilotte, Division C lief/Saf ty Training

June 8, 2011

Monterey County Board Of upei-visors

Attn: Gail T. Borkowski Cl rk of the Board

168 West Alisal St., 1st I'lloo

Salinas CA 93901

RE: Mont rey-Saina Transit Maintenance Facility  Letter of Support

Dear Board of Su rvisorf s:

I

The Monterey Cot my R gio ial Fire District would like to express its support for the proposed Monterey-Salinas

Transit MST) ma ntenar ce cility on Intergarrison Road on the former Fort Ord. The proposed location of the

MST facility wool great y b nefit the citizens of all of Monterey County as well as the Monterey County

Regional Fire Dist ict, both scally and logistically, by enabling the fire district to utilize the local MST facility

for the repair and i iaintei an e of its fire district vehicles.

Currently, the large fire v hi

working on them for corn nor

the design of the 1 ST fa ili

repairs at a reason ble cost.

costs incurred duri tg the ran

Completion of the ST rt ain

duty fire personnel to tak th

service availabilitysuppo ts t

les used by the district must be taken to a shop in Modesto which specializes in

repair issues. When we approached the MST management in the early stages of

 they indicated that they could work with the fire district to perform these common

he enormous savings to the district is realized with the elimination of overtime

portation of our fire vehicles out of our district boundaries to Modesto.

enance facility at the Intergarrison Road location would make it possible for on-

equipment to the MST facility for service and repair. This local large vehicle

Ie level of service to properties within the Monterey County Regional Fire District

rest of County of Monterey through automatic aid agreements and the Monterey

and the service pro ided thtri.

County Fire Mutual Aid yst

When the property was an

Board of Directors believa

investment for the Ire dis

to pay for the property's a

Further delays to tl~e appra5va

the fire service our personnel

ed into the Monterey County Regional Fire District in 2007, our administration and

rat supporting the facility proposed for the Monterey-Salinas Transit a wise

and its citizens. To support the annexation, our district's Board of Directors voted

ation costs assessed by the Local Agencies Formation Commission LAFCO").

of this project will result in increased overtime costs and decreased efficiency for

ovide within the district and throughout Monterey County.

The Monterey Con ty Re orial Fire District encourages the Board of Supervisors to approve the proposed

Monterey-Salinas ransit e

evelopment Agency development plan.

Set wing ll~e A  t/tern Salrrras Valley, Higlnl'ay 68 Corridor, Community

H

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�    Page 1 of 1

From:

Sent: Trish Huels t

Friday, Juhe uels@chispahousing.org]

0, 2011 9:42 AM 

To: 112 Clerk'of e Board Everyone; districtl monterey.ca.us; 100-District 2 831) 755-5022;

 100 Distri~t 3 831) 385-8333; 100-District 4 831) 883-7570; 100-District 5 831) 647-7755

Cc:

Subject: alfr dd@(HI

CHISPA Lett PAHOUSING.ORG; juan_uranga@sbclgobal.net

r of Support for MST Project 

Attachments: MS LETtE OF SUPPORT.pdf 

Attached please find a letter o

Trish Huels, Directo

of Ad

CHISPA

295 Main Street, Ste. 100

Salinas, CA 93901

831) 757-6251, ext. 15

TDD: 831) 758-948

Fax: 831) 757-753

thuels@chispahousin org 11

SAVE PAFFR  THIN

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIA

addresed and may contain i

that dissemination, distributi

the sender by reply e-mail a

support from CHISPA for MST's Whispering Oaks Business Park Development.

ministration

EEFCRE R

ITY: T is e-

ormatio tha

n, or

7 co ying

d delete all c

U PRINT

all message, including any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is

t is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified

of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify

pies of the original message. Thank you.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�/'!F BULD NEIGHHORHOODS

June 9, 2011

Dear Montere

dem

on pl

B

y

ns rate CHISPA's support of the MST project, Whispering Oaks Business Park,

nn d development land on the old Fort Ord Army base.

Count

and of Supervisors:

This letter is t

which is locate

As such, this I

industrial purpc

70% of land co

Therefore, CH

transportation i

seniors and dis

workplace for N

Please do not

location! To dat

Monterey Coun

reality, we cann

roject con orms to the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan, which provided 8,000 acres for light

ses, hile setting aside 20,000 acres for recreational and open space purposes  that is

nmitte to habitat and open space!

SPA eq estos that you approve the MST project in order to ensure that public

i Mon re Cunty is adequately servicing the increase in ridership by working families,

ibled eo le in Monterey County. Additionally, the much needed facilities to ensure a safe

ST peso nel will be achieved through this important project.

e dis rac ed about re-site options. This project is appropriate and located in the right

$4M as been expended; looking for other site locations as this time will only burden the

y taxp ye in the tune of $1 M  and, in this tough, budget-conscious time in our economic

pt afford th's added expense!

CHISPA recogn zes th v lue of recreational benefits of horse trails for those that can afford that luxury.

But, the value o trans orttion for working families, seniors and disabled people must surely, come first

especially durin this eri us economic downturn where many more people, especially those living on

limited income  are tur ing to public transportation to offset exorbitant fuel costs and personal

organization that serves the low and very-low working income families and

transportation c sts. s 11

seniors living on limite in omes, CHISPA recognizes the value of the public transportation services that

MST provides to man f r constituents who rely entirely on public transportation to get to work, school,

medical appointments nd hopping.

The MST projec

Reuse Authority

development on

County.

The mistake of

enthusiasts woul

disabled people i

Prioritizing your

strongly request

is co sist nt with the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan. Please be reminded that the Fort Ord

vas cr at d for REUSE  not NO-USE! Let's ensure that environmentally-sound planned

the of F rt Ord land is move forward for the benefit of working families in Monterey

3 well-

d be

h Mont

me ded, but misplaced concession to a few privileged recreational, horse trail

it t le expense of and on the backs of the hard working families, seniors and

ere County that rely on public transportation.

assets in he community is a primary responsibility for elected officials. Therefore, we

hat th pri rity in your final decision be working families  first!

We urge you to approve

Sincerely,

Alfre iaz-In fat

Press ent/CEO

CHISPA, Inc.

c: Juan Uranga

the( proposed MST Whispering Oaks Business Park project!

Corn uunlry Housing ImIiovemen S~ stems and Planning Association Inc

93J f zi f J F~:< I 1 i 57-/'0 757 6rFi8

iq or5

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: Ja Shriner  hrinerforsure@gmail.com]

Sent: Fri ay, June 0, 2011 10:15 PM

To: 11 Clerk of he Board Everyone

Cc: ms mst or

Subject: MS site nd rec trail description

Attachments: Re reatio T ail Photos.docx

Please distribute the attached photos for the Supervisors' Offices to consider on Tuesday, June 14, for

The recreation trail

an eco-tourism attr

within view of one

along Intergarrison

little more promoti

attraction.

I will also bring in t

Authority and Tony

county. He says he

The reason for such

maintaining in their

I will also bring in a

Johnston to help ev

replace.

20 0. I don't know if they could be displayed during the public comment time

n a hard copy for the public to see.

int fined, would be a fantastic connector through Marina and potential as

T e undergraduate dorms are within view of one end of the trail which is also

e west portions of our community, Marina Heights. The Jerry Smith Corridor

d3  being used by many recreationists who travel in from out of town. With a

c nnector and recreation trail could become a very serious eco-tourism

e co to t information for the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation & Conservation

Charities  Mr. Charness sets the value of open space for all proposals to their

laces) a alue on mature oaks at about $700,000 per acre.

a high e onomic value is because oaks require a great deal of labor for planting and

first two rears to get established.

figom the book called California Forests and Woodlands by Verna R.

un erstand the ecological value and how hard the oak woodland habitat is to

fort to v ork with the City of Marina for an alternate site for the MST bus-yard and

Jan Shriner

3086 Sunset Ave.

Marina, CA 93933

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Recreation Trai

Site of Marina H

1050 houses. Th

through arina to Jerry Smith Corridor photos taken by Jan Shriner 831.236.0905 1

re fences restrict access by pedestrians and cyclists for 8 years so far, future

jin Parkway, the corner of Imjin Rd.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Recreation Trail

through Marina to Jerry Smith Corridor photos taken by Jan Shriner 831.236.0905 2

Marina college dorms Of C~LJMB North Quad) can be seen across the trail.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Recreation Trailthrough I$Aarina to Jerry Smith Corridor photos taken by Jan Shriner 831.236.0905 3

This is the Imjin d. ent an a to the trail. Note the tire tracks and there were horse tracks and human

footprints as well as to ey and deer tracks.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Recreation Trail throukh arina to Jerry Smith Corridor photos taken by Jan Shriner 831.236.0905 4

This is the Intergorrisorh end of the trail, same trail as next to the truck, just the other end.

n end, the Jerry Smith Corridor can be seen. Several vehicles are parked in

se the trail.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�through Marina to Jerry Smith Corridor photos taken by Jan Shriner 831.236.0905 5

Some days are b sier t a usual on the trail. These recreation trail users also represent eco-tourism

potential. They ill be u gry after the hiking and Marina has some great restaurants. Some of them

may even plan t spen th night in a hotel and visit the Aquarium or hike the beach the next day.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: Lin

Sent: Fri

To: 11

Cc: Yo

Subject: Let

a Ph m Iinda@chpscc.org]

ay, J ne 10, 2011 12:54 PM

Cler of he Board Everyone

o Le is

er of up port to Monterey County Supervisors regarding Alliance on Aging Senior Peer

nseli g program

Attachments: LetterofS pp rtAllianceonAging_CHP.pdf

Co

Dear County Supervi;ors:

program.

Thank you for your attention. attached is a letter of support for Alliance on Aging Senior Peer Counseling

Sincerely,

Fax: 408-556-6620

Email: Iinda@chpscc.o

General: 408-556-66051 Ext. 6)20

Direct: 408-579-6020

Cancer Detection Program: Every Woman Counts

Health Educator

Linda Pham, MPH, CHES

X)1INNJ UNF

HEALTH

l?.\R'T'NERS 11'

6/10/2011

Co nmunity Health Partnership, Inc

10 N. Winchester Blvd., Suite 250 Santa Clara, CA 95050-6520

tss chpscc.org

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�COMNIUNl'fY

HEALTH

I(e r

I AIZTNERSHII'

June 10, 2011

Salinas, CA 9390

P.O. Box 1728

Monterey County Board Of Supervisors

Dear Board of Su

rviso$s:

I am writing this I tter in up

Health Partnership hash t

this service on sen or clie is

on the relationship of dep ess

present to discuss nd lea a

County from the S ate pr gra

CDP:EWC is part red th

County. We offer ee bre st

Gonzales, Marina, alina  S

program if they are low-i co

breast cancer scree ling a d

Alliance on Aging

seniors at their We:

the health presenta fluent in Spanish, r

seniors who need c

chronic health dise;

enior Pee

ness ect

on in ili

r

ore so tha

mmu ity

es in o

We urge the Board

older adults in our

Alliance on Aging

productive member

Sincerely,

a

f Suporvi

ommu it

enior ee

ort of the Alliance on Aging's Senior Peer Counseling SPC) program. Community

opportunity to partner with the SPC program and believes the positive impact of

nd their families. Our organization collaborated and did a community presentation

on and cancer in King City, California in May 2011. Proudly, 19 seniors were

out; as well as ways to seek support and cancer screening services in Monterey

 Cancer Detection Program: Every Woman Counts CDP:EWC).

8 health providers or community health clinics throughout the cities in Monterey

d cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services in King City, Greenfield,

ledad, Seaside, Castroville, and Big Sur. Eligible patients are enrolled in CDP:EWC

e, uninsured, or underinsured. These patients include women 40 years and older for

omen 25 years and older for cervical cancer screening.

Counseling program gave us the opportunity to share about a valuable resource to

re. With the help of SPC program, assistance in planning and volunteers delivering

gual language were available. The majority of seniors at the presentation were

English. Furthermore, eiversity in ethnic groups demonstrate a strong need for

upport, education, resource, and awareness such as mental health and its effects on

terey County.

ors to reinstate funding for this program and preserve the health and vitality of

We hope to continue our relationship through community collaboration. The

Counseling program is vital in supporting seniors to be resilient and self-reliant

mmunity.

of th it c

Linda Pham, MPH, CHES

Health Educator

Cancer Detection P o ram E e Woman Counts,

g ry A program at Com unity lea th Partnership

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: Lin a Ph m Iinda@chpscc.org]

Sent: Fri ay, J ne 10, 2011 1:04 PM

To: 11 Cler of he Board Everyone

Cc: Yo o Le is

Subject: RE Lette of support to Monterey County Supervisors regarding Alliance on Aging Senior

Pe r Cou s ling program

Attachments: Let erofS pp rt AllianceonAging_CHP.pdf

Dear County Board Of Supdrvi~ors:

Attached is an updated lettler

your consideration.

f support for Alliance on Aging Senior Peer Counseling program. Thank you for

Sincerely,

Linda Pham, MPH, C

Health Educator

Cancer Detection Prog

ES

am: Ev

y

oman Counts

Direct: 408-579-6020  

General: 408-556-6605 Ext. 6 20

Fax: 408-556-6620  

Email: Iinda@chpscc.or

CON I \-I U N 

Y

Co

ilniunity Health Partnership, Inc.

HEALT

H 10 N. l\'inchester Blvd., Suite 250 Santa Clara, CA 95050-6520

J),;\R'I-NFRSf-

11' w',s chpscorg

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�COMMUNITY

HEALTH

0-1 Ff

PARTNERSHIP

June 10, 2011

Monterey County Board Of Supervisors

P.O. Box 1728

Salinas, CA 9390

I am writing this leer in

Health Partnership has ha

this service on seni r clie

on the relationship Of dep

present to discuss d lea

County from the St to pr

CDP:EWC is partn red w

County. We offer fee bre

Gonzales, Marina, alinas

program if they are low-

breast cancer scree ing an

Alliance on Aging enior

seniors at their el ness

the health presentatWon in

fluent in Spanish, ore so

seniors who need c mmu

chronic health dise es in

up ort of the Alliance on Aging's Senior Peer Counseling SPC) program. Community

th opportunity to partner with the SPC program and believes the positive impact of

is Ind their families. Our organization collaborated and did a community presentation

ess on and cancer in King City, California in May 2011. Proudly, 19 seniors were

about; as well as ways to seek support and cancer screening services in Monterey

rain, Cancer Detection Program: Every Woman Counts CDP:EWC).

th 8 health providers or community health clinics throughout the cities in Monterey

st nd cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services in King City, Greenfield,

S ledad, Seaside, Castroville, and Big Sur. Eligible patients are enrolled in CDP:EWC

o e, uninsured, or underinsured. These patients include women 40 years and older for

w men 25 years and older for cervical cancer screening.

ee Counseling program gave us the opportunity to share about a valuable resource to

ect re. With the help of SPC program, assistance in planning and volunteers delivering

ili gual language were available. The majority of seniors at the presentation were

that English. Furthermore, diversity in ethnic groups demonstrate a strong need for

ity upport, education, resource, and awareness such as mental health and its effects on

o terey County.

We urge the Board f Sup rvi ors to reinstate funding for this program and preserve the health and vitality of

older adults in our c mmu ity We hope to continue our relationship through community collaboration. The

Alliance on Aging enior ee Counseling program is vital in supporting seniors to be resilient and self-reliant

productive member of their community.

Sincerely,

Linda Pham, MPH, HES

Health Educator

Cancer Detection Pr gram

A program at Com unity

Ev ry Woman Counts,

ea th Partnership

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�un~ 1, 2011

an Parker, Chair

o terey County Board of Supervisors

O Box 1728

alias, CA 93902

ear Supervisor Parker:

npr cedented financial challenges.

a sting and in an economic environment where seniors are facing

in  This is a critical service at a time when the numbers of seniors are

ou seling to older adults who are having difficulty with the transitions of

y ental Health Professionals provide free emotional support and

ou iseling SPC) program. Volunteer counselors, trained and supervised

r' EC

q C.- el,

2U I  JUN 10 PM 1:27

CLERi( OF THE BOARD

a writing this letter in support of the Alliance on Aging's Senior Peer

sug ling with depression, anxiety and even thoughts of suicide. Rates

of su cides in this country are the highest among older adults.

d as proven very effective with older adults. Often these seniors are

od 1 offers a comfortable and non-threatening approach to counseling

s rvi e. Because of the stigma associated with Mental Health services,

t ey re reluctant to access traditional mental health services. The peer

os of the SPC clients are low-income and cannot afford to pay for this

or ing with the peer counselors, seniors are able to rediscover meaning

a d h ppiness in their lives. They once again can be productive members

o th it community. They have learned to reengage with their friends and

fa it members in a new way and rebuild those vital relationships.

In th last four years, with funding from the Mental Health Services Act,

th S C program has been able to expand their services and outreach in

S in s, Castroville, Prunedale, Soledad, Greenfield, Gonzales and King

Ci  he program currently includes 45 volunteer counselors, 20 on the

P in ula  25 on the Salinas, with 11 of them being bilingual in Spanish

an E glish. SPC is experiencing unprecedented growth in the number of

se for served in this program throughout the county.

W fur

re uct

co

e the Board of Supervisors to consider the impact of this funding

on on the health, safety and vitality of older adults in our

nity.

Siocerlly,

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: Richard osen ha

Sent: Friday, June 1  2

To: 112-Cle k of th B

Cc: Legal A istan 

Subject: Board M

Clerk of the Board:

RRosenthal62@sbcglobal.net]

U

11 2:27 PM

and Everyone

ichael Weaver'

etingl 6/4/11 Item S-9: Monterey Salinas Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park

lease) pa$s this email to the members of the Board:

Madam Chairman acid member of the Board: Save Our Peninsula comments as follows:

The public sentiment

vote to deny the proj

judgment on the proj

The appeal should b

abou thi horrendous project is reflected in the Planning Commission's near unanimous

ct. It o Id be shameful to reverse the Planning Commission's due consideration and

ct. H w ver, I expect such a result.

deniod for the following reasons:

1. The project at d the Proposed amendments are inconsistent with the County's recently adopted General

 Plan and the 1 982 en ral Plan.

2. The project at d the ro osed amendments are inconsistent with the Fort Ord Reuse Plan.

3. The Fort Ord I teuse Pla is out of date and legally insufficient.

4. The EIR forth proj ct i inadequate as a matter of law because it does not adequately address traffic,

 removal of Oa

inducing impa, ks, th im acts of providing water to the project, climate change, alternatives, growth

As, cu ul tive impacts and the effectiveness of mitigation measures.

Save Our Peninsula omm tte also adopts the comments of Landwatch and CSUMB.

If you have any ques ions pea e feel free to call.

Regards,

Richard H. Rosenthal

Save Our Peninsula ommi to

6/10/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: Jayette2

Sent: Saturday aol.

 June om

11,

2011 6:49 AM

To: 112-Cler of th B and Everyone

Cc: mst@ms t.org 

Subject: MST/Wh speri g aks

 The County Planning Commission was correct when it unanimously refused to rezone 58 acres

from open space to heavy commercial. The Planning Commission did its job; respect its decision.

The Commission' decision and processes should not be lightly dismissed by the Board of

Supervisors, especially when the ruling is strong and unanimous.

 The site has n t always" been planned for MST or for re-development. The parcel has been

zoned as Open S ace in a 1995, hence MST's need to have it rezoned before proceeding with

development.

 Actual blight  mpt

natural habitat a eas

 Planting any n mbe

loss of a thriving and

 MST can save none

infrastructure alr ady

offsetting saving in t

 A trail system is a r

and expanded where

Fort Ord trail sys em i

Jayette Wilkerson

8571 Archer Road

Salinas, CA 93907

and abandoned structures) on Fort Ord should be re-developed" before

re eveloped.

o seedlings at various Fort Ord locations does not compensate for the

ea tiful woodland of 4,400 mature trees.

The savings of not having to replant 4,400 trees in mitigation. If

xi is at an alternative site, such as at the Marina Airport, there will be

e t tal cost of the $81 M project.

al and valuable asset to the region and should be strenuously protected

os ible. Monterey County's economy is dependent upon tourism and the

a important attraction for cyclists, trekkers, and equestrians.

6/13/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Page 1 of 1

From: PA

Sent: Sun

To: 112

Subject: 14 J

Par

Attachments: Pre

LA PLO pfpelot@sbcglobal.net]

Jay, J ne 12, 2011 9:50 PM

Clerk of the Board Everyone

Line 2011 genda Item S-9 Comments to Board of Supervisors from Preston & Abrams

s Ten trams Association

ton & Parks Tenants Association Ltr to BOS for 14 JUN 2011 Agenda Item S-9

c).O df 

Clerk of the Boar  

Please distribute t he at ac ed PDF of the Preston & Abrams Parks Tenants Association

letter to the Board of Su pe rvisors relative to the 06/14/2011 Agenda Item S-9 c), the appeal

by Monterey-Sall nas ra sit MST)/Redevelopment Agency of the County of Monterey

from the April 13  201 d ecision of the Monterey County Planning Commission.

Thank you.  

Paula F. Pelot, C1 airp rs n

Preston & Abram: Par s T enants Association

Former Fort Ord  

Marina, California  

831-582-0522

6/13/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�PRESTON

June 12, 2011

Wh AB1 AMS PARKS TENANTS ASSOCIATION

Monterey Count* Board of Supervisors via Email)

Honorable Supe

isors,

I write to you to ay on eh If of the five-hundred forty-four Preston and Abrams Parks' families who live

on the former Fo Ord ea the proposed MST Corporation Yard and Whispering Oaks Business Park site.

The proposed site curre ntly provides a nearby recreational experience for our residents who are young and

elder, singles an famil es, hikers, walkers, bicyclists, horseback riders and general outdoors enthusiasts. In

these tough econ mic t.me  access to and through this site provides a rich recreational experience for our

working families  one hat is irreplaceable.

Moreover, seven g the

eliminate this regional r

the future near reside

Heights and Cypress Kr

The Monterey County f

clear cutting 4 X100 vital

that decision to: y u, the

appropriate sites hat an

existing infrastructure.

relied upon by o many

We also recogniz that

that expenditure. owe%

money already scent on

The federal dolla s that

the Planning C missi

potential award!, i relati

not shovel-read nd so

gre nway of the shared-use, historic Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail would

ecr ational resource not just for the existing residents, but also for the thousands of

its of planned projects such as the Dunes, East Garrison, Monterey Downs, Marina

tolls. It is a bell that cannot be un-rung.

Ian in Commission made the right decision by refusing to rezone open space and

oat: trees and by directing MST to locate another site. Although MST has appealed

re i  no good justification to overturn it. There are other more environmentally

either not utilized or are underutilized, such as the Marina Airport, a site that has

that could meet the project needs without spoiling a natural resource that is

in ur communi

AST S T and the County have already invested funds into the planning of this project:

er, compared to the total project costs are relatively small but, more importantly.

a or plan does not justify a poor decision.

Lre ending award to this. or another project, would not be threatened by upholding

m's decision. as the potential award is not site specfic. The perceived threat to that

/e t the shovel- readiness of the current proposed site. The current proposed site is

moving the project to the better suited, and welcoming. Marina Airport site does

not threaten tha t potenti tl a yard.

In our commun it  we ere satisfied by the Planning Commission's decision but subsequently disappointed

by MST's non- pc eptan e fit. They are, however, entitled to an appeal and this gives your citizens a

chance to speak irectl to ou.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�Our message i clear:

1) Please do not d st

2) Please do not d st

peninsula exist ng,

3) Please not b m

readied, 

4) Please!Oo upho d t

Planning Coma issi

Thank-you.

y a stand of 4,400 vital oak trees when a more appropriate site is available,

y a natural recreational resource for tens of thousands of Monterey

and future, residents and visitors when a more appropriate site is available,

sled into believing that federal funding will be lost when another site can be

e reasoned, responsible and unanimous decision of the Monterey County

n.

Paula F. Pelot, Chairperson

Preston & Abrams Park Tenants Association

728 Landrum Court

Marina, CA 93933

831) 582-0522

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
�,�From: To Moo e mailto:t moore redshift.com]

Sent: Surh ay, J in 12, 2011 11:11 PM

To: 100-Di strict 5  31) 647-7755

Subject: hispe rin Oaks proposal

Dear SuOe~rvisorj P~tter;

On Tuesday

Commiso'i n's d

Also, please do

reasons:

 Apprb ing ti

center that woul

All of the Il tter tl

creating t ano

ftmoon, please deny the MST appeal of the County Planning

ci ion regarding the Whispering Oaks proposal.

NOT certify the EIR yet for that proposal. Here are some good

e Whispering Oaks proposal would create another business

i compete with Ryan Ranch, UC-MBEST and the Marina Airport.

ire have significant vacant acreage. In this economic climate

her failing business center is not a very wise move.

 If the' ount w s hoping for significant revenues of some sort from

Whisperim Oak  hen do some hard bargaining with the City of Marina and UC-

MBEST. he M 3T facility would do just fine at UC-MBEST or Marina Airport,

despite Nh T's protestations to the contrary.

 Ther' a ve

at UC-M ST o

and most of the

clearing, adinc

aside from the s

 I don't epre

there area ree r

litigation if he E

sure you know c

them have the n

postponir certi

of Marina might

environmje ital a

strengthen that

So I think you

MST ride  pro-

MSTtot e atr

You'd be p o-bu

the Marina Airp

a

Marina site turn

MST ride for tl

tourism by helpii

ry ood chance that it would be less expensive for MST to build

r Marina Airport because the area is already cleared and graded

ne essary infrastructure is already in the ground. No such

1 o infrastructure currently exists at the Whispering Oaks site

mall amount of infrastructure in or above Intergarrison Road.

sent any of them, and this is just my personal prediction, but

o profit organizations that would seriously consider filing

R s certified without an analysis of the Marina alternative. I'm

f these organizations also, and therefore know that at two of

s urces to take up such litigation. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but

Fic tion of the EIR and coming to some agreement with the City

avid all such litigation. What is certain is that adding the

nal sis of a Marina alternative to the existing EIR would

do ument and make it less susceptable to future legal criticism.

may have the opportunity to be pro-business, pro-MST, pro-

tourism and pro-environment all at the same time by causing

my serious look at the Marina alternative.

sin ss by making something actually happen at UC-MBEST or

rt; you'd be pro-MST if the cost of completing their facility at a

ed ut to be less than at the Whispering Oaks site; you'd be pro-

ie ame reason helps MST keep fares lower); you'd be pro-

ig o ensure the outdoor recreation facilities aren't dagraded by a

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�developrre

coast Iiv& c

nt at ispering Oaks; and you'd be pro-environment by saving the

ak w o land at the Whispering Oaks site.

Anyway,) best

Sincerelyb

Tom Moc rE

3235 Isla' d

Marina, A

384-3234c

656-264

of

fl So

93933

OM E)

rork

uck with this decision on Tuesday afternoon.

ay

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�Page 1 of 1

From: Daniel Fer ande df

Sent: Sunday,) ne 12, 20

To: 112-Clerk f the oar

Subject: PLEASEI LEAS do

Dear Monterey Coidty Bo4rd

This is a plea to No buil th

rnandez@csumb.edu]

1 9:54 PM

I Everyone; mst@mst.org

NOT BUILD MST INDUSTRIAL PARK ALONG RESERVATION ROAD

f Supervisors and Monterey-Salinas Transit,

a

proposed industrial park along Intergarrison Road, which would remove 4400 oak

frastructure and negatively impact the CSUMB campus. Why not use land that is

as that by the airport, or at least that is already paved over, such as that off of 7th

f the land in the fashion currently on the table is inconsistent with the US

Protection Agreement

ate,protection/agreement.htm), which Marina Mayor Bruce Delgado has signed,

trees and the development of this land will significantly increase the carbon

ocations that are more developed will see a much lower overall footprint if chosen

trees, require eno us new in

either already deve o ed, such

or 8th avenue? D v lopm nt

Conference of Mayo s Cli at

http://www.usma~ots.org/(~l,i

since the removal of 11 oft es

footprint. Alternaf v ly, of er

as the site.

Please, please it is too 1 to

impact. Note that I a not p

center and business park sh ul

Sincerely,

o reconsider other locations that would make much more sense and have less

osed to MST moving to a location in Marina, but I think that their operations

not be located at the currently proposed site for the reasons stated.

Daniel M. Fernand~zj CSU1(v4B~Professor and East Campus Marina) resident

Appendix: Relevait text f om Mayors Climate Protection Agreement:

Under the Agreem~

 Strive to meet or

sprawl land-use pol

 Urge their state gc

greenhouse gas emi

from 1990 levels by

 Urge the U.S. Con

national emission tr

e t, pa tic' ating cities commit to take following three actions:

mat the Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities, through actions ranging from anti-

ic es to urban forest restoration projects to public information campaigns;

v rnme ts, and the federal government, to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the

ssion re uc ion target suggested for the United States in the Kyoto Protocol  7% reduction

012i d

g ess to pas the bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation, which would establish a

a ling s to

Dr. Daniel M. Fern n ez

Chair, Division of Science and Environmental Policy

California State Uni rsity, o terey Bay

100 Campus Center

Seaside, CA 93955

831) 582-3786 of

831) 582-4122 F1

c

6/13/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�Page 1 of 1

From: Lis Dea lis deas3@gmail.com]

Sent: Mo day, un 13, 2011 8:56 AM

To: 112-Clerk of he Board Everyone; mst@mst.org; Margaret Davis

Subject: MST/Whispering Oaks

Attachments: B C let er Monterey County BOS re MST.doc; Public Lands Letter regarding MST from

Ba kcou try orsemen.doc; To all Members of the Monterey County Board of

Su ervis rs. ocx

Please find the at~a~hed uett~rs.

One is from John

I eyes, C

One is from the Pr siden o

One is from the

All letters have b

I will speak on b

Execluti

ledn hard c

airman of the California Equestrain Trails & Land Coalition.

Backcountry Horsemen of California

e Vice President of Public Lands, Backcountry Horsemen of California.

py mailed to Monterey County Board of Supervisors.

half ofIthelse groups on Tuesday at the Board of Supervisors meeting.

Thank you for you~ time

Lisa Deas

Executive Co f Edicat on

Backcountry Ho semen f alifornia

http://bchcalifo i org

831-402-7482

Monterey Coun

Zesid6nt since 1967/Marina Resident

6/13/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�Backcountry Horsemen of California

13061 Rosedale Highway, Suite G

Bakersfield, CA 93314

June 9, 2011

Monterey-Salinas Tr an it Bo rd of Directors

One Ryan Ranch Road

Monterey, CA 93940

168 W Alisal Street

Salinas, CA 93901

Monterey County Bo4rp of S~uporvisors

Backcountry Horsem

of California trails an

Backcountry Horsem

Monterey-Salinas Tr

bikers, and equestria

position to take. The

0 of C lif rnia is a group of concerned men and women dedicated to Gentle Use

aback ou try.

Omber~ ir~ the state and organizations in 26 other states.

take pr de is maintaining and preserving historic trails. The actions of

nit to es roy access from a historic trail greenway and artery to allow hikers,

s is not god public policy, not good for this natural habitat, and is a very drastic

City of Marina is offering a suitable, already-developed area for this industrial

development, among to her p ss' le alternatives in Monterey County.

Should this develop

be removed, all of th

with bus operations a

of BLM, which will

The Sgt. Allan McD

leading from WWII

troughs and the grave

MEC) is the access

and hike or ride the t

onto the Jerry Smith

Id U.

hors b

f the last

and is

syst m.

rridot,

cc in the proposed location, not only will 4,400 coastal aged oak trees

1 also be gone. There is no pleasure in riding a trail that will be aligned

traffic. There is already a shortage of parking in the Creekside portion

ccess point of entry to the 83 miles of trails.

alvary Trail is of historic value to the community of Monterey County,

ildings at the Marina Equestrian Center to 1 lth Cavalry watering

Fort Ord warhorse on BLM land. The Marina Equestrian Center

National Park Site intended for locals and tourists alike to park, picnic,

Currently one can park at the MEC, access the Calvary trail, and cross

hich leads to BLM.

ommissions unanimous refusals to rezone open space for MST Facility

siness Park.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�3. We affirm the lanni g ommissions unanimous refusals to permit clear cutting 4400 trees.

4. We urge MS o acc pt hese refusals and find an alternative site.

5. We support t e gree wa and Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail connecting the beach and

BLM trails.

6. We must rec

ize the t

ails and open space of former Fort Ord as an important regional

resource.

g

7. We are a comounity Of Thousands of recreational enthusiasts, using and maintaining trails at

former Fort

C

E

r

Please consider our p

Sincerely,

D9

ition Lnq vote to withdraw or deny the MST appeal.

Dennis Serpa

President

Backcountry Horsem of C lif rnia

htt //bchcalfomia.or

Backcountry Horse n of al fornia

13061 Rosedale High y, Suite G

Bakersfield, CA 93314

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�BRUCE~_DEOTT

Iv~

6/13/2011

TO: Ba4oountify Horsemen of California Executive Committee

Regardi the est ng Tentative Map

Figure 4

MST W i peri g Oaks Business Park EIR NOP

Source: C P an ring Group INC. 2009

Whitson E give rs 2009

As a me tier of th Backcountry Horsemen of California BCHC) Executive

Committ and he Public Lands Co-Chair for the State organization of BCHC I

write my s ppo to the findings of the Monterey County Planning Commissions

findings the 4 pr 1 13, 2011 meeting, agenda item No. 2.

I suppor t e ba is f the Monterey County Planning Commissions findings being

the evide a in t e ommissions record and the subsequent vote of intent to deny

the proje base 1 o the following comments and considerations;

 T nu be of trees being removed is to high

 T e removal has not been minimized to the maximum extent feasible; and

 A t rnat si es may exist near the multi-modal corridor that need to be

r d velo a and would be environmentally superior locations for the

p pose p oject. I concur with supporting statement made in Policy OS-5.4

a zoni g rdinance Title 21, section 21.64.260.

It is appa~-nt thh p rtions of the Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail and the LT. Lee

Stickler tiller C toff would be obliterated.

The histo i and th intrinsic association with the past military operation of our

country i i vat ab e. Association with the past is an investment into the future.

Any atte is to progress at the expense of valuable history is to digress.

Bruce De 1 ott

Executive ice resident

Public La Is Co Chair

Backcoun y Ho semen of California

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�Page 1 of 1

From: Doris H ry do 3 3@yahoo.com]

Sent: Monday, June 13, 011 10:31 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Bo rd Everyone

Subject: Bus Ban at For: O

I object to the pro e,

storage facility for b

will more than ac co

consider using the f

might interfere with

Evelyn Henry

45 Paradise Road

Castroville, Ca.95

t that wi 1 require the removal of Oak Trees, and Horse trails to accomplish a

uses, when an alternative has been made for property use at the Airport facility that

noda e this project and perhaps even require less work to erect. I urge the BOS to

at area o ferred at the Airport. I object to trees being removed from any area that

wildlife use, and public use of trails.

012

6/13/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�MST

Page 1 of 1

From: Dennis McFadden dennis@shorelinechurch.org]

Sent: Monday, June 13, 011 11:15 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the B and Everyone

Subject: MST

Respectfully, the IBS

Dennis McFadden

locat

should be at Marina Airport, not Fort Ord.

6/13/2011

on

0/1S/LU1I

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�2

31

f? 64x.7

2011 JUN 13 PM 12: 44

E?;

CLERK OF THE BOARD

Si) 1F C aUf j BO`'I~

x

cr

r_  + n  t r o' Ttt i

thales   a l' a

El!- \1JItflj ti

plot I)t I yt I 3n

t:xx e~+ r  via

t f''s ii Cf a3 g t

3 a-=} I tt C tC

14C p t'p we S

r, Mb1' K:r`

VMS Tr: a i1 as

T   t7 C A

J I t C;lr`s~

 i...'' 1i8;

CT ti t.7~ i

1J pcrvI

U: G".-'V

C

taS 1r1. Miami Mar1T;�:llaln.'.,.c

t per,

Zynhw&O

DEPUTY

no fie' iuions

ap; tS th._ R:b2._. D:s Cis t,poseed F all

era is *,, SHAY t 1't. ilr'_' +:.r.J ur, s lh you a Jj,,ro,k::t.

I=e IL Mt rofr S 3I i /I;lpi la i t r_ p Psl'.'tr t o la'u L i?7 ile*cF. 2

lr t novice t,e, i 13t it i("'  22t,t C- v'1)il el  Ord earn: $ 5 rnll.k)  rt12_'ty i t:al

r ers A t.,). ti=.,  p.,,b  C,: it-, 701 4 1Y::�?-k ea.'-

MA  3'.

1s  1 o a C2 t E:' i1  Re'l a l[ Al ho  il E ul is i] ity a lii enable M'S  ttr ur:~Z.LV

a    iha1 I i_, rt t ialt t~1~ 1,t, t~, S t Zr1?iawi1t;

IN it V ail Dtht en UP mall t'r tTf7.Ftter Pit t se' yupc s�.d 0T ti.i_. 7 rci 7y the

2  Fl S

t'1) t t SLSit.  t.I:1 cl_t'   t.    T't t':. i?1ty i L te'ie C(:.:T)tyG>e'teral PIari�h

tai   rl', rgpr. 5, Sl_t_'st. C2r~l;(rl,y  0?' a;gf.'.rrales vat ts~ tcr_te i

e in star, d fa s LIIr er.'1 in liar. ca._,.rit tf�Ct vr?!, +uoport. Tile Le,' of tracsst:

I

Pitt  WACT'y V  i UN 7 ltaF I  3 t jobs Wt V04 t)0 a': C

t

C

aril yt...zts kU S Ll

lslil A w di k o; i+e t

%  ilil, ane k� S rt f_O 1,:

u? e,:w t.>ti.r

COL

I ilgi' I S'E'. 1, r.n l ito 4i; I(ts til;it to ur Ic uSe of h0r0VJt ak pOwe;�

1 a nds and o ttet c rMrl cha r tl'

c tl-:f; erne t ichic'-e L TFT1

t,

+t ver l E ttUC  oLa2-' i pl_L,:'. S i.ls ii lesi j Lind r)}'t')} riatl.l.'a- red

E701.4 he onto 4 t t C t t tie lrtixYorking t>: ple 3 M"5 tt:'

t,p iM  v>,t., ar-d die  rt,. t_As h.t e

3T p

m ISS J- 1 1l t:'1 J L,. 1 UI l2 i  A trMi?, CA  3

1. 826 98.,.  IF4T. Iz ua-r-4?Ut  E6 t!:_:

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�Page 1 of I

From: Jason mpbe

Sent: Monda  June

To: 112-Cl r of th

Subject: MST/ h sperin

I am writing today t sk yo

and Jh s rrinca

Many strong argum is hav

I c mprain@sbcglobal.net]

3,2011 1:17 PM

Board Everyone

Oaks  Please distribute to all county board members

to deny the appeal made by the Redevelopment Agency concerning the MST

boen made against having this project at this location the most common and sensible

being why not put it On an aureody blighted location") yet I have heard very few, if any strong arguments for this

location.

One issue which co

erns

There is the your boa d whi

suggesting that onelo both

whether our tax dollbr are

The Redevelopmen gency

instead of repairing h damE

another project likel t caus

Fort Ord.

The MST says on it ebsite

resources..." This s a ed goy

Ideally the MST wo Id reduc

claiming to strive for a silver

habitat it would shin bad I

Please do not allow this poo

Sincerely,

Jason Campbell

1250 Allston St.

Seaside CA 93955

e io the potential for loss of credibility among the various bodies and agencies involved.

h w II have to completely dismiss the recommendation of the Planning Commission

god es do not understand the nature of this plan. And of course there is the question of

ise y spent or given away along with land to developers.

alr ady has a huge blemish on its record with the East Garrison development and

ge caused to the environment and public funds by that plan, they are allowed to pursue

h rm in the same ways. The RDA has a clear record of creating blight in the former

wit regard to this project it is Steered by MST's strategic goal to conserve natural

it clearly does not square with the request for permits to cut down 4,400 oak trees.

g enhouse gasses not release what is sequestered in the oak forest. MST is also

E DS certification. Should they actually get it after causing so much destruction to

ght on the whole LEED process.

y conceived project to proceed.

6/13/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�Page 1 of 1

From: Tristan

Sent: Monday,

To: 112-Cl r

Cc: mst@

Subject: Whisp

Let me first start

riding MST since

sustainable and t

Inter-Garrison Ro

Put simply, Whis

ansso P rrone tmansson-perrone@csumb.edu]

June 3, 011 1:52 PM

of th B and Everyone

org

g Oa s  pposed to Inter-Garrison location

by s yi g, I am a strong advocate for alternative transportation and have been

st go ng to school at CSUMB in 2004. However I am also a strong advocate for

ght 1 development, and have therefore taken interest in this issue of developing on

ing ak is not a sustainable development. With other alternative and less impacted

g do n massive amounts of mature natural habitat is not necessary. I strongly urge

Plan in Commission's request to find another location, and even more strongly

sites available, cu ti

MST to consider

urge all Supervisor

live in  its abunda

I first came to CS

surrounded by no

already exploring

graduating. I com

CSUMB for runni

surrounding com

As the former For

consideration the

future destruction

Inter-Garrison, yo

Fredericks Park re

their own commu

Please do the right

developing at the I

community memb

Thank you for you

Sincerely,

Tristan Mansson-P

Resident of Marin

of M nt rey County to help preserve what makes the Monterey Area so attractive to

t na ral beauties and careful development.

B b ca se of its potential, and a major part of that was its location. CSUMB is

ly a is history, but a rich expanse of natural habitat. I have spent over 6 years

at th a ea has to offer and it has been enough for me to stay and work since

to by bi ycle from Marina to Monterey every week, and use the trails around

and no ntain biking. The ability to safely bike around campus, and to and from

nities is ery important and this development would unarguably compromise that.

rd i sl wly dismantled, it is extremely important that re-development take into

ure o th location. This proposed development will only set a president for the

what m kes the location of CSUMB so appealing. By allowing MST to develop on

nde i e the opinions of the Planning Commission, of CSUMB students, of

ents, an many more who see poorly planned development happen every day in

ing a d phold the decision of the Planning Commission, to deny MST from

er-G i n location. There are other locations that have been proposed by

and rg nizations, and those should be explored first.

6/13/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�Page 1 of 1

From: Anne a ms a ne 2@comcast.net]

Sent: Monda  June 3, 011 2:33 PM

To: 112-CI r of th Bard Everyone

Cc: mst@ s org

Subject: MST h sperin aks

I oppose putting M at th pr

and access to publi paces Ph

Anne Adams Helm

25350 Camino de h misal

Corral de Tierra, C 3908

831) 484-6534

Fax 831) 484-5106

posed site. There has to be a better location that doesn't impact the trail system

ase don't overturn the County Planning Commission's well-considered denial.

6/13/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�City of Marina  otter to MST

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Good afternoon D

Thank you

MST Letter  Ju

Anita Shepherd-SI

Administrative Ass

City of Marina

211 Hillcrest Aveni

Marina, CA 93933

Ph. 831) 884-128

Fax. 831) 384-91

ashepherd@ci.ma

www.ci.marina.ca.

ni a Shepherd-Sharp AShepherd@ci.marina.ca.us]

to day, Jun 13, 2011 3:28 PM

a cock, De vise 796-3077

n hony Itf Id

it of M rin  Letter to MST

Lettr  June 13, 2011.pdf

n1se, pl~aso distribute the attached letter to the Board of Supervisors.

0 13, 2()111 Jpdf>>

alp

s ant

e

Office

8 facsimile)

i a.ca.us

i

Page 1 of 1

6/13/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�MARINA

Mr. Fez

Monter

One Ry

Monter

Salll

Ran

CA

nta, Chair

ransit Authority

oad

0

I am writing t y

efforts o the p~

comet ate t t

Monter Bay B'

control e by e 1

As MS'

Bus Op

from N.

Marina

park at

infereni

interest

Such re

nas prI

ations

T hav

well

he M~

that

n the

esent

ce

an(

b

as

At no

Operati

MST a

negotiations t

someh dro

The City of Mi

opportu ties tl

Airport o som

In the O'ent th

cluifyi this1i

Aritlion

City M,

City of

CITY OF MARINA

211 Hillcrest Avenue

Marina, CA 93933

831-884-1278; FAX 831-384-9148

www.ci.marina.ca.us

u today in an effort to make a clarification for the record regarding

of Monterey-Salinas Transit to, either directly approach or to

e City of Marina, its serious interests in locating the proposed MST

Operations and Maintenance Center on properties owned and/or

ty of Marina.

ded with its proposed development project to locate its Monterey Bay

Maintenance Center at the Whispering Oaks location, representatives

en quoted in various media releases as dismissing both the City of

y opportunity to reconsider locating this project within the business

a Municipal Airport. This dismissal appears to be made with the

City has shown no interest in this project to include rejecting prior

of MST to locate future facilities at the Marina Municipal Airport.

is not correct.

to the decision by MST to locate the future Monterey Bay Bus

intenance Center at the Whispering Oaks location did any member of

e City for the purpose of conducting serious discussions and/or

ate this facility in Marina. Any representation that Marina has

the ball" on such interests and/or negotiations is simply not true.

remains available and interested in meeting with MST staff to discuss

ay exist to locate the proposed facility at either the Marina Municipal

er location that may suitably meet the needs of the parties.

may answer any additional questions or be of further assistance in

r, please feel free to call or contact me at 831) 884-1278.

Serving a World Class Community

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�From i

Q 7i"

By &a + i n  t'r-th-Sr:9cr3

BOARD OF GREG 1OF,1

Vice Chatr of Ecomr.''C Vr' i!

W al o-?erK.n,-

Ch

Joy nos.sor

f

A W(

I r. I I  C'-C

5 4s/�.,,

1f12S.

C

Su iir

i F,,

1)-Cl_S.1,,

v1::a

Vio<; Choir it dc, oIL,

o.~ r~.rJty Hcspaal 0.

lr:~e; aar c-fF,:;~,n;

Rt:

e'-;,i' lanr

IOC Cr,oJr o

hia L;,

The Grosse a.s a,. aq ri'lega

Vrce i J. ilc  It h

coa Pots

Aiont~rty aza r cia F Sir

7,05 1 Fys.Cho

Naval Pas rtadu+,ta 1,,001'

cr:araAW

Establi  CO i

3C Rags Ca e i    it

Montere r r

Tek 23':. 3' B

MONTEREY

PENINS1UL. i

CHAMBERci

COM3MERCE

1 rr

ey  L., MIS h  it n,a to r'_

I

ine A, n Ohm

Bs r  1"`

Suet

Mon 01(1' ai 1)a0.

83 P i1'00

Paot.r rove-  t lL;lta 3c.aoh e C rw' City Seas de

TEREY

RECEIVE

ZQ 11 JUN 14 AM 8: 45

CLER OF T E BOARD

DEPUTY

11--Sit 1 iiSt`1C' rl.:~l,a~secll   fl, a  Jain tenan c',: and,

Lraeilir;...  Ord

if r:- Park t

CI  rlin  a  h i:i1:CCI' lit L,(ir:ner::c s ri t' iupnwtr 1.e i. ontercr Salinas I ransit

r tl~, i;.d  t  i'^ l_.el,tail k_  la1'ltcis-iiici a.l;.'. Qpcrko l'o ihty a- int. on.

i~ I Io o'-,e unp�"1 E: jl r'ias:s tt'iiisit/rapic i is: ca' rcptt.BC'?�.*, ain;ost Otto ei 1 users

r`inp t.^  i;>2Y:.s' i,r s hc:n Il<nJ on MS  a ge r)' wok aC.'�"._ da,,

 c.el

Trlr'r sgut.i.cr.,,tria_ cc>"'arLi_YC_.dl cs zrr; o=ed ic,x the by th" Pal

op i.I  r   cAte'i 1_1. the R i N._ 1, an- fnC-- 2.'! G,

in n.  At...-� AcAn- t h a t is ieCog priipo c'd i  c SC' rxtel�;� I I der by ti c ri_:rki,ag families

r,,Y�ey SI 1 zlisi;. a, inY ica iL'. well+.ic:.:urr:'.r_l.; it me c.-untst rfte_tively support

t  n'ot Ve i; I c co  the r OAt1l'%1 9_robe cv'io  f Ietit O l NiS to pet to cork. school,

is CI t_*_" C l iia.l c.k-;Io i;'uc 1!P.l dia3ar.l  c:ch.dC to t c: a(?ICA;Aral oldest

Imh ra  3s; pi 1 1 O... loci n e i t  li Y,>t tic  acl',te e

Qm

le

nn4y i':' t::.,

tr a':.,i

I t t e ho non. av

C r`

Fax 63'

W%vva. m C

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�Page 1 of i

Cy"

tk�CL

How

SF~Rr rA,

f~ttJS~~AN

t,

Re,

From: in

Sent: 1f

To: 1

I

J

Cc:

Subject:

Attachment

u

u

2

June 14, 20

Clerk of th

Monterey

Email: ct

Fax: 75

REF:

Monte

Dear

Wo

Cen

Mo

Jan

li

he

0

T

i

1

0

ramgp

esday

2-Cle

net M F

e

IemS-

ST- I

I

NT

0.

oard

O

B

ramgp@ix.netcom.com]

e 14, 2011 11:31 AM

the Board Everyone

ks

4.11  Letter to Board of Supervisors from Veterans Cemetery Foundation

CF Ltr to BOS 6.14.2011.doc

COAST VETERANS CEMETERY FOUNDATION

849 MARINA, CA 93933 831) 384-9400 www.ccvcf.com

0

unty

a

b

B

co.mo

888

Jine 14, 2

ei'-Salinas

F

rsons nn

you

I Coa

rey-S

t

pea

tV

Ii

let Parks

it d abi

t 375-

g

ti pr

ity~

75

k yob so

ned)

u

C.

dacehn

0

one:

B

7

3609 Fax: 373-0108 Email: ingramgpoix.netcom.com

I

g

0

rd of Supervisors

erey.ca.us

11 Public Hearing Item S-9

ransit Facility/Whispering Oaks Business Park

u

e office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors:

e provide each member of the Board of Supervisors a copy of the attached letter from the

terans Cemetery Foundation prior to the hearing Item S-9 scheduled today regarding

B

s Transit Facility/Whispering Oaks Business Park.

sident of the CCVCF Board of Directors asked that I forward this letter on her behalf as she r

o use email and fax. Should you wish to contact her directly to verify her request, please cal

1. I am also faxing a copy of the letter to your office.

much for your assistance in this matter.

v c'.ce ttogram

ram, Consultant, Interim Executive Director, CCVCF

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�Page 1 of 1

From: ingra

s

Sent: Tuq

To: 11

Cc:

Subject: Ite

Attachments: M

OAST VETERANS CEMETERY FOUNDATION

MARINA, CA 93933 831) 384-9400 www.ccvcf.com

June 14, 2011

Would you pie

Central Coast

Monterey-Sali

gp in ra gp@ix.netcom.com]

ay, Ju e 4, 2011 11:31 AM

f lerk o th Board Everyone

e M Pa ks

n 9 6. 4.1  Letter to Board of Supervisors from Veterans Cemetery Foundation

T  CCV F tr to BOS 6.14.2011.doc

Transit Ficility/Whispering Oaks Business Park

e office c}f the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors:

s prov de ach member of the Board of Supervisors a copy of the attached letter from the

e erans Ce etery Foundation prior to the hearing Item S-9 scheduled today regarding

a Trani it acility/Whispering Oaks Business Park.

Janet Parks, pr s dent f t e CCVCF Board of Directors asked that I forward this letter on her behalf as she has

limited ability o use a ai and fax. Should you wish to contact her directly to verify her request, please call

her at 375-758  I am is faxing a copy of the letter to your office.

Thank you so

Signed) Ca

Candace Ingr

Phone: 373-3

6/14/2011

ch to y r assistance in this matter.

ace I vu.

 Con ult nt, Interim Executive Director, CCVCF

73-0108 Email: ingramgp@ix.netcom.com

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�E

220 Tw~LF

BOARD OF TRUSTEEi

JAN PARKS

1'RFSI I)EN F

JAMES BOGAN

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

i

CHARLIE ESKRIDGE

FxFCUFIVF DIRFCIOR

HOWARD GUSTAFSON

SECRETARY

BYRL ANDERSON-SMI1

IRUS 11:11

H

Central Coast Veterans

METERY FOUNDATION

JFH STREET, P.O. Box 849, MARINA, CA 93933

RE: June 14, 2011 Hearing on Appeal of Planning Commission Decision re

MSIII~ Facility/Whispering Oaks Business Park Item S-9

Deor Monterey County Board of Supervisors Members:

As ou know, the Central Coast Veterans Cemetery Foundation CCVCF) has

been working for a number of years to establish a Veterans' Cemetery at the

for er Fort Ord  The Cemetery will serve all Veterans and their families, and

wil particularly serve those within the entire Central Coast region.

As a result of our interest in land for a Veterans' Cemetery, we have followed

the Fort Ord reuse effort. We are aware that reuse for the former Fort Ord

was planned by balancing economic opportunity, housing, and preservation

of habitat and open space and that these purposes and principles are

co sistent with the Base Reuse Plan BRP) and the Habitat Management Plan

H P). It is our understanding that the proposed MST area was part of the

Army's landfill effort, is not contiguous to other habitat areas identified for

preservation in the BRP nor the HMP, and is located along a transit corridor.

While the CCVCF Board has taken no formal action or position on the appeal

before you, we are aware that when the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan was

de% eloped, some people wanted the entire base to be open space or wanted

to only allow development where military uses" or buildings" already

exi ted, perhaps forgetting that military uses existed everywhere on the

or er Fort Ord since it was an active military base for nearly a century.

Ot ers wanted to create jobs, housing and help for the economy in our

reg on, including establishing an area to honor those who have served our

nat on and creating a Veterans' Cemetery on land scheduled for reuse but

currently without development.

No many years ago, Fort Ord was a military base completely closed to the

public. Trails" were made by soldiers walking, riding and hauling equipment

to training areas. Today, nearly half of the former base approximately 20,000

acres) is committed and preserved for open space and habitat conservation,

n park lands are being closed for lack of funding. Veterans, however, still

lave served on behalf of each of us and for our country and deserve decisions

which will assure that a Veterans' Cemetery can and will be constructed at

he former Fort Ord in the sited location.

Fespectfully,

e toJanet M. Parks, President, CCVCF Board of Directors

t31) 384-9400  www.CCVCF.COM

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�S-9 6-14-11

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Good morning,

as a frequent user

I would like to apps

di o artinez diecicleta@gmail. com]

Tu sd y, June 14, 2011 10:33 AM

11 C erk of the Board Everyone

M T arking

0

the o Ord area I am deeply concern about the future plans of development.

Ito y u to withdraw or deny the MST appeal and find and alternative site.

thank you,

Diego Martinez

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�From: Amy White awhite@mclw.org]

Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 9:15 AM

To: 112-Clerk of the Board Everyone

Subject: LandWatch letter re: MST / WO hearing today

Attachments: LandWatch comments on MST-Whispering Oaks to BOS.pdf

Dear Gail,

Attached is the Land Watch letter for today's hearing on the MST / WO project. I also printed 10 copies, but

wanted the county to have the letter as soon as possible. Please verify you received this, and please let me know if

it would be helpful for me to bring the 10 copies now. I can walk them over to you this morning, if so.

Thank you and sincerely,

Amy L. White, Executive Director

Land Watch Monterey County

150 Cayuga Street, Suite 9

Salinas, CA 93901

831-75-WATCH 92824)

www.landwatch.org

6/14/2011

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�m

June 13, 2011

Via Hand Delivery

Board of Supervisors

County of Monterey

168 West Alisal Street

Salinas, CA 93902

Re: MST/Whispering Oaks Rezone and Use Permit  PLN1 10231

Dear Members of the Board:

Wolfe

& associates� c.

attorneys-at-law

We write on behalf of Land Watch Monterey County regarding the

MST/Whispering Oaks development project proposed for the former Fort Ord base the

Project"). LandWatch has participated in the environmental review of the Project and

has opposed it for a number of reasons, including the unnecessary removal of thousands

of oak trees and at least 37 acres of oak woodlands. Although there are clearly

alternative locations and/or designs for the Project that would avoid this impact, these

alternatives were not considered in the EIR. The County cannot comply with CEQA or

make the required findings under its tree preservation ordinance based on the record

before you.

The EIR fails to evaluate and mitigate impacts to oak woodlands adequately and

its alternatives analysis is flawed. The Project does not meet the requirements for a use

permit for tree removal. The Project is inconsistent with the Fort Ord Reuse Plan and

with the Fort Ord Master Plan, and these plans are themselves inconsistent. Finally, the

analysis of water supply impacts is inadequate under CEQA and is insufficient to support

findings required by the County's General Plan.

We ask that the County reject the appeal and deny the Project's entitlements.

Specific objections are set forth below.

A. Em's Analysis And Mitigation Of Impacts To Oak Woodlands Is Inadequate

The announced bases of the EIR's conclusion that impacts to oak woodlands are

less than significant are considerations of the Project's context, design, and mitigation

measures. Unfortunately the Project design is so incomplete and unstable that the EIR is

unable to provide an adequate analysis of impacts or to specify required mitigation. The

1 Sutter Street Suite 300 San Francisco CA 94104 Tel 415.369.9400 Fax 415.369.9405 i www.mrwoifeassociates.com

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 2

last minute provision of conflicting accounts of the Project design, accounts that are not

part of the EIR, compound this problem.

Critically, the EIR lacks any coherent threshold of significance that would enable

the public and decision makers to understand the conclusion that impacts are less than

significant. While the DEIR recited CEQA Appendix G standards of significance for

biological resources DEIR, pp. 2-39 to 2-40), it does not actually identify or apply a

standard of significance in its discussion of impacts to oak woodlands. DEIR, pp. 2-65 to

2-66. Thus, for example, it is unclear whether the EIR focuses on loss and replacement

of individual trees or loss and replacement of acres of habitat, and whether quality of the

lost and replaced habitat is a consideration. It is incumbent on the EIR to explain what

would constitute a significant impact, and, equally importantly, what would constitute

adequate mitigation. Without this, the EIR fails as an informational document.

The EIR admits that impacts are significant, but without identifying any objective

criteria of significance. Because CEQA only permits an agency to impose mitigation for

significant impacts, the public must assume that the EIR proposes just those measures

that are essential to meet some unstated but implicit threshold of significance. Thus, if

any of the mitigation fails to meet CEQA's requirements, the public can only conclude

that impacts remain significant. As discussed below, the mitigation does in fact fail

because it does not meet the requirements of the Oak Woodlands Conservation Act,

because it is unenforceable, and because it is improperly deferred.

In addition, the EIR misrepresents the Project's context within the Fort Ord Reuse

Plan, incorrectly claiming that it fulfills a policy to protect oak woodlands and that the

Fort Ord Habitat Management Plan is intended to mitigate the loss of oak woodlands.

The EIR also improperly credits the Project with protecting oak woodlands that are

already protected and fails to meet the requirements of the Oak Woodlands Conservation

Act.

1. Ostensible Basis Of Significance Finding

Project construction would result in the direct loss of 37.4 acres of oak

woodlands.' DEIR, p. 2-65. The Project would result in additional losses of oak

woodlands, which the EIR does not quantify, through construction of required off-site

drainage improvements. DEIR, pp. 2-65, 1-43 to 1-59. The EIR announces that the

This estimate is apparently based on Table I of the August 2009 MST/Whispering Oaks Business

Park Biological Assessment Biological Assessment). DEIR, App. D, Biological Assessment, p. 11.

Unaccountably, Table 1-2 of the August 2009 Preliminary Oak Woodland Habitat and Tree Removal

Mitigation Strategy Plan for the MST Facility/Whispering Oaks Business Park Site Preliminary

Mitigation Strategy Plan") identifies only 14 acres of oak woodland habitat acreage at the Project site.

DEIR, App. D, Preliminary Mitigation Strategy Plan, p. 3. This inconsistency in concurrent reports by the

same consultant undercuts their informational value to the public and decision makers as well as reliance

on them to support findings.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 3

Project's impacts to oak woodlands would be rendered less than significant based on the

following considerations:

 The Fort Order Reuse Plan EIR determination that oak woodlands habitat

impacts would be less than significant due to the establishment of base-

wide conservation area required by the Fort Ord Habitat Management Plan

HMP").2

 The Project's purported consistency with that HMP and the associated

impact analysis of the Base Reuse Plan EIR."

 The Project's purported implementation of Alternative 1 of the

permissible mitigation strategies of the Oak Woodlands Conservation Act,

Public Resources Code  21083.4(b)(1), calling for conservation

easements to preserve oak woodlands, through the Project's payment of

FORA development fees, a portion of which goes to management of the

open space, and through establishment of conservation easements on

Parcels C and D.

 Mitigation Measures BIO-10, 11, and 12 calling for compliance with

planning documents, some of which do not yet exist; protections for

retained trees; replanting or replacing some trees on site; preservation of

existing trees where that is subsequently found to be feasible;"

considering" design changes to preserve landmark trees; payment of

FORA impact fees for open space maintenance; and off-site replanting and

habitat management or payment of in-lieu fees. See DEIR, p. 2-65; FEIR,

pp. 4-9 to 4-13 one version of 1310- 10 and 11); Staff Report, June 14,

2011, Exhibit B, pp. 36-37 another version of BIO-10 and 11).

The EIR's analysis of the significance of the Project's impacts to oak woodlands and its

determination of the sufficiency of mitigation are based on the following documents

included in Appendix D to the EIR:

 MST Facility/Whispering Oaks Business Park Biological Assessment, August

2009 Biological Assessment");

 Forest Resources Evaluation, Whispering Oaks Business Park, August 2009

Whispering Oaks Forest Resource Evaluation");

 Forest Management Plan for Monterey Salinas Transit Bus Maintenance and

Operations Facility, August 2009 MST Forest Management Plan");

 Preliminary Oak Woodland Habitat and Tree Removal Mitigation Strategy Plan

for the MST Facility/Whispering Oaks Business Park Site, August 2009

Preliminary Mitigation Strategy Plan").

2 Le., the Army Corps of Engineers 1997 Installation-wide Multispecies Habitat

Management Plan, available at

http://www.fortordcleanup.com/docreview/reportsviewdoc.asp?document=Habitat list.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 4

In addition to this material that was included in the EIR, the June 14 Staff Report

provides the public for the first time a document titled Whispering Oaks Oak Tree

Preservation and Recovery Strategy." Staff Report, June 14, 2011, Exhibit P. Although

this document has a similar title to the Oak tree preservation and recovery strategy"

referenced in Mitigation Measure 1310- 10 and the Oak Tree Preservation-recovery

Strategy" document referenced in Mitigation Measure BIO-1 1, this document was

apparently prepared recently and in connection with the appeal of the Planning

Commission rejection of the Project. Furthermore, it is described as an applicant

submittal" and therefore does not appear to constitute a replacement version of the

Preliminary Oak Woodland Habitat and Tree Removal Mitigation Strategy Plan for the

MST Facility/Whispering Oaks Business Park Site, August 2009, which was prepared by

the EIR consultant and which was referenced in the Biological Assessment, the MST

Forest Management Plan, the Whispering Oaks Forest Resource Evaluation, and the

mitigation measures included in the EIR. Finally, as discussed below, the newly

submitted Whispering Oaks Oak Tree Preservation and Recovery Strategy conflicts with

the earlier documents that are referenced and included in the EIR. Thus, it is not clear

whether and to what extent this document is in fact controlling as to mitigation

obligations. It is clear, however, that this document was not part of the EIR.

2. The Project Description Is Inadequate To Support Analysis Of

Impacts And Mitigation

CEQA requires an accurate, stable project description that provides an adequate

basis to evaluate and mitigate project impacts. CEQA Guidelines,  15124. Here, the

EIR fails to provide an adequate description of the Project, because the Project design as

it affects oak woodlands had not yet been developed. It still has not been developed.

Furthermore, the June 14 Staff Report states that the project description has been changed

and provides two conflicting applicant submittals discussing those changes. This is

inconsistent with the requirement that the Project be consistently and adequately

described in the EIR. Finally, if the Project has changed, then the Planning Commission

must review it before action by the Board.

PROJECT FOR WHISPERING OAKS LOTS 2-15 IS UNDEFINED: In

particular, there is no design for the Whispering Oaks portion of the Project, representing

half of the area to be developed. Thus, the Forest Management Plan required by the

County's tree preservation ordinance could not be prepared. Whispering Oaks Forest

Resources Evaluation, p. 1; see Monterey County Code,  21.64.260.D.3. Instead, the

Whispering Oaks Forest Resource Evaluation was prepared. The Forest Resource

Evaluation admits that it does not and cannot evaluate specific impacts to trees relative

to construction on the site." Id. The Whispering Oaks Forest Resources Evaluation does

not function as a Forest Management Plan. It does not provide any substantive

description of the Project or a plan identifying the trees to be removed or retained. It

does not identify where trees will be replanted. It references the Preliminary Mitigation

Strategy Plan, but it is no longer clear whether and how that document relates to Project

mitigation.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 5

Despite this, the June 14 Staff Report and Findings repeatedly and erroneously

assert that a Forest Management Plan has been prepared for the Whispering Oaks portion

of the Project. See June 14 Staff Report: Exhibit A, p. 10 discussion); Exhibit B, p. 36

Mitigation Measure 1310- 10, referencing Forest Management Plans that were prepared

for the MST and Whispering Oaks Business park sites); Exhibit R identifying

Whispering Oaks Forest Resources Evaluation as a Forest Management Plan"); Exhibit

D-2, pp 6, and 12 resolution claiming Forest Management Plans were prepared for both

sites and listing a Forest Management Plan for the Whispering Oaks site).

OFF-SITE DRAINAGE SYSTEM UNDEFINED: Furthermore, the DEIR admits

that required off-site drainage improvements could result in additional oak tree losses, but

it does not even attempt to quantify these losses, and it ignores these losses in discussing

the extent of oak tree losses. DEIR, p. 2-65. Three off-site drainage plans have been

developed, but the EIR does not identify which alternative will be selected. DEIR, pp. 1-

44 to 1-59. No Forest Management Plan or Forest Resource Evaluation was prepared, or

is even discussed, for the oak tree losses in connection with off-site drainage.

NEW APPLICANT SUBMITTALS CHANGE PROJECT DESCRIPTION BUT

ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE EIR AND EACH OTHER: The June 14 Staff

Report repeatedly states that the project description has been changed" to show that

more trees will be retained. Staff Report, June 14, 2011, Exhibit A, p. 10; see also p. 3

summary), Exhibit D2, p. 13 findings). This claim is apparently based on a May 24,

2011 letter from the applicant submitted to support the appeal and another undated recent

submittal captioned Whispering Oaks Oak Tree Preservation and Recovery Strategy.

Staff Report, June 14, 2011, Exhibits N and P.

These last minute changes to the Project description were not in the EIR and are

inconsistent with documents that are in the EIR. Furthermore, the changes are not in fact

based on the completion of an adequate project description.

The applicant's letter claims that tree removal estimates in the DEIR were worst

case assumptions and that a more detained analysis of the likelihood of actual tree

removal was undertaken." Staff Report, June 14, 2011, Exhibit N, p. 1. However this

more detailed analysis" is not in the EIR and it is not included in the applicant's letter

either. The letter provides only an estimate" that 10-35% of trees within the

development parcels can be retained and an assumption" that 20% will be retained. The

applicant's letter then concludes that an estimated additional 660 trees will be preserved

at the site." Id. at 2. Unaccountably, the applicant's letter then purports to commit the

Project to reduce the number of trees to be removed by 1,000  not just the 660 that were

estimated." Id.

There no actual design basis for this claim. The June 14 Staff Report admits that

there are still no plans for the actual development of the Whispering Oaks portion of the

Project on lots 2-16. Staff Report, June 14, 2011, Exhibit A, p. 6. The applicant's letter

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 6

contains no factual details to support this analysis, references no fact-based expert

opinion, and clearly constitutes a self-interested claim. There is simply no evidence that

the claimed level of tree retention is feasible. Furthermore, there is no evidence that

retention of isolated pockets of trees along parking lots and streets retains any habitat

value.)

The tree retention estimates in the applicant's letter are also contradicted by the

applicant's submittal captioned Whispering Oaks Oak Tree Preservation and Recovery

Strategy. For lots 2-14, that document states that the target' for the above preservation

strategy is a minimum of 250 resident oaks." Staff Report, June 14, 2011, Exhibit P, p. 1.

For the MST lot Lot 1), that document identifies only 158 trees that can be retained

148+10 in the buffer and east of the buffer). Id. at 2. Thus, while the applicant's letter

claims retention of 1,000 trees, the applicant's mitigation strategy only identifies 408.

And both of the recent submittals are inconsistent with the MST Forest

Management Plan and the Whispering Oaks Forest Resource Evaluation that were

contained in the EIR. For example, the MST Forest Management Plan at page 6 states

that of the 2568 trees at the site, 2,420 will be removed and only 148 will be retained.

The Whispering Oaks Forest Resources Evaluation identifies 3,598 trees at the site at

page 4), but states that the numbers of trees to be removed and replaced cannot be

determined without a design plan at pages 8-9).

The applicant does not and cannot provide any guarantee that any specific number

of trees will be retained. In fact, the Staff Report makes it clear that the applicant is

welcome to come back to the County for permission to remove additional trees on the

site: a]s the 15 lots are developed within the business park, a maximum of 1,000 trees

could be removed for those developments before additional tree permitting is required."

Staff Report, Exhibit A, p. 9 discussion, emphasis added).

Finally, as discussed below, the new applicant submittal is not consistent with the

EIR's provisions for replanting trees on-site and off-site mitigation.

In sum, the project description is inadequate to support analysis of Project

impacts; and, in fact, the EIR fails to disclose the extent and location Project impacts.

INADEQUATE PROJECT DESCRIPTION PRECLUDES EFFECTIVE

MITIGATION AND ADEQUATE FINDINGS: The County must find that impacts will

be mitigated, its findings must be supported with substantial evidence, and mitigation

must be feasible. CEQA Guidelines,  15091(a)(1), b), 15126.4(a). Because the

Project is inadequately described, this is not possible.

A portion of the purported mitigation includes the creation of easements on

Parcels C and D. As discussed below, the EIR does not identify the oaks on these parcels

either by number or by a more meaningful measure such as acres of habitat. Nor does the

EIR demonstrate that these parcels will protect oaks that are not already protected. Nor

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 7

does the EIR demonstrate that these parcels qualify as conservation easement locations

under the Oak Woodlands Conservation Act, because they are identified as replanting

sites, which is inconsistent with also treating them as easement locations. However, even

if these defects could be overcome, the EIR does not actually identify the easements that

would be created, and the conditions of approval make it clear that this determination has

not yet been made. Condition 11 calls for conveying an easement on Parcel C. No

condition apparently requires conveying an easement on Parcel D. Even if the omission

of parcel D is an oversight that is corrected, Condition 11 does not specify the extent and

nature of the easement. Instead, it merely states that t]he easement shall be developed

in consultation with certified professional." Thus it is entirely unclear how many oaks or

how many functional acres of oak woodlands habitat would be conserved.

Furthermore, a portion of the mitigation calls for retention of existing trees where

feasible." FEIR, pp. 4-9, 4-12 Mitigation Measures 1310- 10 and 11). However, the

EIR does not and cannot determine whether or to what extent this proposed mitigation is

feasible, because it is unclear how the building pads for subdivision lots 2-16 will be laid

out. Thus, it is unclear whether and to what extent it will actually be feasible to retain

oak trees. The County cannot reasonably find that the proposed mitigation in BIO-10 and

BIO-11 calling for tree retention is feasible because the very determination of feasibility

must await an adequate project description.

Finally, no reference is made to mitigation of potential losses due to off-site

drainage in Mitigation Measures 1310- 10, 11, and 12. Again, the absence of an adequate

project description precludes effective and complete mitigation.

3. The Fort Ord Habitat Management Plan Is Not Intended To Mitigate

Impacts To Oak Woodlands

The Fort Ord Habitat Management Plan expressly covers only a discrete list of

individual species HMP species"), which does not include oak trees. HMP, p. 1-15.

The only habitat types that were analyzed in the HMP were maritime chaparral; coastal

strand; dune, scrub; beaches, bluffs, and blowouts; ice plant mats; and disturbed dunes.

HMP at 1-16. Impacts to oak woodlands habitat were not analyzed.

Thus, while the HMP is intended to provide suitable mitigation for impacts to

HMP species HMP at 4-9), it is not intended to provide mitigation for impacts to oak

woodlands. In discussing future regulatory compliance, the HMP states that i]ssues,

such as oak woodlands mitigation, outside the scope of the HMP would need to be

considered under CEQA." HMP at 4-10, emphasis added. Indeed, the EIR's Preliminary

Mitigation Strategy Plan admits that o]ak woodlands is not a habitat considered in the

HMP, and therefore, there are no habitat management requirements for oak woodland

identified in the HMP." Preliminary Mitigation Strategy Plan, p. 2.

In sum, it is clear that the HMP does not even address oak woodland loss, much

less purport to provide a basis to find that oak woodlands losses are mitigated. It is

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 8

disingenuous of the DEIR to cite consistency with the HMP as the basis of any finding

that oak woodland losses are less than significant. DEIR, p. 2-65. It is particularly

disingenuous to claim that loss of oak trees was addressed in the HMP. DEIR, p. 3-22.

It is equally troubling that the Staff Report states categorically and incorrectly that

the HMP was intended to mitigate oak woodlands impacts:

To mitigate for impacts on various types of habitats including oak woodland,

over 17,000 acres of the former military base was set-aside as permanent open

space no development'. The HMP addressed the loss of oak woodlands and

other resources on properties designated for development, including the subject

property, through this mitigation." Planning Commission Staff Report, March 9,

2011, p. 14.

In its conclusions regarding the significance of the loss of oak woodlands, the

Base Reuse Plan EIR mentions that some oaks will be retained within habitat

management lands and conservation areas and corridors established by the HMP. See

Base Reuse Plan EIR, p. 4-179. However, the mere fact that the Base Reuse Plan does

not remove all of the oak woodlands does not constitute mitigation for the loss of the oak

woodlands that are removed. And, as discussed below, the Base Reuse Plan EIR does not

and can not provide the basis for concluding that project-specific impacts have been

adequately mitigated here.

4. Conservation Easements And The Base Reuse Plan Provisions Do Not

Mitigate Project Impacts

The EIR cites conservation easements and the Project's consistency with the Base

Reuse Plan EIR in support of its significance finding. DEIR, p. 2-65; Preliminary

Mitigation Strategy Plan, pp. 2-4. The Base Reuse Plan EIR admits that planned

development on former Fort Ord will destroy 1,584 acres of oak woodlands, representing

34% of the 5,000 acres of oak woodlands habitat in former Fort Ord. Base Reuse Plan

EIR, p. 4-175. Note that the Base Reuse Plan EIR identifies the largest contiguous area

of coast live oak as an area that includes the Project site at the former landfill. Id. at 4-

176.

The Base Reuse Plan EIR points out that the plan will not result in the loss of all

5,000 acres of oaks because some will be preserved, but it admits that 1,584 acres of oaks

will be lost, which is a potentially significant impact. Id. at 4-175. However, the Base

Reuse Plan EIR concludes that impacts to oak woodlands caused by the Reuse Plan will

be less than significant based on several factors:

 Preservation of some oaks on-site through an oak woodland conservation area.

Biological Resources Policy B-2 requires that as site-specific planning for the

landfill area in which the Project is located) proceeds, the County shall designate

an oak woodland conservation area connecting the open space lands of the habitat

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 9

management lands south of the landfill site and the oak woodlands corridors east

of the landfill site to the oak woodlands surrounding the former Fort Ord landfill

in Polygon 8a on the north." Id. at 4-178; see Fort Ord Reuse Plan, p. 382.

 Preservation of some oaks on-site within habitat management lands and other

conservation areas and corridors established in the HMP. Id. at 4-179.

 Policies requiring careful site design to minimize loss of oak trees, e.g., policies

and programs that encourage" preservation, proposed ordinances addressing"

preservation of oak trees, clustering development wherever possible," requiring

landscaping with oaks, and protecting retained oaks. Id. at 4-176 to 4-177.

 The effective requirement of a 1:1 replacement of all trees removed pursuant to

the County ordinance. Id. at 4-179.

Thus, in finding impacts less than significant, the Base Reuse Plan EIR counts critically

on additional conservation easements and tree planting to replace these lost trees through

its assumption that a County ordinance requires 1:1 replacement of lost trees.

Here, the Project's conservation easements and its purported consistency with the

Base Reuse Plan EIR cannot provide an adequate basis to conclude that this Project's

impacts are less than significant for several reasons. First, the conservation easements do

not protect any additional oak woodland at risk of development. Second, mitigation in

the Base Reuse Plan EIR does not meet the requirements of the Oak Woodlands

Conservation Act, Public Resources Code  21083.4(b)(1). Third, the County has not

adequately implemented the Base Reuse Plan Biological Resources Policy B-2 to

designate the oak woodland conservation area at the landfill site. Fourth, the County

ordinance does not in fact require 1:1 replacement planting, and mitigation for this

Project does not clearly require 1:1 replacement planting either.

a. The Project's Conservation Easements Do Not Protect

Unprotected Oaks

Conservation easements identified in the EIR cannot count as effective mitigation

because they do not protect additional land, they do not protect land at risk for

development, and/or there is no evidence that the land to be protected is in fact oak

woodland habitat suitable for a conservation easement under the Oak Woodlands

Conservation Act.

PARCEL C CANNOT BE DOUBLE COUNTED AS MITIGATION: In its

discussion of the significance of oak woodland impacts, the DEIR claims that the Project

would mitigate oak woodlands loss through conservation easements." DEIR, p. 2-65.

Elsewhere, the DEIR discusses both a 48.91 acre parcel C at the northwest corner of the

site and an 8.71 acre parcel D at the eastern end. See DEIR, pp. 1-13, 2-53 to 2-54, and

Figure 10.

However, including parcel C as mitigation would be double counting. The DEIR

states that a conservation easement has been recorded for the proposed Parcel C as

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 10

habitat mitigation for the Marina Heights residential project to the north of Imjin

Parkway." DEIR, p. 1-13. The DEIR states that preservation of this habitat area is

consistent with  the Marina Heights memorandum of agreement. DEIR, p. 2-54. The

DEIR also states that a]-portion of the area that comprises proposed Parcel C was set

aside in a memorandum of agreement between the County, FORA, and Cypress Marina

Heights LP-to mitigate loss of sand gilia at the Marina Heights residential project to the

north of Imjin Road. This area is part of the 227 acres within the landfill parcel that are

required to be set aside for habitat conservation in the HMP." DEIR, p. 2-53.

The Marina Heights project Memorandum of Agreement requires FORA and the

County to allow implementation of a Mitigation Plan for the Preservation and Habitat

Restoration Areas in the landfill site.3 Under the MOA, a conservation easement was

established on the Preservation and Habitat Management Areas in order to implement an

incidental take permit under the California Endangered Species Act. The Incidental Take

Permit for the Marina Heights project requires the Cypress Marina Heights LLP to ensure

protection of a 140-acre portion of the landfill site. CDFG, Incidental Take Permit No.

2081-2005-029-03, March 6, 2006, pp. 4-5, excerpts attached as Exhibit 1. Thus,

because Parcel C has already been identified as mitigation for another project, this Project

cannot take credit for setting it aside  because it is already protected.

PARCEL C IS ALREADY PROTECTED BY ITS HABITAT MANAGEMENT

LAND USE DESIGNATION: More fundamentally, since parcel C is part of the 227

acres within the landfill parcel that are required to be set aside for habitat conservation in

the HMP" DEIR, p. 2-53), then it is not part of the developable area within the landfill.

Note that the DEIR reflects the fact that Parcel C is designated as Habitat Management"

and is outside the area designated as Planned Development Mixed Use. Compare DEIR,

Figures 8 Fort Ord Reuse Plan Land Use map) and 10 vesting tentative map). The land

use designation Habitat Management" is applied to all open space identified by the

Habitat Management Plan as critical to the survival of the natural communities and

sensitive species at Fort Ord." Fort Ord Reuse Plan, Table 3.4-1, p. 102. Uses permitted

in this area include only habitat management; ecological restoration activities;

environmental educational activities; and passive recreation activities, such as hiking,

nature study, horse and bike riding. Id. Thus, by virtue of its land use designation, Parcel

C's preservation has already been assumed in the HMP and the Fort Ord Reuse plan, and

it is already protected.

PARCEL D IS ALREADY PROTECTED TOO: Parcel D is also designated as

Habitat Management" and is outside the area designated as Planned Development

Mixed Use. Compare DEIR, Figures 8 Fort Ord Reuse Plan Land Use map) and 10

vesting tentative map). Thus, by virtue of its land use designation, Parcel D's

preservation has already been assumed in the HMP and the Fort Ord Reuse plan, and it

See FORA Board Packet for Dec. 12, 2008, draft Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Habitat

Management Portions of the LandFill Site at the Former Fort Ord, available at

http: //fora.org/Boardjbdagendas.htm. Minutes of that meeting also available at

http://fora.org/Board./bdagendas.htin) indicate that this MOA was adopted.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 11

too is already protected. The preservation of Parcel D cannot be treated as mitigation for

this Project.

NO EVIDENCE THAT PARCELS C AND D WOULD BE SUITABLE OR

SUFFICIENT CONSERVATION EASEMENTS: As discussed, neither the EIR nor the

conditions of approval actually delineate the provisions, scope, extent, or actual location

of the proposed conservation easements. Furthermore, the EIR provides no information

as to the whether Parcels C and D are actually suitable oak woodlands for mitigation

credit under Public Resources Code  21083.4(b)(1). However, there is evidence to the

contrary.

First, the EIR calls for planting oaks on Parcel D as part of its mitigation. FEIR,

p. 4-12; see also Staff Report, June 14, 2011, Exhibit P, p. 2 calling for planting 217

trees on Parcel D). The June 14 Staff Report also implies that some replanting may take

place on Parcel C. Staff Report, June 14, 2011, Exhibit P, p. 2 calling for planting 6055

trees on the border of the County's sand gilia mitigation area," which is presumably in

Parcel Q. If Parcels C and D are part of the tree planting mitigation under Public

Resources Code  21083.4(b)(2) permitting partial mitigation via tree planting), the

Project cannot also treat these parcels as mitigation under subdivision b)(1) permitting

mitigation via conservation easements). Subdivision b)(2) clearly distinguishes tree

planting from other forms of mitigation, including conservation easements under

subdivision b)(1), and provides that at most half of the mitigation can be provided by

tree planting. Here, use of Parcels C and D for tree planting forecloses their use as an

alternative form of mitigation. See discussion in next section below.)

Second, Parcel C is designated as mitigation for impacts to sand gilia for the

Marina Heights project. The HMP indicates that sand gilia habitat is not oak woodlands

but sandy openings. HMP, p. 1-7. Furthermore, available habitat mapping indicates that

Parcel C is not primarily oak woodland. Compare Base Reuse Plan, Figure 4.4.1 Oak

Woodland Areas) to DEIR Figure 10. Ironically, this mapping demonstrates that the

most abundant oak woodlands at the landfill are located in the portion of the Project site

proposed for development. Id.

b. The Project Is Inconsistent With the Oak Woodlands

Conservation Act Because More Than Half Of Its Mitigation

Is Through Tree Planting

The Base Reuse Plan and its associated EIR predate the Legislature's adoption of

the Oak Woodlands Conservation Act, Public Resources Code  21083.4(b)(1). Thus,

the Base Reuse Plan EIR did not find, and cannot provide a basis to find, that the Reuse

Plan meets CEQA's current specific requirements for mitigation of oak woodlands

impacts.

Here, this Project's EIR acknowledges that CEQA's Oak Woodlands

Conservation Act permits at most one half of mitigation in the form of tree planting.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 12

DEIR, App. D, Preliminary Mitigation Strategy Plan, p. 10. However, the DEIR states

that the Project will also provide mitigation through Alternative 1 of the Oak Woodlands

Conservation Act Public Resources Code,  21083.4(b)(1)), which permits mitigation

through conservation easements. DEIR, pp. 2-65; DEIR, App. D, Preliminary Mitigation

Strategy Plan, pp. 10-12.

In particular, the DEIR claims that base-wide conservation easements combined

with the proposed on-site easements also satisfy Alternative I of PRC 21083.4 with the

required payment of FORA development fees, a portion of which goes to management of

the open space." DEIR, p. 2-65. Thus, the DEIR takes credit for at least half of the

Project's mitigation for its destruction of 37.4 acres of oak woodlands in the form of 1)

conservation easements for Parcels C and D, and 2) payment of FORA development fees.

To qualify under Public Resources Code,  21083.4(b)(1), the record must show that the

Project will create at least 17.2 acres of conservation easement for oak woodlands habitat.

But the EIR does not and cannot make such a showing.

As discussed above, the Project cannot take credit for conservation easements on

Parcels C and D because Parcel C is already mitigation for another project and both

Parcels C and D are already protected by virtue of their land use designations.

Furthermore, as discussed in the sections above and below, there is no evidence in the

record of the extent of any oak woodlands on these parcels, and there is evidence that

they are not suitable sites for conservation easements.

The EIR's only remaining basis for claiming mitigation for lost trees other than

tree planting is payment of FORA developer fees, which the EIR assumes goes toward

maintenance of open space areas. However, the payment of FORA development fees,

even if some unspecified portion of these fees goes toward maintenance of some

unspecified open space areas, does not create a conservation easement. There is no

evidence in the EIR that any easement is created through these fees. In fact, the EIR

admits that it does not present evidence connecting payment of a developer fee with an

oak woodland conservation easement. After recommending that the Project take credit

for funding conservation measures through payment of developer fees, the EIR states

i]t is also recommended that the County and the project proponent meet with FORA to

obtain a clear understanding of the nexus between the developer fee and funding of

habitat management requirements." DEIR, App. D, Preliminary Mitigation Strategy

Plan, p. 12. Thus, the EIR recognizes the need for, but does not actually provide,

evidence that Project FORA fees will create sufficient acreage of conservation easements.

Furthermore, available documentation demonstrates that a very small portion of

the developer fee actually goes to habitat management. Only 18% of the FORA

developer fees go to habitat management activities. FORA, Capital Improvement

Program, Fiscal Year 2010/11 through 2021/22, July 9, 2010 FORA CIP"), Table 3, p.

12.4 The FORA Capital Improvement Program does not indicate what portion of this

Available at http:/,/www.fora.org/.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 13

amount is used to conserve oak woodlands. However, as explained above, the Fort Ord

HMP, for which these fees are expended see FORA CIP, p. 7), was expressly not

designed to protect oak woodlands. Thus, there is simply no evidence that payment of

FORA developer fees sufficiently mitigates at least half of the Project's impacts to oak

woodlands  even if there is some incidental benefit to oak woodlands from the HMP.

c. County Has Not Adequately Implemented the Base Reuse

Plan Biological Resources Policy B-2 For Oak Woodlands

The DEIR cites the Project's purported consistency with the Base Reuse Plan

Biological Resources Policy B-2 protecting oak woodlands as evidence that impacts are

less than significant. The EIR contends that the establishment of conservation easements

on Parcels C and D is consistent" with Biological Resources Policy B-2, the HCP, and

the Marina Heights memorandum of agreement. DEIR, p. 2-54.5

Biological Resources Policy B-2 requires that as site-specific planning for the

landfill area in which the Project is located) proceeds, the County shall designate an oak

woodland conservation area connecting the open space lands outside the landfill site to

the oak woodlands surrounding the former Fort Ord landfill in Polygon 8a on the north."

Id. at 4-178. Biological Resources Policy B-2 provides in its entirety:

As site-specific planning proceeds for Polygons 8a, 16, 17a, 19a, 21 a and 21 b,

the County shall coordinate with the Cities of Seaside and Marina, California

State University, FORA and other interested entities in the designation of an oak

woodland conservation area connecting the open space lands of the habitat

management areas on the south, the oak woodland corridor in Polygons 17b and

11 a on the east and the oak woodlands surrounding the former Fort Ord landfill

in Polygon 8a on the north. Oak woodlands areas are depicted in Figure 4.4-1."

Fort Ord Reuse Plan, p. 382, emphasis added.

The Project site comprises a significant portion of the oak woodlands surrounding the

former Fort Ord landfill site in Polygon 8a. Compare Fort Ord Reuse Plan, Figure 4.4-1

to DEIR, Figure 10.

As discussed above, Parcels D and C are already protected by virtue of their

designation as habitat management in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. Interpreting Biological

Resources Policy B-2 merely to permit the designation of oak woodland conservation

areas in land that is already protected simply makes no sense.

The reference to the Marina Heights memorandum of agreement apparently applies to Parcel C,

which is mitigation for that project. Thus, it is not clear whether the DEIR claims that Policy B-2 is

implemented by both parcels C and D, or just by Parcel D. However, the March 9, 2011 Planning

Commission Staff report mentions only Parcel D as the basis for meeting Policy B-2. Staff Report, March

9,2011,p.37.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 14

Furthermore, on its face, the retention of only some of the oak woodlands at the

landfill site, while destroying 37.4 acres of oak woodlands surrounding the landfill to the

south, cannot reasonably be interpreted as connecting the habitat and corridor areas to the

east and south to the oak woodlands surrounding the former Fort Ord landfill in

Polygon 8a." Biological Resources Policy B-2 specifically references a map of the oak

woodlands at Fort Ord, clearly implying that the mapped oak woodlands surrounding the

landfill site should be designated as oak woodlands conservation area. Elimination of a

major portion of the oak woodlands surrounding the landfill site is not consistent with the

language of this policy.

Even if Biological Resources Policy B-2 did contemplate the loss of major

portions of the oak woodlands at the landfill site and did contemplate the redundant

protection of land already designated for habitat management, the EIR provides

insufficient information to determine whether Parcel D and/or Parcel C will fulfill the

intent of the policy  which is to protect oak woodlands.

As discussed, the applicant proposes to plant oaks in Parcels C and D. Policy B-2

is clearly intended to preserve existing woodlands.

No information is presented about the location and extent of the oak woodlands at

the landfill site other than on the Project site. And the data for oaks affected by the

Project is itself incomplete and inconsistent. No estimate is provided of oaks affected by

the off-site drainage areas. The DEIR's estimate of a 37.4 acre loss due to the Project is

apparently based on Table I of the Biological Assessment. DEIR, App. D, Biological

Assessment, p. 11. However, Table 1-2 of Preliminary Mitigation Strategy Plan

identifies only 14 acres of oak woodland habitat acreage at the Landfill Parcel in Polygon

8a. DEIR, App. D, Preliminary Mitigation Strategy Plan, p. 3. This 14-acre estimate

cannot represent the Project's destruction of oak woodlands6, much less the total oak

woodlands in Polygon 8a.

Thus, the EIR fails to present meaningful information about the extent of existing

oak woodlands affected by the Project or potentially preserved under the Base Reuse Plan

Biological Resources Policy B-2. Since one clear objective of Biological Resources

Policy B-2 is to connect areas to the south and east of the land fill site to the oak

woodlands surrounding the landfill site, the EIR should have identified the extent and

location of the other oak woodlands at the landfill site. And the EIR should have

specified the actual scope, extent, and location of the easement areas  not left this to be

determined through future consultation with an unaccountable third party.

Furthermore, the EIR does not mention the County's obligation to ensure

continual management and monitoring of the oak woodland conservation area designated

pursuant to Biological Resources Programs B-2.1 and B-2.2. See Fort Ord Reuse Plan, p.

6 It may be intended to represent the oak woodlands lost for the west landfill parcel" portion of the

project  see Biological Assessment, Table 1.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 15

382. Without enforceable provisions for future management and monitoring, the mere

designation of a conservation area does not meet the provisions of the Fort Ord Reuse

plan and cannot be relied upon as mitigation.

d. Neither the County Ordinance Nor Project Mitigation

Mandates The 1:1 Replacement Planting Assumed In The

Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR

The DEIR finds oak woodlands impacts less than significant in part because of

the Project's purported consistency with the Base Reuse Plan and its EIR. The Base

Reuse Plan EIR in turn based its significance finding in part on the assumption that oak

trees lost due to development would be replaced at a 1:1 ratio based on the Monterey

County ordinance. Base Reuse Plan EIR, p. 4-179.

However, the current Monterey County ordinance does not require 1:1 replanting

of removed trees. Monterey County Code  21.64.260.D.4 permits an exception to the

1:1 replacement ratio on a showing that the requirement will create a special hardship in

the use of the site or such replacement would be detrimental to the long-term health and

maintenance of the remaining habitat." The EIR has made no showing that oaks trees

removed for the former Fort Ord have been and will continue to be replaced at a 1:1 ratio

 either within County jurisdiction or within jurisdictions of other member agencies.

And despite confused and inconsistent language referencing a 1:1 replacement

ratio, it is apparent that the EIR concludes that the Project would be eligible for this

exception and that Project mitigation does not actually require 1:1 replacement of

removed oak trees.

BIO-10, by referencing the MST Forest Management Plan, requires on-site

replanting of only 900 trees to replace the 2,420 trees lost on the MST site. FEIR, p. 4-

11; MST Forest Management Plan, p. 11. BIO-10 does not specify the number of

replacement trees for the Whispering Oaks site, calling only for an appropriate number.

 based on available planting space." FEIR, p. 4-12.

BIO-11 passively states that off-site replanting and habitat management or

payment of equivalent in-lieu fees to the Parks Department will occur. The Youth Camp

has been identified as an appropriate off-site mitigation area to achieve a minimum 1:1

replacement." FEIR, p. 4-13. This language implies but does not actually require that a

1:1 replanting ratio will be required: it contains no enforceable or mandatory language

and does not specify who might be responsible for replanting. Furthermore,

notwithstanding the intention that there be no net loss of trees," as announced in the

applicant's recently submitted Whispering Oaks Oak Tree Preservation and Recovery

strategy," any implication that a 1:1 ratio will be required is contradicted by the express

provisions for a 3:1 credit for transplants and for reliance on exceptions to the 1: l

replanting requirement, as discussed below.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 16

3:1 CREDIT FOR TRANSPLANTS: Mitigation Measure 1310- 10 permits the

Project to take credit for transplanted trees at a 3:1 ratio, based on the requirement that

the Project comply with recommendations in the MST Forest Management Plan. FEIR,

pp. 4-11, 4-9. The MST Forest Management Plan states that because transplants take

more growing space, they should be credited on a 3:1 basis versus seedlings." DEIR,

Appendix D, MST Forest Management Plan, p. 11. In short, mitigation would permit the

Project to compensate for the loss of three trees by transplanting a single tree instead of

planting three seedlings. Nothing in the Base Reuse Plan EIR or the Monterey County

code contemplates relaxing the 1:1 replanting requirement based on the use of transplants

versus seedlings.

EXCEPTION FOR HARDSHIP OR LONG TERM HABITAT HEALTH:

Mitigation Measures 1310- 10 and I 1 do not expressly require 1:1 replacement. Instead,

they reference documents that expressly permit reliance on the exception for hardship or

detriments to long term habitat health.

1310- 10 calls for compliance with measures included in the Forest Management

Plans that were prepared for the MST and Whispering Oaks Business Park sites." Staff

Report, June 14, 2011, Exhibit B, p. 36 condition 59, 1310- 10). 1310- 10 expressly

references the mitigation ratios and planting areas" identified in the Forest Management

plans. Both the MST Forest Management Plan and the Whispering Oaks Forest Resource

Evaluation reference compliance with measures in the Preliminary Mitigation Strategy

Plan as mitigation. DEIR, App. D, MST Forest Management Plan, p. 10 and Whispering

Oaks Forest Resource Evaluation, p. 10.

The Preliminary Mitigation Strategy Plan in turn concludes that replanting or

restoration is not an appropriate mitigation alternative for the project" for two reasons.

DEIR, App. D, Preliminary Mitigation Strategy Plan, p. 11. First, it claims replanting

on site would result in an unhealthy and overcrowded environment and put a special

hardship on the proposed use of the site." Second, it claims replanting off-site may also

result in an unhealthy and overcrowded environment" and is not needed since the

project proponent is already funding protection and management of oak woodland habitat

off-site on the former Fort Ord through payment of the FORA development fee."7 Id.

For these reasons, the Preliminary Mitigation Strategy Plan concludes that the county

can determine that the project proponent is not required to replace or replant native oak

trees at a 1:1 ratio." Id. at 12.

The announced intention to take advantage of the exception to the 1:1 replanting

requirement  even if it were justified under the Project's circumstances  is simply

inconsistent with the notion that the Project will in fact be required to meet the 1:1 ratio.

As written, the mitigation is at minimum unclear on this point, and therefore

The claim that off-site replanting may also result in an unhealthy and overcrowded environment is

entirely unsupported and unfounded. The EIR does not demonstrate that there are no off-site locations

available for replanting oaks in a healthy environment. In fact, the Preliminary Mitigation Strategy Plan

specifically identifies mechanisms by which off-site replanting locations can be acquired. Id. at 8-10.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 17

unenforceable. The possibility that the Project will not replant at a 1:1 ratio vitiates

reliance on the claim that the Project is consistent with the impact analysis in the Base

Reuse Plan EIR that assumed that all lost oaks would be replaced. Furthermore, as

discussed below, the exception renders the Project inconsistent with the 2010 Monterey

County General Plan Policy OS 5.23(c), which requires replacement on a minimum 1:1

ratio.

5. Mitigation Does Not Meet CEQA's Requirements For Certainty,

Enforceability, And Performance Specifications

CEQA requires mitigation be feasible and enforceable. CEQA Guidelines,

15126.4(a). Formulation of mitigation measures may not be deferred, but an agency may

adopt performance standards that would accomplish mitigation in more than one specific

way. CEQA Guidelines  15126.4(a)(1)(B).

CEQA is clear that an agency may only defer the formulation of mitigation

measures when it recognizes the significance of the potential environmental effect,

commits itself to mitigating its impact, and articulates specific performance criteria for

the future mitigation." Gentry v. City ofMurietta 1995) 36 Cal.App.4 th 1359, 1411,

citing Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council 1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028-

1029; Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange 2005) 131 Cal.App.4t'

777, 794.

An agency must have, and must articulate, a good reason for deferring the

formulation of mitigation. San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced

2007) 149 Cal.App.4t' 645, 670, 684.

The County may not delegate the formulation and approval of programs to

address environmental impacts because an agency's legislative body must ultimately

review and vouch for all environmental analysis mandated by CEQA. Sundstrom v

County of Mendocino 1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 306-308.

Here, Project mitigation for oak woodlands impacts does not meet CEQA's

requirements.

First, mitigation is unclear and therefore not enforceable because it references

documents that do not exist or, if they do exist, are not included in the EIR, are not

accurately identified, and/or were not circulated timely to the public. Mitigation Measure

BIO-10 and 11 in the FEIR and the conditions of approval reference the following

documents that do not exist:

Forest Management Plans that were prepared for the MST and Whispering Oaks

Business Park sites." FEIR, p. 4-9; Staff Report, June 14, 2011, Exhibit B, p. 36

condition 59, BIO-10). No forest management plan was prepared for the

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 18

Whispering Oaks site because, as discussed above, that portion of the Project has

not been sufficiently defined.

 The Oak tree preservation and recovery strategy prepared in compliance with the

recommendation of the Forest Management Plan..." and the Oak Tree

Preservation-Recovery Strategy for this project  FEIR, pp. 4-9 and 4-12;

Staff Report, June 14, 2011, Exhibit B, pp. 35-36 conditions 59, 60 for 1310- 10

and BIO-11). While the DEIR Appendix D contains a document titled

Preliminary Oak Woodland Habitat and Tree Removal Mitigation Strategy Plan

for the MST Facility/Whispering Oaks Business Park Site," the FEIR deletes the

DEIR's earlier reference to this document. FEIR, p. 4-12. As discussed, the

applicant recently submitted a document captioned Whispering Oaks Oak Tree

Preservation and Recovery Strategy," but this document did not exist when the

EIR was drafted and appears to have been created to support applicant's appeal.

And it could not have been prepared in compliance with recommendation of the

Forest Management Plan" for Whispering Oaks, because that Forest management

Plan does not yet exist. Regardless, it is unclear what Oak Tree Preservation-

Recovery Strategy" or Oak tree preservation and recovery strategy" document is

actually referenced by the Mitigation Measures.

Second, references to compliance with a forest management plan for the

Whispering Oaks site is improperly deferred mitigation. A]n agency goes too far when

it simply requires a project applicant to obtain a biological report and then comply with

any recommendations that may be made in the report." Endangered Habitats League,

Inc. v. County of Orange 2005) 131 Cal.App.4t 777, 794. Mitigation provisions have

not been spelled out and they may be incompatible with other mitigation provisions. And

mitigation is improperly delegated because the EIR contains no provision for future

approval of the Forest Management Plan by a legislative body of the County.

Similarly, the ambiguous references to the Oak tree preservation and recovery

strategy prepared in compliance with the recommendation of the Forest Management

Plan.   and the Oak Tree Preservation-Recovery Strategy for this project  amount

to impermissible deferral of mitigation. Even if this reference is now construed as a

reference to the applicant's submittal, the information was not part of the EIR. If the

reference is in fact to a strategy document that has yet to be created, then the mitigation is

clearly improperly deferred

Third, Mitigation 1310- 10 as set forth in the FEIR differs substantially from BIO-

10 as set forth in the conditions of approval. Compare FEIR, pp. 4-9 to 4-12 to Staff

Report, June 14, 2011, Exhibit B, p. 59. The final version in the conditions of approval

omits two and a half pages of detailed provisions covering tree protection measures,

replacement and replanting for the MST project, and design measures for the Whispering

Oaks project. While those provisions fall far short of CEQA's requirements for

performance specifications, their omission from the final version is unexplained. It is

unclear what version would be enforceable.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 19

Fourth, 1310- 10, as set out in the conditions of approval improperly defers the

formulation of mitigation without providing performance specifications for protection of

retained trees, replanting, and project design. A provision in BIO-10 provides that a

qualified arborist shall be consulted as necessary regarding the best removal, protection,

transplanting, planting, and irrigation methods as construction proceeds." CEQA simply

does not countenance mitigation calling for complying with recommendations in a study

to be provided later.

Fifth, while 1310- 10 as set out in the FEIR contains performance specifications to

protect trees retained on site, it lacks enforceable performance specifications for project

design and replanting requirements:

 MST project design and replanting requirements:

o The provision that consideration should be given to redesigning the

project to use the existing encroachment from Inter-garrison road in order

to preserve landmark-sized trees at this location" is precatory and not

enforceable.

o The provision that transplants are encouraged" is precatory and not

enforceable.

o As noted, there are no clearly stated requirements for the number and

location of replanted trees. For example, as discussed above, Mitigation

Measure 1310- 10 references documents that expressly except the Project

from the requirement to replant lost oaks at a 1:1 ratio. To the extent that

other language may imply the contrary, the mitigation is unclear and

unenforceable.

o The provision that replanting numbers may be modified does not provide a

formula for determining how they may be modified by additional tree

retention." Will additional off-site plantings be required? How many?

1:1? 1:3?

 Whispering Oaks project design and replanting requirements:

o The provision that a qualified Arborist shall assist" in the eventual

design, does not include a performance specification because it does not

clarify decisional authority or provide specifications to clarify the

Arborist's design authority.

o The provision that elevations should match existing terrain to the extent

feasible" to preserve trees provides no basis for determining what is

feasible." Not only does this provision lack a performance specification,

but it constitutes an abdication of the County's obligation to make a

determination of feasibility at the time of Project approval. Infeasiblity of

mitigation must be based on substantial evidence and findings must be

made at the time the project is approved. Public Resources Code,

21081.5; CEQA Guidelines,  15091(c); Village Laguna ofLaguna Beach,

Inc. v. Board of Supervisors 1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 1022, 1034-1035.

Findings of infeasibility must be made for each mitigation measure that is

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 20

identified but not adopted. For example, if mitigation is found infeasible

for financial reasons, the agency must demonstrate that the project would

not be viable if the mitigation were imposed. Citizens of Goleta Valley v.

Board of Supervisors 1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1181.

o The provision that use of the existing encroachment to Inter-Garrison

Road shall be considered" is precatory and not enforceable.

o The provision that an appropriate number" of replacement trees will be

made based on available planting space does not supply an enforceable

performance specification. Again, there is no clear and enforceable

specification for the number and location of replacement trees.

Sixth, the EIR does not present any justification for deferring the formulation of

mitigation other than the fact that the Whispering Oaks project has not yet been designed.

As discussed above, the lack of a project design for Whispering Oaks results in a failure

to provide an adequate project description. There appears to be no justification for

deferring the Whispering Oaks project design.

Seventh, if the provisions of the applicant's Whispering Oaks Oak Tree

Preservation and Recovery Strategy" are meant to be referenced by BIO-10 and BIO-1 1,

then there are additional conflicts in the mitigation specifications. BIO-10 expressly

requires compliance with the MST Forest Management Plan. It also appears to require

compliance with Whispering Oaks Forest Resource Evaluation, although it misidentifies

it as a Forest Management Plan. The applicant's Whispering Oaks Oak Tree Preservation

and Recovery Strategy is inconsistent with both documents with respect to numbers and

locations of trees to be retained on-site, and with respect to the numbers of trees to be

replanted on-site and off-site. These inconsistencies render the mitigation unenforceable.

B. Alternatives Analysis Is Flawed

The EIR failed to consider an alternative that both meets Project objectives and

reduces impacts, e.g., the logical alternative of developing the MST facility at MST's

own site at 7 th and Gigling and developing a 24-acre business park  the same size as

proposed  at the Project site. Thus, the EIR rationalizes a choice to which the agency

now claims it is committed. But there is no substantial evidence that the logical

alternative is infeasible.

1. Alternatives selection does not meet CEQA's requirements

CEQA requires that an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to

the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic

objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant

effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." CEQA

Guidelines,  15126.4(a), emphasis added. Thus, the alternatives must be formulated to

1) meet most basics objectives and 2) reduce impacts.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 21

Here, the EIR fails to consider any alternative that would do both, even though

such alternatives are available. Instead, the EIR formulates two alternatives that clearly

do not meet the Project's objectives and one alternative that clearly will result in greater

impacts. In effect, the EIR considers only straw men. This does not meet CEQA's

requirements.

Project objectives include both the provision of a new MST facility and a number

of economic objectives that effectively require construction of a business park. DEIR,

pp. 1-51 to 1-52. As formulated, these objectives cannot be met by any alternative that

does not provide both the MST facility and the business park.

Two alternatives predictably fail to meet Project objectives because they simply

eliminate the business park portion of the Project. DEIR, Section 4 Alternative 2  MST

facility only at Project site, no Whispering Oaks; Alternative 4  MST located at Seventh

and Gigling, Project site used for recreation, no Whispering Oaks.) These alternatives

were rejected for failure to meet the business park's Project objectives in the draft

resolution prepared for the Planning Commission's March 9 hearing the resolution

prepared before the Commission itself rejected the Project). Planning Commission Staff

Report, March 9, 2011, pp. 32-33. They are also apparently rejected in the proposed

CEQA findings because they would not meet Project objectives and are financially

infeasible." Staff Report, June 14, Exhibit B, pp. 6-7. As discussed below, the financial

infeasibility findings are equivocal and inadequate. Regardless, there is simply no point

served by evaluation of alternatives that do not meet Project objectives  CEQA is clear

that an EIR shall discuss alternatives that feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of

the project." CEQA Guidelines,  15126.6(a).

The only other alternative considered other than the required no project"

alternative) predictably increases environmental impacts because it dramatically

increases the overall scope of development. DEIR, p. 4-7 to 4-8 Alternative 3). Instead

of a single 58-acre development containing a 24.37 acre MST facility and 24.44 acres of

business park lots see DEIR, p. 1-14), Alternative 3 would develop two sites with

substantially more total development. The MST facility would be constructed at the

same size as the MST facility in the proposed Project i.e, about 24 acres), but at the

Seventh and Gigling site instead. The Whispering Oaks project would then consume the

entire developable area at the proposed Project site: t]his alternative assumes that the

entire area proposed at the Project site about 58 acres including streets) would be

developed as a light industrial business park, and that the open space parcels would

remain as open space." DEIR, p. 4-8. Thus, this alternative assumes that the business

park uses would double in size because that portion of the Project site proposed for the

MST use 24.37 acres) would be added to the business park uses.

In short, instead of developing 48 acres at one site, Alternative 3 would develop

64 acres at two sites.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 22

Unsurprisingly, the EIR concludes that Alternative 3 involves a greater level of

development and has greater environmental impacts." DEIR, p. 4-23. In fact, it has

greater impacts in almost every category. DEIR, p. 4-24. Thus, the draft resolution for

the Planning Commission's March 9, 2011 hearing rejects this alternative as having

greater impacts. Planning Commission Staff Report, March 9, 2011, pp. 32-33.

Typically, an alternatives analysis considers a reduced development" alternative,

not an increased development" alternative. While it might have made sense to consider

a smaller version of the Project, or locating only a portion of the Project at the site, it is

difficult to understand what analytic purpose the EIR proposed to serve through

consideration of Alternative 3. Regardless, consideration of Alternative 3 does not fulfill

CEQA's mandate to evaluate alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen any of

the significant effects of the project." CEQA Guidelines,  15126.6(a).

Common sense should have informed the EIR preparers that none of the

alternatives considered would meet CEQA's requirements for alternatives that meet most

objectives and reduce impacts. It should have been obvious that Alternatives 2 and 4

would not meet most of the Project objectives. And it should have been equally obvious

that expanding the overall Project by 50% would increase impacts, even without the

cursory qualitative analysis in the Alternatives section of the EIR. Thus, the EIR simply

failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives.

CEQA prohibits the County from approving a project if there are feasible

alternatives that would substantially lessen impacts. Public Resources Code,  21001(d).

The EIR should be revised and recirculated to evaluate an alternative that will actually

meet Project objectives and reduce impacts. For example, an alternative that locates the

MST facility at the 7"' and Gigling site or at the Marina airport) and that locates a 24-

acre business park the same size as in the proposed Project) at the landfill site would

reduce impacts, including the otherwise unavoidably significant impacts due to tree

removal and the overall size of the Project at the site. For example, cutting fewer trees

and developing less space at the Project site would reduce carbon emissions and traffic in

the Project vicinity.

2. Findings regarding alternatives are inadequate

Having considered an inadequate range of alternatives, the applicant has been

faced with objection from the public and the Planning Commission that there are feasible

alternative locations. The CEQA findings conclude that the alternatives that eliminate

the business park do not meet Project objectives but that the alternative that would

provide the MST facility at their own site at 7th and Gigling does accomplish Project

objectives. Staff Report, June 14, 2011, Exhibit B, pp. 6-7. However, the CEQA

findings then go on to make confused and unsupported findings regarding economic

infeasibility, but these findings do not demonstrate that an alternative location for at least

the MST portion of the site is not feasible.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 23

First, it is not clear which alternatives are found to be infeasible. The discussion

takes place under the heading Environmentally Superior Alternative," which references

only the alternative that would locate MST at 7th and Gigling and replace the business

park with recreation. However, the CEQA Findings state that e]conomic factors exist

that make adoption of the alternatives plural] financially impractical."

Furthermore, it appears the Findings are intended to address alternatives other

than those considered in the EIR. The Findings assert that it would be impractical for

MST to enter into another land swap agreement, an apparent reference to an alternative

that would locate the MST facility not at 7th and Gigling or the Project site, but elsewhere

e.g., perhaps, the Marina airport). None of the alternatives in the EIR contemplates such

a location for the MST facility. However, MST would not have to enter a land swap to

use the 7th and Gigling site. So this consideration would not apply to the logical

alternative that the EIR failed to consider  the MST facility at 7th and Gigling and a 24-

acre business park at the Project site.

Second, the Findings claim speculatively that further delay may" cause the loss

of grants and that there would be a loss of unspecified sunk costs of planning. No

evidence is provided that grants would in fact be lost, or in what amount, or that the loss

would be permanent.8 The appeal to sunk costs is not cogent. CEQA does not permit a

post hoc ratification of a decision to which an agency has already committed itself.

Furthermore, no evidence is presented that losing these sunk costs would render the

Project financially non-viable.

Third, the CEQA Findings claim that jobs would be created if the Project goes

forward. Again, the logical alternative that the EIR failed to consider  the MST facility

at 7th and Gigling and a 24-acre business park at the Project site  would create the same

number of jobs. Furthermore, job creation may be an appropriate overriding

consideration, but there is no evidence that the Project would be financially infeasible

even if fewer jobs were created.

Fourth, the CEQA Findings claim that there would be some infrastructure savings

from combining the MST and Whispering Oaks portions of the Project. However, there

is no evidence presented to support this claim. The purported savings are not quantified

or even qualitatively discussed. It is unclear who would bear additional cost or for what

infrastructure if MST were to develop at 7th and Gigling. Critically, there is no evidence

that this would render the Project infeasible. In fact, the Findings for the appeal and the

Project permits gainsay any conclusion that this is a show-stopper, because they state that

the MST site at 7th and Gigling is economically viable." Staff Report, June 14, 2011,

Exhibit D2, p. 14. A finding that other sites are not more desirable" does not mean they

are infeasible." Id.

 Four form letters solicited from other agencies repeat word for word that these are $4.7 million in

sunk costs. Staff Report, June 14, 2011, Exhibit N. While this demonstrates effective campaigning, it does

not constitute evidence that los of these sunk costs would render the project non-viable.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 24

Finally, the Staff Report states incorrectly that if the MST facility were to be

developed at 7th and Gigling, the net impacts to trees would be on a similar scale to that

proposed at the existing site." Staff Report, June 14, 2011, Exhibit A, p. 11. Not so. If

the business park were developed at the same 24-acre size as in the proposed Project, the

tree loss would be substantially less because the 24-acres proposed for the MST facility

could be left intact. And even if the entire 48-acre development area were used for

business park development, the tree loss would not be as extensive. The EIR admits that

the MST project requires much more tree removal and leaves much less opportunity for

tree retention than does business park development.

C. The Project Does Not Meet The Requirements For A Use Permit for Tree

Removal

In addition to meeting the requirements of CEQA with respect to analysis and

mitigation of impacts to oak woodlands, the Project must meet the requirements of the

County's ordinance for preservation of oak trees, County Code  21.64.260. See also

County Code  16.60.040. As the Planning Commission found, the Project does not do

so.

1. The Forest Management Plan May Not Be Deferred

First, the ordinance is clear that a use permit for removal of more than 3 trees

requires 1) preparation of a Forest Management Plan following a prescribed format and

2) review under CEQA. Monterey County Code  21.64.260.D.3. Here, no Forest

Management Plan has been prepared for the Whispering Oaks site because the Project

description is admittedly not adequate to support the preparation of such a plan. The

ordinance simply does not permit the substitution of the Forest Resource Evaluation"

that was prepared instead of a Forest Management Plan.

Furthermore, meaningful CEQA review, as required by  21.64.260.D.3.d, is not

possible without the Forest Management Plan. Here the EIR admits that the Forest

Resource Evaluation does not evaluate specific impacts to trees relative to construction

on the site." DEIR, App. D, Forest Resource Evaluation, p. 1.

Without the required Forest Management Plan and a CEQA review based on that

plan, the agency cannot make the specific findings required under  21.64.260.D.5,

including findings that

 The removal is the minimum required under the circumstances of the case, and

 The removal will not cause adverse environmental impacts including soil erosion,

water quality impacts, ecological impacts, air movement impacts, and habitat

impacts.

As discussed above, there is no provision in the County ordinance for a subsequent

review and approval of a deferred Forest Management Plan. With respect to CEQA,

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 25

permitting deferral of the Forest Management Plan is an improper delegation of

mitigation away from the County's legislative body. And with respect to the ordinance,

permitting deferral of the Forest Management Plan would render it a nullity in the

County's approval of the use permit for tree removal.

2. Tree Removal Is Not The Minimum Required

As the Planning Commission found, the Project does not meet the requirements of

the oak preservation ordinance because the proposed removal is not the minimum

required under the circumstances. The Planning Commissions specifically found that

there are alternate locations for the Project near the site that could avoid or substantially

reduce tree removals.

For example, the MST portion of the Project could have been located at the

Seventh and Gigling site that is planned for the MST facility in the Base Reuse Plan.

Again, there is no basis to find that the Project is infeasible unless the MST facility and

the Whispering Oaks project are co-located. The EIR's alternatives analysis considers an

alternative Alternative 3) that would locate the MST facility at a different site than the

business park. The CEQA Findings conclude that this alternative would meet the

Project's objectives. The Findings for the appeal and use permit conclude that the 7th and

Gigling location is economically viable.

As discussed above, the EIR's alternatives analysis is inadequate for failure to

consider a reasonable range of alternatives that both meet the Project objectives and

reduce impacts. Critically, the only alternative that met the Project objectives was not

fashioned to reduce tree removal at the Project site, because it simply expanded the

business park uses to use the Lot 1 MST site. An alternative that relocates one or both of

the proposed uses at the site and that does not increase the scope of either use would

clearly reduce the number of trees removed. And, as discussed above, even an

alternative that developed a business park that used the entire 48-acre development area

now proposed for the MST and business park portions of the Project could retain more

trees, because business park development does not require such extensive removal per-

acre as does the MST facility.

The Planning Commission also found that alternative designs, including reducing

the number of proposed lots, reducing the size of proposed lots, and clustering the lots,

could substantially reduce tree removals. Of course, in the absence of an actual design

and a completed Forest Management Plan, the proponent is in no position to gainsay this

finding. Without an actual design, there can be no basis to find that tree removal has

been minimized.

In sum, common sense demonstrates that an alternative location, for at least a

portion of the Project, would reduce tree removal and it is clear that there is an available

alternative location for at least the MST facility. In addition, common sense

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 26

demonstrates that alternative designs would reduce tree removal, and there is no

substantial evidence that such designs are not feasible.

3. There Is No Basis For An Exception To The Requirement To

Replace Trees On A 1:1 Ratio

As discussed above, the EIR does not actually require that trees be replanted at a

1:1 ratio, and proposed mitigation references plans that specifically conclude that the

Project is eligible for the exception to this requirement under Monterey County Code

21.64.260.D.4. While it may not be possible to replant all trees on-site, there is simply no

evidence that off-site replanting is not possible or that it would create a hardship.

4. Tree Removals Will Risk Adverse Environmental Impacts

As the Planning Commission found, the tree removal will involve a risk of

adverse environmental impacts. For example, the Forest Management Plan for the MST

facility found that the tree removal will result in localized increased wind velocities:

with limb breakage and complete tree failure." DEIR, App. D, MST Forest Management

Plan, p. 10. Thus the County cannot make the required finding under County Code

21.64.260.D.5.b.5. Similarly, the Project will significantly reduce available oak

woodlands habitat and adversely impact this ecological system, as is evident from the fact

that it will not adequately mitigate oak woodlands loss. Thus the County cannot make

the required finding under County Code  21.64.260.D.5.b.3 and 6.

D. The Project Is Inconsistent With Relevant Plans And Implicates

Inconsistencies Of Those Plans

Development of the Project site is subject to the requirements of 1) the Fort Ord

Reuse Plan and 2) the 2010 Monterey County General Plan, which includes the Fort Ord

Master Plan. Neither the EIR nor staff reports have provided adequate evaluations of the

Project's consistency with these plans or of the consistency of these plans with each

other. In fact, the Project is inconsistent with these plans and these plans are not

internally consistent. The County cannot approve the Project under these circumstances.

1. Consistency Requirements

FORT ORD REUSE ACT: The County may not approve a project that is

inconsistent with the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. Government Code,  67675.8(b); FORA

Master Resolution FMR"),  8.01.010(f). The County is required to include applicable

policies and programs of the Reuse Plan in its General Plan. FMR,  8.02.020. The

County may not approve development entitlements until it has adopted those policies and

programs. FMR,  8.02.040. The County must submit its new or updated General Plan

to FORA for certification that it is consistent with the Reuse Plan. Government Code,

67675.2.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 27

COUNTY ORDINANCES: County Ordinances # 5171 and 5172 provide that

project applications are subject to a consistency review process by which county staff are

required to determine and make a recommendation concerning project consistency with

the County's 2010 General Plan. Ord. # 5171,  4; Ord. # 5172,  2. Although a project

for which an application predates January 3, 2011 need not submit a General Plan policy

consistency checklist," County staff are required to make a recommendation regarding

consistency and the appropriate legislative body is required to make a determination and

make a finding as to General Plan consistency. Id.

CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate consistency with applicable regional plans

and general plans. CEQA Guidelines,  15125(d).

2. Failure To Make Required Consistency Determinations

The County has not complied with the consistency requirements outlined above.

The County has not submitted its 2010 General Plan to FORA for certification, and

FORA has not certified that plan, even though the County adopted the 2010 General Plan

more than 9 months ago. This violates Government Code  67675.2. As discussed

below, the County's 2010 General Plan is not consistent with the Reuse Plan, and these

inconsistencies implicate the Project.

County staff failed to make a consistency determination and recommendation

pursuant to County Ordinances # 5171 and 5172. In response to inquiry from

LandWatch requesting the consistency determination, County staff implied that the

Project is exempt from a consistency determination because its application predates

January 3, 2011. John Ford, e-mail to Amy White, May 25, 2011. While the ordinance

may relive the applicant from preparing a checklist related to consistency, it does not

relieve County staff from making a recommendation, or relieve the appropriate legislative

body from making a determination, regarding consistency with the 2010 General Plan,

which contains a number of relevant policies. County staff cannot have meaningfully

determined the Project's consistency with the 2010 General Plan without reference to a

checklist of applicable policies and cannot have made a meaningful recommendation

without furnishing a written analysis to decision makers.

The EIR did not evaluate the Project's consistency with the 2010 General Plan;

instead, it evaluated the Project with respect to the 1982 General Plan. See e.g., DEIR, p.

2-116. Thus the EIR is deficient as an informational document. CEQA Guidelines,

15125(d).

Given the lack of discussion in the EIR and staffs apparent failure to prepare any

written analysis of consistency other than conclusory assertions contained in staff reports,

there can be no substantial evidence that the Project is consistent with the 2010 General

Plan. And as discussed below, the Project is in fact inconsistent with that plan.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 28

3. The Project And the County's Fort Ord Master Plan Are Inconsistent

With the Fort Ord Reuse Plan

PLANNING AREA AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: The Project site is in

the CSUMB/Recreational Planning Area" in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. Fort Ord Reuse

Plan, Figure 3.10-1. This planning area includes the County portion of the CSUMB site

and all of Polygon 8a. Id. Polygon 8a is identified as the County's Recreation/Habitat

Protection area. Id. The Reuse Plan describes this planning area as follows:

The CSUMB/Recreational Planning Area is located in a central position that

will dramatically affect the potential surrounding development. It consists of

three major resources: 1) the lands conveyed or subject to future public benefit

conveyance to CSUMB; 2) the former land fill site; and 3) the planned Marina

community park that is composed of two areas north and south of Intergarrison

Road and is subject to a public benefit conveyance request." Id. at 172.

The Reuse Plan in turn describes the County's recreational/habitat district as including

open space/recreational land uses, habitat protection, and opportunity sites for

commercial recreation, a convenience retail center, and 50 acres of office/R&D

development at the southwest corner:

Monterey County Recreational/Habitat District

This District is comprised of two areas. The larger, approximately 340 acres, is

the former land fill site. The smaller, approximately 88 acres, stretches both

north and south of Intergarrison road. Both of these areas are reserved for a

combination of habitat protection and recreational uses.

Projected Land Uses for the Former Land Fill:

Open Space/Recreation Land Use. About 141 acres are reserved for park

and open space at the former landfill site. This represents the area included in

the planned land fill cap. Region-serving recreation facilities, such as an

amphitheater, are appropriate at this location.

Habitat Protection. About 142 acres are reserved for habitat management,

including non-invasive and controlled passive uses such as hiking and equestrian

trails.

Opportunity Sites. The land fill cap provides an opportunity to locate a range

of commercial recreational uses, including a golf course, a region-serving

equestrian center and a convenience retail center for up to 10,980 sq. ft.

Approximately 50 acres located at the southwest corner of the former landfill

site, adjacent to the Marina City limits and Inter-Garrison Road is suitable for

office/R&D development by the University of California." Id. at 175-176.

The Reuse Plan designates most of the former landfill site as Habitat Management. Id.,

Figure 3.3-1, Land Use Concept Ultimate Development." The Habitat Management

land use designation permits only habitat management, ecological restoration,

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 29

environmental education, and passive recreation, such as hiking, nature study, horse and

bike riding. Id. at 102.

The Reuse Plan designates two portions of the site as Planned Development

Mixed Use, including a small portion on the northeast corner and a larger portion on the

southwest corner of Polygon 8a  the Project site. Id., Figure 3.3-1, Land Use Concept

Ultimate Development." Uses permitted in Planned Development Mixed Use include a

variety of retail uses, office uses, entertainment uses, commercial recreational uses, etc.

Id. at 100.

PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH FORT ORD REUSE PLAN BECAUSE

IT IS NOT OFFICE/R&D OR CONSISTENT WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

MIXED USE GOALS AND FLOOR AREA RATIOS: As the EIR admits, the Project is

not consistent with the Reuse Plan Commercial Land Use Objective D, which provides

the Planned Development Mixed Use Development designation to encourage the

development of pedestrian-oriented community centers that support a wide variant of

commercial, residential, retail, professional services, and cultural and entertainment

activities." DEIR, pp. 2-108, 2-112; Fort Ord Reuse Plan, pp. 100, 104. The DEIR

admits that the Project fails to achieve the pedestrian-oriented mixed use design

direction provided by the Fort Ord Reuse plan" because it is essentially isolated from

existing and planned development with which it might be connected. DEIR, p-112.

The DEIR concludes that the Whispering Oaks 0.6 FAR is consistent with the

0.35 FAR permitted for Planned Development Mixed Use areas because about half the

site is set aside for open space preservation," which would allow development of up to a

net FAR of 0.7" on the developed portion of the site. DEIR, p. 2-109. The DEIR admits

that the Whispering Oaks General Development Plan permits a FAR of 0.6. However, as

discussed above, it makes no sense to include Parcels C and D as part of the Project for

purposes of determining allowable FAR. First, Parcel C is already committed as

mitigation for another project. Second, neither Parcel C nor D should be included in the

allowable FAR calculation for the portion of the Project included in the Planned

Development Mixed Use area because they are not included in the Planned Development

Mixed Use designated area.

Furthermore, the maximum FAR for a Business Park/Light Industrial land use is

not 0.35 assumed for Planned Development Mixed Use generally, but the 0.20 assumed

specifically for Business Park/Light Industrial, which is the actual land use proposed for

the Project. Fort Ord Reuse Plan, pp. 104-105 distinguishing Office/R&D, Planned

Development Mixed Use, and Business Park/Light Industrial land uses based on

maximum FAR). Thus, the very intensive FAR for the Whispering Oaks use is not

permitted at the Project site  even if it were permissible to count the non-developable

parcels C and D into the FAR calculation. 9

9 Note that the 0.6 FAR is also inconsistent with the Heavy Commercial Zoning designation.

Monterey County Code,  21.20.070.B.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 30

Indeed, it is clear that the mixed use village adjacent to the CSUMB" is intended

to be used for Office/R&D use, not for Business Park/Light Industrial Use. Fort Ord

Reuse Plan, p. 249. The Reuse Plan's enumeration of locations intended to accommodate

Business Park/Light Industrial uses does not include the site in its planning area. Id. at

258-259. Thus, the light industrial MST use is not consistent with the Reuse Plan and is

not properly permitted at this site.

THE PROJECT AND FORT ORD MASTER PLAN RECREATION/OPEN

SPACE PROGRAM D-1.4 ARE INCONSISTENT WITH FORT ORD REUSE PLAN

RECREATION/OPEN SPACE PROGRAM E-1.3: The Reuse Plan includes

Recreation/Open Space Land Use Policy E-1, which provides that t]he County of

Monterey shall limit recreation in environmentally sensitive areas, such as dunes and

areas with rare, endangered, or threatened plant or animal communities to passive, low-

intensity recreation dependent on the resource and compatible with its long term

protection." Fort Ord Reuse Plan, p. 272. In support of this policy, the Reuse Plan

provides that the County will use the land in planning Polygon 8a only for remediation

and reuse research, habitat management, open space/recreation including an equestrian

center, a golf course opportunity site, and an amphitheater), and a convenience center:"

Program E-1.3: The County of Monterey shall work with and support the

Army to investigate clean-up of the Recreation/HMP District in the CSUMB/

Recreation Planning Area Polygon 8a). This area is proposed to be used for

remediation and reuse research, habitat management, open space/recreation

including an equestrian center, a golf course opportunity site, and an

amphitheater), and a convenience center. This proposed use is subject to capping

of the landfill and remediation of groundwater beneath it. A minimum of 120

acres will require mitigation by the Army. The polygon is considered for an

annexation request by the City of Marina. Drainage, slumping, toxic fumes or

gases associated with old landfill need to be considered." Fort Ord Reuse Plan, p.

272.

Since Program E-1.3 does not include any commercial land use for the CSUMB/

Recreation Planning Area Polygon 8a), other than a convenience center presumably the

1-acre convenience center designated on the northeast corner of the landfill site), the

Project is inconsistent with this Reuse Plan Program and therefore cannot be approved.

By contrast, the Fort Ord Master Plan, adopted by the County as part of the 2010

General Plan, does expressly permits use of this area for commercial development,

including the MST and Whispering Oaks projects. The Fort Ord Master Plan adopts

Recreation/Open Space Land Use Policy E-1, identical to the Fort Ord Reuse Plan

Recreation/Open Space Land Use Policy E-1, calling for limiting recreation in

environmentally sensitive areas to passive, low-intensity recreation. However, in support

of this Policy, the Fort Ord Master Plan modifies the implementing program calling for

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 31

clean up of Polygon 8a and limiting land uses  simply inserting as additional acceptable

land uses the MST and Whispering Oaks business park and commercial development:

Program D-1.4: The County of Monterey shall work with and support the Army

to investigate clean up of the Monterey County Recreational/Habitat District in

the CSUMB/Recreational Planning Area Fort Ord Reuse Plan Polygon 8a). This

area is proposed to be used for habitat reserve management, the Monterey Salinas

Transit Administrative and Maintenance facility, the Whispering Oaks business

park and commercial development." Fort Ord Master Plan, p. FO-23.

Thus, Fort Ord Master Plan Recreation/Open Space Land Use Program D-14 is

inconsistent with Fort Ord Reuse Plan Program Recreation/Open Space Land Us Policy E

1.3 because it permits different land uses, and because the land uses it permits are neither

recreational nor compatible with environmentally sensitive areas. Since the County's

General Plan, including its Fort Ord Master Plan, must be consistent with the Fort Ord

Reuse Plan, Fort Ord Master Plan Recreation/Open Space Land Use Program D-14 is not

valid. The County cannot approve the Project on the basis of a General Plan provision in

conflict with the Fort Ord Reuse Plan.

THE PROJECT AND FORT ORD MASTER PLAN RECREATION/OPEN

SPACE PROGRAM E-2.2 ARE INCONSISTENT WITH FORT ORD REUSE PLAN

RECREATION PROGRAM E-2.2: The Reuse Plan contains Recreation Objective E, to

encourage commercial recreation. Fort Ord Reuse Plan, p. 328. In support of this

objective, Recreation Policy E-2 provides the County must create a multi-functional

recreation area" in the landfill area. Id. And in support of this policy, the Recreation

Program E-2.2 provides that the County shall promote the development of commercial

recreation uses of this area such as a golf course, an equestrian center, and a region

serving amphitheater. Id. In addition, Program E-2. 1, requires the County to create a

joint management team with representatives of adjacent agencies to work together

institutionally in the planning and development of the landfill, protect oak woodlands,

and address potential impacts of planned uses on surrounding neighborhoods." Here are

the relevant policies from the Reuse Plan:

Recreation Policy E-2: Monterey County shall work with landowners to create

a multi-functional recreation area within the former military landfill area.

Program E-2. 1: Monterey County shall create a joint management team with

representatives of adjacent agencies to work together institutionally in the

planning and development of the landfill, protect oak woodlands, and address

potential impacts of planned uses on surrounding neighborhoods.

Program E-2.2: Monterey County shall promote the development of

commercial recreation uses of this area compatible with the capping of the

landfill, including such uses as a golf course, an equestrian center, and a region

serving amphitheater." Fort Ord Reuse Plan, p. 328.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 32

There is no evidence that the Project is consistent with Recreation Policy E-2 and

its implementing programs. As discussed above, there is no evidence that the County has

created and convened the joint management team" to protect the oak woodlands and

address impacts of planned uses. For example, the County's approach to implementing

the Reuse Plan Biological Resources Policy B-2 calling for designation of an oak

woodlands conservation area is apparently to act unilaterally and provide notice to other

agencies. While the Staff report claims that the other agencies have been involved,

consulted with, and provided notice of, the proposed project," there is no evidence of

joint institutional management of the oak woodlands resources at the land fill site. Staff

Report, June 14, 2011, Exhibit D2, p. 12. It seems unclear that the City of Marina, for

example, has condoned the loss of the oak woodlands that the Project would cause given

that it has asked the Project proponent to relocate the Project.

Furthermore, the County's Fort Ord Master Plan is itself inconsistent with the

Fort Ord Reuse Plan Recreation Program E-2.2. In support of the same recreation

objective Recreation Objective E  encouragement of commercial recreation

opportunities") and the same recreation policy Recreation Policy E-2  work with

landowners to create a multifunctional recreation area within the former military landfill

area"), the Fort Ord Master Plan expressly permits use of the landfill area for commercial

development, including the MST and Whispering Oaks projects:

Program E-2.2: Monterey County shall promote the development of commercial

uses that are compatible with the capping of the landfill, including such potential

uses as habitat management, the Monterey-Salinas Transit Administration and

Maintenance Facility, the Whispering Oaks Business Park, and commercial

development." Fort Ord Master Plan, p. FO-32.

Thus, Fort Ord Master Plan Recreation Program E-2.2 is inconsistent with Fort Ord

Reuse Plan Program Recreation Policy E-2.2 because it permits different land uses, and

because the land uses it permits are not recreational. Ironically, the Staff Report salutes

the fact that the Project is compatible with Fort Ord Master Plan Recreation Program E-

2.2. Staff Report, June 14, 2011, Exhibit A, p. 5. However, since the County's General

Plan, including its Fort Ord Master Plan, must be consistent with the Fort Ord Reuse

Plan, Fort Ord Master Plan Recreation Program E-2.2 is not valid. The County cannot

approve the Project on the basis of a General Plan provision in conflict with the Fort Ord

Reuse Plan.

4. The Project Is Inconsistent With The 2010 Monterey County General

Plan

Open Space Conservation Policy OS 5.23 of the Monterey County General Plan

specifically requires that, pending the County's adoption of an oak woodlands mitigation

program within the next five years, projects shall pay a fee to the state Oak Woodlands

Conservation Fund OWCF):"

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 33

OS 5.23: The County shall prepare, adopt and implement a program that allows

projects to mitigate the loss of oak woodlands, while also taking into consideration

wildfire prevention/protection. Consistent with California Public Resources Code

Section 21083.4, the program shall identify a combination of the following mitigation

alternatives:

a) ratios for replacement,

b) payment of fees to mitigate the loss or direct replacement for the loss of

oak woodlands and monitoring for compliance; and

c) conservation easements.

The program shall identify criteria for suitable donor sites. Mitigation for the loss of

oak woodlands may be either on-site or off-site. The program shall allow payment of

fees to either a local fund established by the County or a state fund.

Until such time as the County program is implemented consistent with Public

Resources Code Section 21083.4(b), projects shall pay a fee to the state Oak

Woodlands Conservation Fund OWCF). Replacement of oak woodlands shall

provide for equivalent acreage and ecological value at a minimum of 1:1 ratio.

The program shall prioritize the conservation of oak woodlands that are within

known wildlife corridors as a high priority. The oak woodlands mitigation

program shall be adopted within 5 years of adoption of the General Plan." Monterey

County 2010 General Plan, p. C/OS-13, emphasis added.

However, despite this clear and mandatory policy, and despite the fact that County has

not yet adopted the oak woodlands mitigation program, the Project is not required to

make payments to the state Oak Woodlands Conservation Fund. Payments of FORA fees

are not payments to the OWCF.

Nor is the Project consistent with the OS 5.23 requirement that replacement of

oak woodlands shall provide for equivalent acreage and ecological value at a minimum of

1:1 ratio." As discussed above, Project mitigation does not require 1:1 replacement of

individual trees, and there is no evidence or requirement that any replacement oaks

provide acreage of equivalent ecological value. Replacement of intact oak woodlands

with isolated pockets of parking lot and roadside landscaping clearly does not maintain

equivalent ecological value. The EIR contains no discussion of the ecological value of

the replacement trees to be replanted.

Indeed, the mitigation focus is entirely on replacing trees and planting them as

densely as possible to minimize the required replanting acreage), not on replacement of

oak woodland acreage of equivalent ecological value. While the Whispering Oaks

Forest Resource Evaluation indicates that the trees to be removed provide habitat to

animal species of special concern, it simply postpones the evaluation and mitigation of

impacts to habitat values to some unspecified future adequate biological study."

Whispering Oaks Forest Resources Evaluation, p. 10. The MST Forest Management

Plan admits that t]his habitat is particularly viable as it is associated with other intact

vegetation types." MST Forest Management Plan, p. 10. It then admits that the loss of

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 34

functional oak woodland habitat on the site is an unavoidable impact of the project as

designed." Id. However, there is no requirement in that Forest Management Plan, or in

other mitigation documents, that the replacement of individual trees result in equivalent

acreage and ecological value at a minimum of 1:1 ratio."

E. EIR's Analysis Of Water Supply And Water Supply Impacts Is Inadequate

1. The Project's 92 afy Water Demand Exceeds The 10 afy Allocation For

Project Site In The Fort Ord Reuse Plan

Part of the implementation provisions of Fort Ord Reuse Plan is the Development

Resource Management Plan DRMP"). Fort Ord Reuse Plan,  3.11.5. The intent of the

DRMP is to ensure that development is managed within the constraints of available

resources. Because water supply is a serious constraint on development, one section of

the DRMP,  3.11.5.4, is devoted to Management of Water Supply:

Water supply is a central resource constraint for development of Fort Ord.

Insuring that development does not exceed the available water supply and safe

yield is a major component of the DRMP. The following measures ensure that

development is managed within this resource constraint." Fort Ord Reuse plan, p.

196.

Thus, FORA has adopted a program to allocate the existing potable water supply among

the competing jurisdictions. The water supply allocation is intended to provide member

agencies with certainty as to supply and to assure that jurisdictions remain within their

allocation." Id. Each agency must make a finding that for development projects that the

project can be served with their jurisdictional water allocation" or by some other form of

imported water. Id. at 197. Thus, the Fort Ord Master Resolution requires member

agencies to adopt policies and programs consistent with the Authority's Development

and Resource Management Plan to establish programs and monitor development of

territory within the jurisdiction of the Authority to assure that it does not exceed resource

constraints posed by water supply." Fort Ord Master Resolution, 8.02.020(j)(6).

The actual allocation applicable to the Project site is specified in Table 3.11-2. In

that table, water is allocated to member agencies for general use within their jurisdictions,

and to specific areas within the former Fort Ord. Thus, while the County has a general

allocation, the allocation made to the location containing the Project site, County/Marina

Sphere Polygon 8a," is only 10 acre feet per year afy"). Fort Ord Reuse Plan, Table

3.11-2, footnote 3 indicating Board action reduced the Polygon 8a allocation from 50 to

10 afy on Aug. 14, 1998.)

Because the Project will require 92.72 afy, it will exceed the available 10 afy

water allocation. FEIR, App. J, p. 11. Thus, the County cannot approve the Project

consistent with the Fort Ord Reuse Plan or consistent with its obligation to assure

development does not exceed water constraints.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 3 5

The Water Supply Analysis WSA") in the EIR fails to disclose the actual water

allocation constraint faced by the Project because it ignores the site specific constraint of

10 AFY to the County/Marina Sphere Allocation. Instead, the Water Supply Analysis

contends that there is sufficient allocate for the Project because its use would fit within

the remaining uncommitted allocation to the County generally. FEIR, App. J, p. 22-23.

The failure to disclose and discuss the Project's actual supply constraint violates SB 610,

the statute governing the adequacy of water supply analyses under CEQA. Water Code,

10910(d) obligation to disclose water supply entitlements).

2. The Water Supply Assessment Fails To Provide Mandated Information

About Baseline Conditions

SB 610 mandates that a water supply assessment for a project to be served with

groundwater include specific information. Water Code, 10910(f). Here the WSA fails to

comply with SB 610 because it does not include the required detailed description of the

amount and location of groundwater pumped by the public water system  for the past

five years.." Water Code, 10910(f)(3). Obviously pumping data for the last five years

is not included in the six-year old 2005 Urban Water Management Plan referenced by the

EIR; and, at any rate, the statute is clear that the EIR itself must contain this information,

not merely reference it. Nor is the required information contained elsewhere in the EIR.

In short, the EIR fails to meet the information disclosure requirements of CEQA

because it fails to identify the baseline water use. As discussed below, impacts cannot be

meaningfully assessed without reference to baseline use. The EIR must be revised and

recirculated to provide the required baseline pumping data for the Salinas Valley

groundwater basin. The EIR must also relate and reconcile that baseline pumping to the

2001 Salinas Valley Water Project EIR baseline data, because the EIR relies on that

document to support its conclusion that impacts will be less than significant.

3. The EIR and Water Supply Assessment Fail To Provide An Analysis Of

Available Supply, Which Requires Disclosure Of The Basin's Sustained

Yield

The EIR and WSA identify the Salinas Valley groundwater basin, consisting of

five hydrologically linked sub-areas, as the groundwater basin from which the Project

supplies would be obtained. DEIR, App. J, pp 16-17. The EIR admits this aquifer is in

an overdraft condition and that sea water intrusion is occurring due to this overdraft. Id;

DEIR, pp. 2-97 to 2-98.

SB 610 and CEQA case law are clear that an EIR must identify not just the

projected demand from the Project and other projects, but must relate this demand to

available supplies. Given that the EIR admits the aquifer is in an overdraft condition and

that sea water intrusion is occurring due to this overdraft, there can be no showing that

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 36

there is an adequate waters supply over the next 20 years without a discussion that relates

projected demand to available sustained yield of the basin.

Furthermore, the 1982 Monterey County General Plan requires a proven

adequate water supply." DEIR, p. 2-165. The 2010 Monterey County General Plan

requires that a project have a long term sustainable water supply." 2010 General Plan

Policy PS-3.11  Monterey County Code  15.04.140 requires that water sources shall

demonstrate reliability and capability of a long term sustained yield." The County cannot

find that the Project is consistent with these requirements without information about both

the projected demand and the sustained yield of the basin from which the Project water

supply is taken.

However, the EIR and WSA fail to identify the sustained yield of the basin or

sub-basin from which the Project water supply will be taken. Without this information,

the WSA and EIR fail to meet CEQA's requirement to identify available water supplies.

Instead of providing information about the actual sustained yield of the basin, the

EIR and WSA simply compare the projected demand of the Project and other sources of

future demand to the allocation of water made to the County through the FORA process.

DEIR, p. 2-172; FEIR, App. J, pp. 22-23.

No information is presented that could demonstrate that the FORA allocation was,

is, or will remain consistent with the sustained yield of the basin. The EIR and WSA do

reference the analysis of the projected adequacy of efforts to address overdrafting and

saltwater intrusion contained in the Salinas Valley Water Project EIR. DEIR, pp. 2-98 to

2-99, 2-173; DEIR, App. J, p. 22. However, as discussed in the section below, this

analysis is out of date because it fails to reflect the substantial increases to actual and

projected demand since it was prepared.

4. The Water Supply Assessment Uncritically Relies On the Salinas Valley

Water Supply Project, Despite Significant Changes To Demand Projections

Just as it did in adopting its 2010 General Plan, the County proposes to rely on the

out of date analysis in the Salinas Valley Water Project EIR as the basis to find that the

Project's increased demand will not contribute to the serious existing overdraft and salt

water intrusion conditions in the groundwater basin. LandWatch objected to this reliance

then, and it objects again now. The Salinas Valley Water Project simply does not deliver

enough solution to address the increasing groundwater pumping in the basin.

10 Policy PS 3.2 requires the County to develop an ordinance setting forth the requirements for an

adequate water supply analysis to support the findings required by Policy PS 3.1. The County has not done

so. As discussed above, the County has also failed to comply with its Ordinances No. 5171 and 5172

requiring staff to make a recommendation and requiring the Planning Commission to make a determination

regarding consistency with the 2010 General Plan. Thus, there is no adequate basis in the record to support

a finding that the Project is consistent with Policy PS 3.1.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 37

In its certification of an EIR and adoption of the 2010 General Plan, the County

concluded that water supply impacts to the Salinas Valley groundwater basin, including

overdrafting and salt water intrusion, would be less than significant through 2030, based

on the analysis contained in the 2001 Salinas Valley Water Project EIR. See, e.g., 2010

General Plan FEIR, March 2010, p. 2-66; Revised Supplemental Materials to the Final

EIR, Oct. 15, 2010, p. S-11.11 LandWatch and others objected to this conclusion in

comments on the Draft EIR, comments on the Final EIR, and in numerous additional

letters provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors during the

summer of 2010 as the County deliberated on the 2010 General Plan. LandWatch

reasserts these objections here, and incorporates them by reference to the documents

identified below, including LandWatch's Petition for Mandate. Petition for Writ of

Mandate, LandWatch v. County of Monterey, Monterey County Superior Court No.

M109434, attached as Exhibit 2.

One fundamental basis of LandWatch's objection to the County's uncritical

reliance on the 2001 SVWP EIR is that its demand assumptions are out of date. The

2001 SVWP EIR was based on the assumption that agricultural acreage would decline by

1,849 acres between 1995 and 2030. However, the 2010 General Plan EIR showed that

new agricultural land had actually increased by 3,300 acres, just between 1995 and 2006.

And the 2010 General Plan EIR projected that from 2008 to 2030 an additional 10,253

acres of agricultural land will be converted. The water demanded by this increased

agricultural acreage was not assumed in the SVWP EIR demand projections. Had this

  LandWatch incorporates the following documents herein by reference, and will supply hard copies

upon request. Each of the documents referenced is part of the administrative record for the 2010 Monterey

County General Plan and has recently been presented to the Board of Supervisors. Most of these

documents are also available on the County web site at

http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/gpu/GPU2007/gpu_2007.htm.

 Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Draft EIR/EIS for the Salinas valley Water Project,

June 2001 SVWP EIR")

 County of Monterey, 2007 Monterey County General Plan Draft EIR, SCH# 2007121001, Sept.

2008 2010 GP DEIR")

 County of Monterey, 2007 Monterey County General Plan Final EIR, March 2010 2010 GP

March FEIR")

 County of Monterey, Supplemental Materials to the Final EIR, September 2010 2010 GP

September FEIR Supplement")

 County of Monterey, Revised Supplemental Materials to the Final EIR, October 15, 2010 2010

GP October FEIR Supplement")

 John Farrow, letter to Jay Brown and Planning Commission, May 24, 2010

 Bill Yeates, letter to Planning Commission, June 14, 2010

 John Farrow, letter to Jay Brown and Planning Commission, July 20, 2010

 John Farrow, letter to Board of Supervisors, August 26, 2010

 Adelia Barber, letter to Julie Engell, September 18, 2010

 Julie Engell, letter to Board of Supervisors, September 21, 2010

 John Farrow, letter to Board of Supervisors, September 21, 2010

 Julie Engell, letter to Board of Supervisors, September 27, 2010

 John Farrow, letter to Board of Supervisors, September 28, 2010

 Michael Stamp ad Molly Erickson, letter to Board of Supervisors, October 26, 2010

 John Farrow, letter to Board of Supervisors, October 26, 2010

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 3 8

increased demand been included, the SVWP EIR could not have projected that the basin

demand would be reduced by 2030 to the 443,000 acre-feet level that it identifies as the

maximum yield of the basin consistent with avoiding salt water intrusion and overdraft.

With this increased demand from unanticipated agricultural pumping, the basin will

remain out of balance through 2030 and neither the overdraft nor the salt water intrusion

will come to a halt.

LandWatch and others objected to reliance on the SVWP EIR and to the water

supply analysis in the 2010 General Plan EIR for a number of additional reasons,

including the following reasons that are also implicated here:

 Baseline data were not furnished or reconciled for the SVWP EIR or the

2010 General Plan EIR. Here, the EIR for the MST/Whispering Oaks

Project fails even to present baseline data, much less reconcile it to the

SVWP EIR baseline data.

 Projected urban demand in the SVWP EIR is inconsistent with the four

separate, inconsistent projections of urban demand in the 2010 General

Plan EIR. Here, the EIR for the MST/Whispering Oaks Project does not

even attempt to reconcile demand projections for the MCWD to the

projections assumed in the SVWP EIR.

 Groundwater pumping data since 1995 show that pumping is increasing,

not decreasing as projected by the SVWP EIR. Groundwater pumping

data for the reporting portion of the Salinas Basin since 1995 consistently

exceeds the sustained yield of the basin; actual pumping is even higher

because this data omits significant portions of the basin. Again, we note

that the EIR for the MST/Whispering Oaks Project did not present the

required baseline pumping data so this EIR presents no evidence that

demand reduction goals of the SVWP EIR have been or can be met.

Because the County offered no adequate analysis or response to LandWatch's objections

to the water supply analysis and mitigation in the 2010 General Plan and its EIR,

Land Watch has filed litigation seeking to set aside the 2010 General Plan based on the

County's failure to recognize that there is not an adequate program in place to halt

overdraft and salt water intrusion in the Salinas Valley groundwater basin. Petition for

Writ of Mandate, LandWatch v. County of Monterey, Monterey County Superior Court

No. M109434, attached as Exhibit 2.

Here, the County's continued reliance on the silver bullet of the Salinas Valley

Water Project is as unsupported and unsupportable as it was in the 2010 General Plan.

Thus, here the EIR fails to meet CEQA's information disclosure requirements regarding

water supply baseline conditions, demand projections, and sufficiency of supply. The

EIR fails to provide substantial evidence in support of its facile claim that the Project will

not contribute to overdraft and salt water intrusion impacts. Nor does the EIR provide

any basis to support a finding that the Project will have a long term sustainable water

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�June 13, 2011

Page 39

supply under any meaningful definition of sustainable," a term that the County has yet

even to define.

For all of the foregoing reasons, LandWatch asks that the County not approve the

Project as proposed. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.

Yours sincerely,

M. R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

John H. Farrow

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�Exhibit 1

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�1T-Neat--20G5 0l:03pm Fran-Chadaar group

32108142832 T-233 P.002/015 F-224

California Department of Fish and Game

P.O. Box 47, YouHTV1LLa, CA 94599

California Endangered Species Act

Incidental Take Permit No. 2081-2005-029-03

CYPRESS MARINA HEMMrrs, LP.

MARINA HEiem s PRwear

Authority: This California Endangered Species Act CESA') Incidental Take Permit

permit') is issued by the Department of Fish and Game Department") pursuant to

Fish and Game Code seen 2081(b) and section 2081(c). and California Code of

Regulations, We 14. subdivision 3, chapter 6, article 1, commencing with section 783.

CESA prohibits the take'of any species of wildlife that Is included in the list of

endangered species, the list of threatened species, or the list of candidate species2.

However, the Department may authorize, by permit, the take of such species if the

conditions set forth in section 2081(b) and section 2081(c) are met.

Perntitlee: Cypress Marina Heights, L.P.

Name and title of principal officer: Charles R. Lande, Cypress Marina Heights L.P.

Contact parson: Charles R. Lande

Cypress Marina Heights L.P.

Mailing address: 2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 3025,

Santa Monica, CA 90405

310) 314-2590

Fax 310) 314-22592

chadmargr@aoLcom

Agent for service of process  Michael L. Matkins

515 South Figueroa Street, 7th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071.3398

213)622-5555;(213)620-8816 fax

Pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 86, Take' means hunt, pursue,

catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill."

Candidate species' are species of wildlife that have not yet been placed on the

list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, but which are under formal

consideration for listing pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2074.2.

MAR 0 6 2006 1

15 1

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�17-Nov-2105 D1:04pm Fran-Chadiar Croup

981081425112 7-229 P.005/015 F-224

d. Beginning with Issuance of the permit and continuing for the life of the

project, Permittee shall provide the Department an annual Status Report

no later than July 1 of every year. Each Status Report shall include, at a

minimum: 1) a general description of the project's status, Including actual

or projected completion dates, If known; 2) a copy of the MMRP. table with

notes showing the current implementation status of each mitigation

measure; and 3) an effectiveness assessment for each completed or

partially completed mitigation measure that compensates for project

impacts.

e. No Later than 45 days after completion of the project, Including completion

of all mitigation measures, Permittee shall provide the Department with a

Final Mitigation Report. The Final Mitigation Report shall be prepared by

a knowledgeable, experienced biologist and shalt include, at a minimum:

1) a copy of the MMRP table with notes showing when each mitigation

measure was In rlamented; 2) all available inflormation about project

related incidental take of the Covered Species; 3) information about other

project Impacts on the Covered Species; 4) construction dates; 5) an

effectiveness assessment which evaluates how the permit's conditions of

approval compensated for project impacts; 8) recommendations on how

mitigation measures might be changed to more effectively mitigate the

impacts of future projects on the Covered Species; and 7) any other

Pertinent Information. Notwithstanding any expiration date on this permit's

take authorization, the Permittee's obligations under this permit do not end

until the Department accepts the Final Mitigation Report as complete.

f. Permittee shall provide Department representatives with reasonable

access to the project site and mitigation lands under its control, and shall

otherwise fully cooperate with Department efforts to verify compliance with

or effectiveness of mitigation measures.

5. Permlttee shall provide for the permanent preservation of 452 acres that

currently support sand glUe and shall restore and enhance at least 22.6 other

acres to support sand gitla by doing all of the following:

a. Permittee shall enter Into one or more agreements with the City of Marina

City") and the County of Monterey County") that commit the City and

County to permanently preserve both occupied habitat and the area to be

restored, and shall take other necessary actions to ensure those areas are

in fact preserved. The Habitat Management Lands HM Lands") to be

protected include a 140-acre portion of the Landfill Site' identified In

Page 4 Irani Taus Peanlm

No. 2061-2005-029.03

CowesM* & Hetou ts. LP

MAINrrA NOW= Percy

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�IT-Nov-2005 01:04pm From-Chadmar Group G3IO31420i2 T-293 P.006/015 F-224

Attachment 9 of the Mitigation Pion, title to which Is being transferred to

the County, and the 20-acre City Site" identified in Attachment. 10 of the

Mitigation Plan, which will be transferred to the City. The agreements with

the City and County must be completed and fully executed no more than

six months after the date this permit Is issued and must be in a form

acceptable to the Department. The agreements shall require the City and

County to take all necessary actions to accomplish the transfer of

conservation easements over the f-fM Lands to the Department, or to

another entity approved by the Department, as soon as practicable, but In

no event more than six months after fee title to the relevant site Is

transferred to the County or City.

b. Permittee shad restore or enhance at least 22.6 acres of the Landfill Site

to support sand gilie as detailed in The Mitigation Plan. Restoration and/or

enhancement Includes activities that would make additional habitat

available to sand glia through removal of toads or other facilities, removal

of exotic species, or other specific management actlvitfes. Restoration}

and/or enhancement activities shall not include conversion of other

sensitive habitats to sand gdia habitat, or otherwiw result in loss of other

sensitive species or their habitats. The Department shall approve the final

area of the Landfill Site to be restored.

c. The Landfill Site and City Site contain at least 45.2 acres that currently

support sand gilia, as required by this Condition 5. In the event that the

Department determines that restoration and/or enhancement described in

Condition 5-b and in the Mitigation Plan is not feasible, the Permittee shall

preserve an additional 22.6 acres of HM Lands that currently support sand

giTia. This additional preservation requirement may r ire the protection

of more than 22.6 acres to meet the preservation requirement for occupied

habitat because the Covered Species may not occupy all of the area that

is preserved.

d. The Department has approved the Landfill Site and City Site as

biologically suitable to mitigate project impacts on the sand gifia. if any

other land is proposed to meet the mitigation requirements of this permit.

Including pursuant to Condition 5-c, Permittee must obtain Department's

approval of that land as suitable for the Intended sand gilia mitigation

e. Penniltee shall ensure the Department Is provided with a recent

preliminary tide report, hazardous materials survey report, and other

documents for the HM Lands Identified in Appendix C at the appropriate

Page 5 1 e Take 1

No. 2081,20OS4n9.03

crrfE*s ate. F1 rrs, a P

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E
��,�e

Existing I'(1RA Mitigation Site

Ikt1clopntent Area

I hihitat Restoration Area

TTIffflulmnum

22 I'reservarion Area

L-j Lnndlill

MnnLrrey I New I Sen Jose

Denise Duffy & Assoc:iates, Inc.

F;nrirnmmemx~onruknnni R outer I ennr

nl4 w#lwpl.Aue.5

J4-uv.T 1 t nJnln

pJq 373-f l.111

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�Exhibit 2

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�
,�FILED

1 Wolfe

CSB No

176753

Mark R

John H. Farrow, CSB No. 209221 NOV242010

2 M. R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. CONNIE MAZZEI

C LEI C.QF UPERIG

COUR7

3 EF

I Sutter Street, Suite 300

San Francisco, CA 94108

Irv

4 Tel: 415) 369-9400

 Fax: 415) 369-9405

5 

6 Attorneys for Petitioner

7

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

8

COUNTY OF MONTEREY

9

MONTEREY COURTHOUSE

10 

11

LANDWATCH MONTEREY COUNTY, M109434

Case No.:

12

Petitioner

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

13

14

vs.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY;

Code Civ. Proc.,  1085, 1094.5; California

Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Res. Code, 

15

Respondent. 21000 et seq.; State Planning and Zoning Law,

Gov't Code

 65000 et seq

 SB 610

Water

16 

Code,  10910 et seq.)

17  

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Landlyalch Monterey County Y. Conroy of Mo�ferey

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�1

2

3

4

5

27

INTRODUCTION

1. This Petition challenges the October 26, 2010 actions of Respondent COUNTY OF

MONTEREY County") adopting the 2010 Monterey County General Plan the 2010 General Plan"),

ertifying an Environmental Impact Report EIR") and adopting a statement of overriding

onsiderations pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA") Public Resources Code

ection 21000 et seq. Petitioner LANDWATCH MONTEREY COUNTY alleges that the County's

ctions in enacting the 2010 General Plan violate applicable provisions of. 1) CEQA; 2) the State

Tanning and Zoning Law, Government Code sections 65000 et seq.; and 3) Senate Bill 610, Water

ode sections 10910 et seq.

2. Petitioners seek a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and/or 1094.5

ommanding the County to set aside its certification of the EIR and its adoption of the 2010 General

Tan; commanding the County to bring its general plan into compliance with the requirements of the

State Planning and Zoning Law, Government Code sections 65000 et seq., within 120 days; and

uspending the County's authority to issue building permits, zoning changes, zoning variances, and

ubdivision maps until the County does bring its general plan into compliance. Petitioners also seek an

rder granting temporary relief during the pendency of this action, including an order suspending the

ounty's authority to issue building permits, zoning changes, zoning variances, and subdivision maps.

PARTIES

LandWatch Monterey County

3. Petitioner LANDWATCH MONTEREY COUNTY LandWatch") is a California non-profit

ublic benefit corporation exempt from federal income taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the U.S.

nternal Revenue Code. Its principal place of business is Salinas, California. LandWatch's

rganizational purpose is to promote sound land use planning and legislation at the city, county, and

egional levels, to combat urban sprawl, and to promote livability in the region's cities and towns,

hrough public policy development, advocacy, and education. LandWatch is dedicated to preserving

conomic vitality, high agricultural productivity, and environmental health in Monterey County by

ncouraging effective public participation in the land use planning process.

28 1Y

2

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

LandWatch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. LandWatch's members, directors, and staff include residents, taxpayers, and electors in

Aonterey County who currently enjoy the multitude of residential, vocational, aesthetic, recreational, and

ealth benefits stemming from the current state of Monterey County. These include: relatively clean air;

elatively preserved natural resources; agricultural productivity; unobstructed views of the natural

andscape; hiking trails; and water supply, water quality, and traffic conditions significantly better than

hose they will experience if the 2010 General Plan proceeds.

5. Land Watch's members, directors, and staff have a clear and present right to, and beneficial

nterest in, the County's performance of its duties to comply with CEQA, the State Planning and Zoning

Saw, and Senate Bill 610. As citizens, homeowners, taxpayers, and electors, LandWatch's members,

irectors, and staff are within the class of persons to whom the County owes such duties.

6. LandWatch's members, directors, and staff will also suffer direct injury as a result of the

dverse environmental, public health, aesthetic, and land use impacts caused by the 2010 General Plan.

hese include: the permanent loss of vast quantities of currently undeveloped open space and agricultural

ands, blighting of the area's landscape, air pollution associated with increased vehicle traffic, permanent

oss of habitat for plant and animal species including species protected under state and federal law, loss

f recreational opportunities, increased traffic congestion in the area, impacts to local water supply and

vater quality from poorly planned and inefficient land development, and an overall decrease in quality of

ife.

7. By this action, LandWatch seeks to protect the interests of its members, directors, and staff,

nd to enforce a public duty owed to them by the County. Because the claims asserted and the relief

ought in this petition are broad-based and of a public as opposed to a purely private or pecuniary nature,

irect participation in this litigation by LandWatch's individual members is not necessary.

8. LandWatch presented oral and written comments in opposition to the 2010 General Plan to

he County prior to and during the public hearings culminating in the County's October 26, 2010

pprovals.

County of Monterey

9. Defendant COUNTY OF MONTEREY County") is a political subdivision of the State of

California. On October 26, 2010, the County, through its Board of Supervisors, certified the EIR and

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Land Watch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

3

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

23

24

25

26

27

28

pproved the 2010 General Plan. The County is the Lead Agency" responsible under CEQA for

valuating the environmental impacts of the 2010 General Plan. The County is also the entity responsible

inder the State Planning and Zoning Law and Senate Bill 610 for evaluating and approving the 2010

eneral Plan with respect to compliance with all applicable statutory requirements.

Does

10. Petitioners currently do not know the true names of DOES I through XXV inclusive, and

herefore name them by such fictitious names. Petitioners will seek leave from the court to amend this

etition to reflect the true names and capacities of DOES I through XXV inclusive once ascertained.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. This action is brought pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21167, 21168, and

22 1168.5, Government Code sections 65750 et seq., and Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and

094.5. Venue is proper in the County of Monterey under Code of Civil Procedure sections 393 and 395.

BACKGROUND FACTS, PROCEDURAL HISTORY, AND AGENCY ACTION

12. The County previously adopted a comprehensive General Plan on September 30, 1982.

13. On or about June, 1999, the Board of Supervisors directed County staff to prepare for and

indertake a community agreement process, to refined and update the 1982 General Plan and Area Plans,

nd to undertake environmental review of the revised General Plan.

14. On October 12, 1999, staff of the Monterey County Planning and Building Inspection

apartment issued a report on existing conditions, which concludes that land development has not

roceeded in accordance with the 1982 General Plan land use and growth management goals, particularly

n North County, Greater Salinas, Toro, Carmel Valley, and the Greater Monterey Peninsula. The report

rther concludes that water demand exceeds supply in the three major supply areas on the County and

hat a balance has not been achieved.

15. The October 12, 1999 report on existing conditions also concludes that roads in many areas of

he County are at capacity, that key State Highway facilities are so congested that traffic is diverting to

nd congesting local County roads, that funding has not kept pace with maintenance needs, that the cost

stimated in 1996 to provide additional capacity to impaired State Highway corridors was $700 million,

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Land Watch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

4

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�I

2

3

4

5

6

20

28

ut that State and Federal funding programs provide less than $8 million a year for capacity-related

mprovements.

16. On or about November, 1999, the Board of Supervisors directed County staff to prepare a

omprehensive General Plan to update and replace the adopted 1982 General Plan.

17. Between November, 1999 and May, 2004, County staff prepared and circulated three draft

eneral Plan Updates the 2001 Draft GPU," GPU 2," and GPU 3") and associated environmental

mpact reports. Numerous public workshops and hearings were held, and the Board of Supervisors

rovided direction to staff to make numerous revisions to the draft general plans.

18. In May, 2004, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to cease work on the EIR for GPU3 and

o prepare yet another general plan revision. County staff proceeded to do so, and released drafts of the

22006 Monterey County General Plan, or GPU 4," including an Agricultural Winery Corridor Plan

AWCP) as well as and environmental impact report in 2006 and 2007.

19. On January 3, 2007, the County, through its Board of Supervisors, adopted Resolution 07-

06, certifying the EIR, and Resolution 07-007, adopting the 2006 General Plan to replace the 1982

eneral Plan. The Board made its adoption subject to voter approval at the June 2007 election.

ollowing adoption of the 2006 General Plan, a citizens' referendum on whether to repeal the 2006

eneral Plan was qualified and also placed on the June 2007 ballot. Voters indicated that they rejected

he 2006 General Plan.

20. In July 2007, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to modify the 2006 General Plan,

vorking with an ad hoc committee.

21. In December 2007, the County released a new draft general plan, entitled the draft 2007

4onterey County General Plan" or GPU5."

22. The County released the Draft EIR for GPU5 for public comment on September 5, 2008. The

ounty subsequently provided some additional information, including some updated citations and

eferences and other errata, and commenced a second comment period running from December 16, 2008

o February 2, 2009.

23. Numerous agencies, organizations, and citizens, including LandWatch, submitted comments

n the Draft EIR, objecting to its failure to meet CEQA's requirements.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Land Watch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

5

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�I

2

3

4

5

6

7

28

24. The Planning Commission held workshops and a public hearing on the Draft EIR in 2008 and

arly 2009.

25. In March 2009, the County released revisions to GPU5 and a Final EIR the March FEIR")

urporting to respond to public comments and substantially revising GPU5 and the Draft EIR. The

arch FEIR substantially revised the Draft EIR, for example, by substantially revising projections

elated to water demand and furnishing analyses of water demand and supply that had not been included

in the Draft EIR.

26. From April 2010 through August 2010, the Planning Commission held public hearings and

ade further substantial revisions to GPU5. LandWatch actively participated in those hearings,

ubmitting written and oral comments through its representatives and members.

27. On August 11, 2010 the Planning Commission recommended that the Board of Supervisors

ertify the EIR and approve GPU5, which had been recaptioned the 2010 Monterey County General

Plan."

28. In its August 11, 2010 recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, the Planning

ommission acknowledged its inability and failure to make recommendations regarding the critical

efinition of Long Term Sustainable Water Supply" or to provide substantive criteria for Policy PS-3.2,

vhich purports to require development of criteria for Long Term Sustainable Water Supply.

29. From August 31 through October 26, 2010, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on

he 2010 General Plan, which was continued on several dates during that period. LandWatch actively

articipated in that hearing, submitting written and oral comments through its representatives and

embers.

30. In September 2010, the County released a document captioned Supplemental Materials to the

inal EIR" September FEIR Supplement"), substantially revising the March 2010 Final EIR with

espect to numerous issues, including the projected growth of agriculture; the policies governing, and the

mpacts from, urban development and agriculture on steeply sloped lands; the availability of adequate

vater supplies; and mitigation of traffic impacts. The September FEIR Supplement substantially revised

he projections of water demand and supply in the draft EIR, made further substantial revisions to the

raft EIR text, and furnished previously undisclosed reference data related to water supply issues.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

LandWatch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

6

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

25

26

27

31. On October 15, 2010, the County released yet another document captioned Supplemental

aterials to the Final EIR" the October FEIR Supplement"), again, substantially revising the March

010 Final EIR with respect to numerous issues, including the projected growth of agriculture; the

olicies governing, and the impacts from, urban development and agriculture on steeply sloped lands; the

vailability of adequate water supplies; and mitigation of traffic impacts. The October FEIR Supplement

et again substantially revised the projections of water demand and supply in the Draft EIR, made further

ubstantial revisions to the Draft EIR text, and furnished yet more previously undisclosed reference data

elated to water supply issues.

32. In October, during its review of the 2010 General Plan and the EIR, the Board of Supervisors

Inally defined the critical term Long Term Sustainable Water Supply" and settled on criteria for, and

ew exemptions from, Policy PS-3.2, which sets forth the requirement to demonstrate an adequate water

upply. However, the Board of Supervisors failed to remand the 2010 General Plan back to the Planning

Commission.

33. On October 26, 2010, the Board of Supervisors certified the Final EIR and adopted Findings

f Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

or the 2010 Monterey County General Plan.

34. On October 26, 2010, the Board of Supervisors adopted the 2010 Monterey County General

1an.

35. On October 27, 2010, the County posted a Notice of Determination pursuant to Public

esources Code section 21152 for the 2010 Monterey County General Plan.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of CEQA)

36. Petitioners here incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs in their entirety.

37. At all times relevant to this action the County was the Lead Agency" responsible for the

eview and approval of the 2010 General Plan under Public Resources Code section 21067.

38. Under Government Code section 65350, a Lead Agency may not approve a general plan

vithout performing the environmental review required by CEQA.

28 IY

7

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

LandWatch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�I

2

3

39. Generally, CEQA requires public agencies to first identify the environmental effects of its

project or program, and then to mitigate those adverse environmental effects through the imposition of

feasible mitigation measures or the analysis and selection of feasible alternatives. Public Resources

Pode,  21002. CEQA requires a lead agency to establish that either 1) impacts will not have a

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

28

ignificant effect on the environment or 2) the agency has adopted findings that all significant

nvironmental effects have been avoided or mitigated to the extent feasible, and any remaining effects

found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to specific overriding economic, social, technological, or

ther benefits.

40. An EIR must include a finite, stable, accurate and meaningful project description. 14 C.C.R.,

15124.

41. An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of

he project as they existed at the time the notice of preparation is published, with particular focus on the

egional setting. 14 C.C.R.,  15125.

42. An EIR must identify and evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts

f all phases of a project. 14 C.C.R.,  15126. The discussion must include relevant specifics of the

rea, the resources involved, physical changes, alterations to ecological systems, and changes induced in

opulation distribution, population concentration, the human use of the land including commercial and

esidential development), health and safety problems caused by the physical changes, and other aspects of

he resource base such as water, historical resources, scenic quality, and public services. 14 C.C.R.,

5126.2.

43. A lead agency must describe and evaluate feasible measures for minimizing or avoiding a

roject's direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the environment. Public Resources Code,

1100(b)(3); 14 C.C.R.,  15126.4.

44. A lead agency may not improperly defer the formulation of mitigation measures until a future

time. An agency may only defer the formulation of mitigation measures when it recognizes the

significance of the potential environmental effect, commits itself to mitigating its impact, and articulates

specific performance criteria for the future mitigation." Gentry v. City of Murietta 1995) 36 Cal.App.4th

1359, 1411, citing Sacramento Old CityAssn. v. City Council 1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028-1029

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

LandWatch Monterey County v. County ofMonterey

8

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�                     ,�2

3

15

for the kind of impacts for which mitigation is known to be feasible, but where practical considerations

rohibit devising such measures early in the planning process  the agency can commit itself to

ventually devising measures that will satisfy specific performance criteria articulated at the time of

roject approval"); 14 C.C.R.,  15126.4(a)(1)(B). Deferral of mitigation requires that the agency specify

erformance standards and set forth potential mitigation methods. Sacramento Old City Assn., supra, 229

al.App.3d at 1021. An agency must have, and must articulate, a good reason for deferring the

ormulation of mitigation. San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced 2007) 149

a1.App.4t' 645, 670, 684. The County may not delegate the formulation and approval of programs to

ddress environmental impacts because an agency's legislative body must ultimately review and vouch

or all environmental analysis mandated by CEQA. Sundstrom v County of Mendocino 1988) 202

al.App.3d 296, 306-308.

45. Mitigation measures, including adopted policies identified as mitigation, must be enforceable

nd feasible. CEQA Guidelines,  15126.4(a)(1), 2).

46. A lead agency must identify all significant effects on the environment caused by a proposed

roject that cannot be avoided. Public Resources Code,  21100(b)(2)(A)

47. A lead agency must provide information in the record to justify rejecting mitigation measures

is infeasible based on economic, social, or housing reasons. 14 C.C.R.,  15131(c).

48. Thus, under CEQA, the County was required to prepare an EIR that described the

nvironmental setting or baseline conditions; that included an accurate, stable, and finite project

escription; that detailed all significant effects on the environment of the proposed project; that identified

ny significant effect on the environment that cannot be avoided if the project is implemented; and that

dentified feasible mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects on the environment.

49. The EIR was required to contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons for determining

hat various effects on the environment were not significant and consequently were not discussed in detail

n the EIR. Public Resources Code,  21100(c).

50. A lead agency may not approve a project for which an EIR identifies a significant

nvironmental impact unless the impact has been mitigated or avoided by changes in the project, or

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Land Watch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

9

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�

,�I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

nless the agency specifically finds that overriding benefits outweigh the significant effects on the

nvironment. Public Resources Code,  21081.

51. Recirculation of a revised draft EIR is required whenever there is an addition of significant

ew information in an EIR after the public comment deadline but before certification. 14 C.C.R.,

5088.5(a). Information is significant" if it shows either that: 1) a new significant environmental

mpact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; or

2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation

easures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. Id. Recirculation is also

equired if the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment

 or when it reveals that the earlier EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate in nature that

ublic comment on the draft was in effect meaningless." Id.

52. A lead agency must provide good faith, reasoned analysis in response to comments. 14

C.R.,  15088(c). The Final EIR must address recommendations and objections raised in comments in

etail, giving reasons why they were not accepted. Id. Specific responses are required to comments

aising specific questions about significant issues.

A. Inadequate Description, Analysis, And Mitigation

1. Water Supply, Overdrafting, and Salt Water Intrusion Impacts

53. The 2010 General Plan permits substantial expansion of residential, commercial, and

ndustrial development and expansion of irrigated agricultural in the unincorporated area of Monterey

ounty, all of which will require adequate water supplies.

54. The Salinas Valley groundwater basin, which is the primary source of water in the Salinas

alley, has been and is in a condition of overdrafting because pumping exceeds recharge; and, as a

onsequence, the basin is experiencing salt water intrusion as seawater is drawn into the aquifer.

55. The Monterey County Water Resources Agency MCWRA") adopted the Salinas Valley

Water Project SVWP") to address salt water intrusion caused by overdrafting.

56. The SVWP was intended to halt salt water intrusion and overdrafting by retaining up to an

dditional 30,000 acre-feet of water in dams, providing about 9,700 acre-feet of that to augment the

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Land Watch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

10

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�
,�1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

28

astroville Seawater Intrusion Project, about 10,000 acre-feet to increase groundwater recharge, and

another 10,000 acre-feet for in-steam flow augmentation.

57. The 2001 Environmental Impact Report for the SVWP SVWP EIR") identifies 443,000

cre-feet as the maximum groundwater pumping in the Salinas Valley groundwater basin consistent with

voidance of overdrafting and salt water intrusion. The SVWP EIR projects that groundwater pumping

would decline to the target of 443,000 acre-feet by 2030 through a 20,000 acre-foot reduction in

roundwater pumping compared to baseline 1995 conditions. The reduction was projected to result from

60,000 acre-foot reduction in agricultural pumping that would offset a 40,000 acre-foot increase in

irban use. The SVWP EIR projected that agricultural pumping would decline as a result of changes to

ropping patterns, increased conservation, and an 1,849 acre reduction in irrigated acreage, from 196,357

cres in 1995 to 194,508 acres in 2030.

58. The Draft EIR failed to present a water balance analysis for the Salinas Valley that compared

vater demand and supply for the purported 2005 baseline to the water supply and demand for the

Tanning horizon's future 2030).

59. Instead, the Draft EIR for the 2010 General Plan presented the water balance analysis from the

VWP EIR, which compared 1995 conditions to 2030 conditions. The Draft EIR, the March Final EIR,

and the October FEIR Supplement each identify the analysis in the SVWP EIR as the basis of the 2010

eneral Plan EIR's conclusions that water supply would be adequate, and that overdrafting and salt water

ntrusion impacts would be less than significant, in the Salinas Valley through 2030.

60. Despite evidence presented by LandWatch and by other comments that the SVWP EIR did

of adequately represent baseline conditions for the 2010 General Plan and that it was based on entirely

ifferent and lower projections of total 2030 water demand, the March Final EIR, the September FEIR

Supplement, and the October FEIR Supplement clung stubbornly to the SVWP EIR as the analytic basis

f these significance conclusions. To do this, these three documents presented entirely new analyses of

aseline and projected water demand, which were inconsistent with the SVWP EIR, with the Draft EIR,

vith each other, and with other evidence in the record.

61. As a result of this and other errors and omissions, the EIR fails as an informational document

because it does not adequately describe existing baseline conditions and does not adequately describe the

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

LandWatch Monterey County v. County ofMonterey

11

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�

,�4

5

6

7

17

18

19

28

roject, particularly the projection of future water demand in the Salinas Valley under the 2010 General

Plan.

62. Furthermore, the analysis of water supply-related impacts is not supported by substantial

vidence, inter alia, because 1) there is no substantial evidence that the SVWP EIR adequately represents

xisting and projected conditions for the 2010 General Plan, and 2) the results-driven, shifting, and

nconsistent presentation of both existing conditions and future demand vitiate any credible analysis.

63. For example, as noted, the Draft EIR simply reprinted the water balance from the SVWP EIR

omparing 1995 baseline and 2030 water demand and supply instead of providing a water balance

nalysis based on the Draft EIR's 2005 baseline and its own assumptions about 2030 population and

gricultural acreage. Analysis of water demand and comparisons of projected demand and supply based

n the EIR's own assumptions were not presented until the March Final EIR.

64. The Draft EIR, the March Final EIR, the September FEIR Supplement, and the October FEIR

upplement present four different and incompatible projections of urban water demand as of 2030. These

nalyses use different population assumptions and different per capita water use assumptions. The only

onsistent thread in these analyses is that they purport to justify continuing reliance on the SVWP EIR.

65. The purported baseline water demand data in the Draft EIR consists of pumping data from a

ingle year, 2005, a below-normal water use year. However, the October FEIR Supplement later

admitted that this 2005 pumping data is incomplete, both because it omits large portions of the Salinas

alley groundwater basin and because not all wells in the limited reporting area actually reported.

Furthermore, the EIR admits that single year water use data do not provide a meaningful basis for

omparisons because they do not reflect variations in weather, acreage, and cropping.

66. The EIR claims not to rely on the 1995 baseline in the SVWP EIR, a composite figure that is

ntended to reflect variations in weather, acreage, and cropping patterns and that is based on the extent of

rrigated acreage as of 1995. But, because the EIR's analysis of water supply impacts is based on the

V WP EIR, and no analysis of overdrafting or saltwater intrusion impacts was undertaken other than that

in the SVWP EIR, the 2010 General Plan EIR does in effect rely on the SVWP EIR's 1995 baseline. The

005 baseline data in the Draft EIR are analytically irrelevant.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Land Watch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

12

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�

,�1

2

3

4

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

67. However, because the EIR provides no way to reconcile the 1995 baseline in the SVWP EIR

o the EIR's own 2005 baseline, the EIR fails to present an analytically relevant current baseline.

68. The SVWP EIR baseline is itself unjustified because it is substantially less than the actual

umping data for prior and subsequent years. Furthermore the SVWP EIR's acreage assumptions were

ot, and cannot be, reconciled with its own background technical reports or with the acreage assumptions

n the 2010 General Plan EIR. In addition, the October FEIR supplement admits that the Salinas Valley

ntegrated Ground Surface Model SVIGSM") used in the SVWP EIR and the model assumptions did

of include the entire Salinas Valley groundwater basin. Finally, the County did not make the SVIGSM

r its assumptions available to the public.

69. The Draft EIR and the March Final EIR understate future water demand from agriculture.

Whereas the SVWP EIR projected a 1,849 acre decrease in irrigated agriculture, the 2010 General Plan

IR eventually admitted that irrigated agriculture would increase by 10,253 acres from 2008 to 2030.

nd even this increase is understated, because it is inconsistent with the recently accelerating rate of

gricultural land conversions. The EIR also understates water demand from the Agricultural Winery

orridor Plan AWCP"), which was not anticipated by the SVWP EIR.

70. The March FEIR dismisses the water demand consequence of admitted increases in irrigated

gricultural acreage over the acreage assumed in the SVWP EIR. It does this by double counting

rojected conservation and by presenting pumping data for the period from 1995 to 2008 purporting to

how declining water use. However, the October FEIR Supplement later admits these data are

ncomplete, because not all wells reported and because the reporting area does not include the entire

alinas Valley groundwater basin. The October FEIR's admission that the pumping data in the Draft EIR

nd March FEIR are incomplete came only after Land Watch presented evidence that this pumping data

mits 70,000 acres of the Salinas Valley groundwater basin.

71. The October FEIR Supplement, presented days before the EIR certification, belatedly admits

hat 2030 agricultural water demand will in fact be much higher than the demand projected in the SVWP

IR, the 2010 General Plan Draft EIR, or the March Final EIR  precisely because of the projected

ncreases in agricultural land between 2008 and 2030 that were identified by Land Watch in Draft EIR

omments but discounted in the March FEIR comment responses. However, this last-minute analysis

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

LandWatch Monterey County v. County ofMonterey

13

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�I

10

11

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

till fails to acknowledge the increased water demand due to increases in agricultural land that had

lready occurred between 1995 and 2008  increases that were also not assumed in the SVWP EIR's

projection of 2030 conditions.

72. To offset the admitted increase in projected 2030 agricultural water demand, the October

EIR Supplement coincidentally projects a compensating reduction in projected 2030 urban water

lemand, based on the new and unjustified assumption that all 2030 urban water use will decline by 20%

y virtue of SBX77.

73. There is no justification for this last-minute assumption that urban demand will be reduced

0% by virtue of SBX77, an enactment which predated the March FEIR but was not mentioned in that

ocument. For example, SBX77 does not apply to small water suppliers in the Salinas Valley, does not

ctually mandate a 20% reduction in residential use, and mandates at most a 10% cut to non-residential

rban use, which makes up a large portion of urban use.

74. In addition, the October FEIR Supplement presents an entirely new analysis that equivocally

and inconsistently projects that a substantial portion of water demand previously identified as part of the

emand from the Salinas Valley groundwater basin might not materialize. The October FEIR

upplement indicates that this demand might instead occur in previously undisclosed and unevaluated

roundwater basins within the Salinas Valley watershed but purportedly separate from the Salinas Valley

roundwater basin. The October FEIR Supplement fails to clarify whether this demand will in fact be

elocated, or to discuss the water supply impacts to the Salinas Valley groundwater basin if it is not

elocated.

75. The October FEIR Supplement provides no information regarding water supply in the newly

dentified groundwater basins in which future demand might be relocated.

76. In effect, the equivocal last-minute analysis in the October FEIR Supplement acknowledges

ither that there is no known water supply for the demand in these newly identified basins or that the

upply in the Salinas Valley groundwater basin will not be sufficient. The CEQA findings fail to discuss

he significance of impacts to these newly identified basins. The CEQA findings are also inconsistent

vith the revised data provided in the October FEIR Supplement.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

LandWatch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

14

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

77. The October FEIR Supplement also admits that previous analyses, including the analyses in

he SVWP EIR, the 2010 General Plan Draft EIR, the March Final EIR, and the September FEIR

Supplement, omit the water demand from significant portions of the Salinas Valley groundwater basin.

78. The March Final EIR and the October FEIR Supplement purport to demonstrate that water

sage is in line with projections in the SVWP EIR by citing pumping data from 1995 to 2008. However,

his data is admittedly incomplete. Furthermore, the trend analyses offered by the March Final EIR and

he October FEIR Supplement fail to take into account the variations in weather, cropping patterns, and

rrigated acreage  precisely the variations that the EIR argues elsewhere must be taken into account in

ny meaningful analysis or comparison. For example, the October FEIR Supplement acknowledges that

hese variations are critical to any analysis when it faults Land Watch for pointing out that the same data

lemonstrate that water use per acre has been increasing.

79. As a result of the admitted errors and omissions in previous analyses, the October FEIR

Supplement, issued days before certification of the EIR, entirely revises the water demand and water

alance analyses for the Salinas Valley groundwater basin and provides an entirely new analysis of water

emand for additional groundwater basins in the Salinas Valley watershed.

80. In addition to the foregoing and other failures to present an adequate description of existing

onditions and the project itself and its failure to provide a credible analysis of impacts, the EIR fails to

ropose and discuss adequate mitigation for water supply related impacts.

81. The EIR and the CEQA findings argue that no additional mitigation for water supply-related

mpacts to 2030 in the Salinas Valley groundwater basin is required because demand will be consistent

with demand projected in the SVWP EIR. As noted, the shifting, inconsistent, and belated analyses in

he 2010 General Plan EIR do not provide substantial evidence for this conclusion, and there is

ubstantial evidence that unmitigated demand will exceed the demand projected by the SVWP EIR.

dditional mitigation is required.

82. 2010 General Plan policies identified in the EIR as mitigation for water supply related impacts

are not sufficient to avoid significant impacts. Essentially all of the policies presented as mitigation for

mpacts to water supplies are deferred mitigation, calling for future development of programs, standards,

and regulations that would address, inter alia, groundwater recharge, water conservation, well approval,

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Land Watch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

15

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ea water intrusion, water supply assessment procedures, well installation and testing, and groundwater

verdrafting.

83. The proposed deferred mitigation measures for impacts to water supplies and water resources

mproperly fail to identify performance standards or alternative means of mitigation and the basis for

hoosing among them. These policies improperly defer formulation of mitigation despite the evident

nd acknowledged uncertainty as to the feasibility or efficacy of mitigation. These policies improperly

elegate mitigation approval authority away from the Board of Supervisors.

84. For example, Policy PS-3.1 requires proof of a Long Term Sustainable Water Supply for new

levelopment. Policy PS-3.2 was intended to provide criteria for proof of this Long Term Sustainable

Water Supply. However, the Planning Commission was unable to recommend any criteria. As finally

rafted, at the last minute by the Board of Supervisors, Policy PS-3.2 does not provide criteria, but

merely empty parameters, and defers the actual formulation of criteria to a future ordinance.

urthermore, Policy PS-3.2 as finally drafted does not apply to ministerial permitting decisions and

xempts agriculture, even though agriculture accounts for 85% of projected 2030 water demand.

85. The 2010 General Plan EIR is also deficient with respect to water supply and water supply

elated impacts, both in the Salinas Valley and elsewhere within the County, in that it otherwise fails

dequately to describe existing conditions, describe the project, identify and evaluate significant impacts,

nd propose necessary mitigation.

86. With respect to water supply and water supply-related impacts, the County abused its

iscretion by failing to describe adequately the 2010 General Plan; by failing to describe adequately the

xisting environmental conditions; by failing adequately to evaluate and to identify significant impacts;

nd by failing to propose and discuss adequate mitigation for significant impacts. Thus, the County's

pproval of the 2010 General Plan was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious in

hat the County did not proceed in the manner required by law and its decision and findings are not

upported by substantial evidence.

2. Water Quality Impacts

87. The 2010 General Plan permits substantial expansion of residential, commercial, and

industrial development and expansion of agricultural in the unincorporated area of Monterey County.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Land Watch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

16

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�1

2

3

24

25

26

27

28

Vxpansion of agriculture and development will result in erosion, sedimentation, and other water quality

impacts.

88. The 2010 General Plan relaxes current restrictions and permits development and agricultural

xpansion on slopes in excess of 25%. Such development and agricultural expansion will contribute to

rosion, sedimentation, and water quality impairment from other pollutants.

89. Many streams and other water bodies in Monterey County are already significantly impaired

y sedimentation and other pollutants.

90. The 2010 General Plan EIR fails to provide an adequate description of existing conditions

vith respect to erosion, sedimentation, and other water quality impairments. For example, the Draft EIR

oes not acknowledge the failure of existing regulatory efforts to prevent significant water quality

mpacts, and it does not acknowledge that existing development and agricultural operations result in

umulatively significant water quality impacts.

91. The 2010 General Plan EIR fails to provide a description of development and agricultural

xpansion that adequately supports analysis of water quality impacts.

92. The 2010 General Plan EIR fails to provide an adequate analysis of water quality impacts,

ncluding cumulative water quality impacts. For example, the EIR improperly concludes that existing

egulations and a handful of inadequately specified policies will prevent future water quality impacts.

93. The 2010 General Plan EIR fails to propose and discuss adequate mitigation of water quality

mpacts, including cumulative water quality impacts.

94. With respect to water quality impacts, the County abused its discretion by failing to describe

dequately the 2010 General Plan; by failing to describe adequately the existing environmental

onditions; by failing adequately to evaluate and to identify significant impacts; and by failing to propose

nd discuss adequate mitigation for significant impacts. Thus, the County's approval of the 2010 General

Ian was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious in that the County did not proceed

n the manner required by law and its decision and findings are not supported by substantial evidence.

3. Biological Resource Impacts

95. The 2010 General Plan permits substantial expansion of residential, commercial, and

industrial development and expansion of agricultural in the unincorporated area of Monterey County.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Land Watch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

17

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

xpansion of agriculture and development will result in impacts to biological resources, including special

tatus species, important habitat, movement corridors, and nursery sites.

96. The 2010 General Plan relaxes current restrictions and permits development and agricultural

xpansion on slopes in excess of 25%. Such practices lead to loss of habitat and other impacts to

biological resources.

97. The 2010 General Plan EIR fails to provide an adequate description of existing conditions

vith respect to biological resources.

98. The 2010 General Plan EIR fails to provide a description of development and agricultural

xpansion that adequately supports analysis of impacts to biological resources.

99. The 2010 General Plan EIR fails to provide an adequate analysis of impacts to biological

esources, including cumulative impacts.

100. The 2010 General Plan EIR fails to propose and discuss adequate mitigation of impacts to

iological resources, including cumulative impacts.

101. With respect to biological resource impacts, the County abused its discretion by failing to

lescribe adequately the 2010 General Plan; by failing to describe adequately the existing environmental

onditions; by failing adequately to evaluate and to identify significant impacts; and by failing to propose

nd discuss adequate mitigation for significant impacts. Thus, the County's approval of the 2010 General

Ian was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious in that the County did not proceed

n the manner required by law and its decision and findings are not supported by substantial evidence.

4. Other Impacts

102. The 2010 General Plan permits substantial expansion of residential, commercial, and

ndustrial development and expansion of irrigated agricultural in the unincorporated area of Monterey

ounty. This development will result other environmental impacts, including impacts to traffic, air

uality, and agricultural land.

103. The 2010 General Plan EIR fails to provide an adequate description of existing conditions that

ould support the analysis of other environmental impacts.

104. The 2010 General Plan EIR fails to provide a description of development that adequately

13upports analysis of other environmental impacts.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Land Watch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

18

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�1

2

3

9

28

105. The 2010 General Plan EIR fails to provide an adequate analysis of other environmental

mpacts, including cumulative impacts.

106. The 2010 General Plan EIR fails to propose and discuss adequate mitigation of other

nvironmental impacts, including cumulative impacts.

107. With respect to other impacts, including impacts to traffic, air quality, and agricultural land,

he County abused its discretion by failing to describe adequately the 2010 General Plan; by failing to

escribe adequately the existing environmental conditions; by failing adequately to evaluate and to

dentify significant impacts; and by failing to propose and discuss adequate mitigation for significant

mpacts. Thus, the County's approval of the 2010 General Plan was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and

rbitrary and capricious in that the County did not proceed in the manner required by law and its decision

nd findings are not supported by substantial evidence.

5. Mitigation Inadequately Specified And Improperly Deferred

108. The EIR improperly defers to a future date evaluation of mitigation measures for the impacts

mused by the 2010 General Plan.

109. The 2010 General Plan contains inadequately specified policies that amount to nothing more

han a promise to look into problems later. These policies lack the essential substantive detail to direct

rderly growth, and they lack the performance standards required to mitigate environmental impacts.

110. CEQA does not permit the County to defer the formulation of a mitigation measure where the

roposed mitigation measure 1) lacks performance standards, 2) fails to identify alternative means of

itigation and the basis for choosing among them, 3) defers formulation of mitigation in the face of

incertainty as to the feasibility or efficacy of mitigation, or 4) delegates mitigation approval authority

way from the Board of Supervisors.

111. The EIR asserts that many of these inadequately specified policies will mitigate

nvironmental impacts from development so that these impacts are less than significant. The Board of

Supervisors could not reasonably conclude that eventual implementation of an inadequately specified

olicy would mitigate impacts.

112. In other instances, the EIR concludes that, despite the incompletely specified policies, impacts

ust remain significant and unavoidable. The Board could not reasonably conclude that eventual

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Land Watch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

19

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�1

2

3

4

5

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

implementation of an inadequately specified policy will result in all feasible mitigation of significant and

unavoidable impacts.

113. Many 2010 General Plan policies are so vague, incomplete, untested, and unspecified that it

vas simply impossible for the Board of Supervisors to evaluate their effectiveness.

114. Expert opinion and evidence in the record demonstrates that many of the policies cannot be

ffective in meeting 2010 General Plan Goals.

115. Numerous policies in the 2010 General Plan do not meet CEQA's requirements for deferral of

itigation. These policies include, inter alia, provisions to regulate loss of agricultural land;

levelopment on slopes; hydrologic impacts of slope conversion; runoff and recharge; proof of sustainable

vater supply; groundwater overdraft; water conservation; water recycling; wastewater treatment; septic

lisposal facilities; new wells; sea water intrusion to groundwater basins; acceptable traffic levels of

ervice; habitat loss; evaluation of water supply adequacy; landscaping and lighting; agricultural buffers;

esidential development outside Community Areas and Rural Centers; ridgeline development; best

anagement practices for erosion control; tree removal; invasive species; protection of archaeological

nd cultural resources; and flooding.

116. The County abused its discretion by failing to propose and discuss adequate mitigation for

ignificant impacts. Thus, the County's approval of the 2010 General Plan was a prejudicial abuse of

iscretion and arbitrary and capricious in that the County did not proceed in the manner required by law

nd its decision and findings are not supported by substantial evidence.

6. Finding of Overriding Considerations Not A Substitute For Adequate Disclosure

117. An agency may not simply label an impact significant and adopt a statement of overriding

onsiderations without meeting CEQA's information and disclosure requirements. Berkeley Keep Jets

ver the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissioners 2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1371. CEQA

equires that an EIR not only identify impacts, but must also provide information about how adverse the

mpacts will be." Santiago County Water District v. County of Orange 1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 831.

118. The County's failure to disclose the true scope of environmental impacts was not cured by its

inding that these impacts are significant and unavoidable.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

LandWatch Monterey County v. County ofMonterey

20

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

24

25

26

27

28

119. The County abused its discretion by failing to disclose the true scope of environmental

mpacts. Thus, the County's approval of the 2010 General Plan was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and

rbitrary and capricious in that the County did not proceed in the manner required by law and its decision

nd findings are not supported by substantial evidence.

B. Inadequate Evaluation of Alternatives

120. An EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of

he project, that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or

ubstantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and must evaluate the comparative merits

f the alternatives. 14 C.C.R.,  15126.6. An EIR must include sufficient information about each

alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. Id. Case

aw states that alternatives analysis must contain meaningful detail" and should include quantitative

omparative analysis. Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California

1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 406; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford 1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692,

33-734.

121. The EIR fails to identify and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the 2010 General

lan and AWCP that would avoid or minimize significant impacts.

122. The EIR's descriptions and analyses of alternatives are flawed and do not include sufficient

nformation about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the

roposed project.

123. The County abused its discretion by failing to describe an adequate analysis of alternatives

nd to provide an adequate analysis of those alternatives. Thus, the County's approval of the 2010

eneral Plan was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious in that the County did not

proceed in the manner required by law and its decision and findings are not supported by substantial

vidence.

C. Documentation Improperly Withheld or Not Prepared

124. A lead agency must provide information to support the technical conclusions in an EIR.

public Resources Code section 21092(b)(1) requires that the County provide notice of the address where

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

LandWatch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

21

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�I

2

3

4

5

6

28

opies of the draft environmental impact report  and all documents referenced in the draft

nvironmental impact report  are available for review.

125. The County failed to make all documentation referenced in the EIR available timely, or, in

some instances, at all.

126. The omission of this information and refusal to provide it upon request substantially

prejudiced the public's opportunity to provide meaningful comments on the Draft EIR and to participate

n the environmental review of the 2010 General Plan.

127. The County abused its discretion by failing to provide relevant documentation. Thus, the

ounty's approval of the 2010 General Plan was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and arbitrary and

apricious in that the County did not proceed in the manner required by law and its decision and findings

are not supported by substantial evidence.

D. Failure to Recirculate Despite Significant New Information

128. Recirculation of a revised draft EIR is required whenever there is an addition of significant

ew information in an EIR after the public comment deadline but before certification. 14 C.C.R.,

5088.5(a). Information is significant" if it shows either that: 1) a new significant environmental

mpact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; or

2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation

easures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. Id. Recirculation is also

equired if the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment

or when it reveals that the earlier EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate in nature that

ublic comment on the draft was in effect meaningless." Id.

129. Significant information requiring that the County recirculate the Draft EIR was provided by

he public in comments and by the County itself in the March Final EIR, the September FEIR

Supplement, and the October FEIR Supplement. For example, the County provided numerous

ubstantive revisions to its analyses of water supply related impacts, including entirely new analyses of

rban and agricultural demand, baseline conditions, water supply, and even the location and identity of

ffected groundwater basins.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

LandWatch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

22

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

130. Information that should have been included in the Draft EIR but was omitted and instead

iupplied later required recirculation, for example, information about cumulative water demand and

Supply in each groundwater basin.

131. Changes to the project description, such as numerous changes made to proposed policies in

he 2010 General Plan, required recirculation.

132. Revisions made to the Draft EIR by the March Final EIR, the September FEIR Supplement,

nd the October FEIR Supplement reveal that the Draft EIR is so fundamentally and basically inadequate

n nature that public comment on the Draft EIR was in effect meaningless.

133. The Board of Supervisors nonetheless improperly found that there was no significant new

nformation that would require recirculation of modified sections of the Draft EIR or the entire document.

134. The County abused its discretion by failing to recirculate the EIR for further public comment

nd response. Thus, the County's approval of the 2010 General Plan was a prejudicial abuse of

discretion and arbitrary and capricious in that the County did not proceed in the manner required by law

and its decision and findings are not supported by substantial evidence.

E. Failure to Respond Adequately To Comments

135. A lead agency must provide good faith, reasoned analysis in response to comments. 14

C.R.,  15088(c). The Final EIR must address recommendations and objections raised in comments in

detail, giving reasons why they were not accepted. Id. Specific responses are required to comments

aising specific questions about significant issues.

136. The County failed to provide good faith, reasoned analysis in response to comments on the

raft EIR. The Final EIR fails entirely to address numerous specific comments. The Final EIR provides

nisleading, inconsistent, non-specific, dismissive, or conclusory responses to many other comments.

137. The County abused its discretion by failing to provide adequate comment responses. Thus,

he County's approval of the 2010 General Plan was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and arbitrary and

apricious in that the County did not proceed in the manner required by law and its decision and findings

re not supported by substantial evidence.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Land Watch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

23

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�1

2

3

4

5

6

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

F. Unlawful Approval of Unmitigated Project Despite Existence of Feasible Mitigation

Measures

138. If a mitigation measure is proposed to address a potentially significant impact, that mitigation

easure must either be adopted or found to be infeasible. A finding of infeasibility must be supported by

ubstantial evidence in the record.

139. Commenters suggested a number of potentially feasible mitigation measures to address

ignificant environmental impacts. For example, comments identified specific water conservation

easures that could feasibly have been adopted as mitigation.

140. The County failed to identify, evaluate, and adopt all feasible mitigation measures that would

educe or avoid unmitigated significant adverse impacts.

141. The County rejected suggested mitigation measures as infeasible without providing

ubstantial evidence in the record to support that conclusion.

142. The County abused its discretion by approving a project with unmitigated impacts despite the

xistence of feasible mitigation. Thus, the County's approval of the 2010 General Plan was a prejudicial

buse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious in that the County did not proceed in the manner required

by law and its decision and findings are not supported by substantial evidence.

G. Failure to Adopt Legally Adequate Findings

143. In order to adopt a project or program without mitigating each significant impact to a less-

han-significant level, an agency must find for each significant impact that  1) changes or alterations

iave been required, or incorporated, which mitigate or avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects

n the environment; 2) those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of

another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency; or 3) specific

conomic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision

f employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or

alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

144. These findings must be supported by substantial evidence and the agency must explain the

ogical relation between the facts in the record and the ultimate finding.

V

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

LandWatch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

24

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

145. The County's CEQA Findings of Fact and its statement of overriding considerations are not

upported by substantial evidence and the County failed to explain the logical relation between the facts

in the record and its findings.

146. For example, the County failed to support its findings regarding the significance of impacts

ith substantial evidence and its findings are inconsistent with the record. Findings failed to identify

some significant impacts and failed to consider feasible mitigation measures for significant impacts

despite substantial evidence that the impacts are significant and the availability of mitigation.

147. The County abused its discretion by failing to make legally adequate findings or to explain the

ogical relation between the facts in the record and its findings. Thus, the County's approval of the 2010

eneral Plan was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious in that the County did not

roceed in the manner required by law and its decision and findings are not supported by substantial

vidence.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of State Planning and Zoning Law)

148. Petitioner here incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs in their entirety.

149. Government Code section 65300.5 requires that a general plan and elements and parts thereof

omprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting

gency.

150. Government Code section 65302(b) provides that the circulation element of a general plan

hall be correlated with the land use element.

151. Government Code section 65103(a) requires a local planning agency, including the County, to

eriodically review, and revise, as necessary, its general plan.

152. Government Code section 65751 provides that a writ of mandate under Code of Civil

procedure section 1085 may be obtained to challenge a general plan or element thereof on the grounds

hat such a plan or element does not comply with the requirements for general plans set forth at

overnment Code section 65300 et seq.

27

28

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

LandWatch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

25

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�I

2

11

12

13

14

15

16

28

153. Government Code section 65754 requires that where a court finds that a general plan or

lement thereof does not comply with requirements for general plans set forth at Government Code

ection 65300 et seq., the County shall bring its general plan into compliance within 120 days.

154. Government Code section 65755 provides that the court may also order relief including

uspension of authority to issue permits, to grant zoning changes, and to grant subdivision map

pprovals.

155. Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 provides that a court may issue a writ of mandate to a

ublic agency to compel the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins.

1. Circulation Element Not Correlated With Land Use Element

156. The Planning and Zoning law requires the circulation element to be correlated with the land

se element. Gov. Code,  65302(b). The correlation requirement effectively requires the circulation

lement to set forth service standards as well as proposals to address changes in roadway demand caused

by changes in land use. Concerned Citizens of Calaveras County v. Calaveras County Board of

upervisors 1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 90, 100.

157. The circulation element in the 2010 General Plan is not correlated with its land use element,

nd fails to comply with all applicable statutory criteria under the State Planning and Zoning Law.

158. For example, the 2010 General Plan provides no effective standard of service because policies

o not require the County to attain a particular service standard for 20 years, effectively for the duration

f the 2010 General Plan's planning horizon.

159. The 2010 General Plan fails to meet service standards because the County admits that the

tandards identified will not be met on numerous roadways despite policies and mitigation measures.

160. The County admits that funding is not available to construct needed facilities or ensure service

standards are met.

161. Policies do not require concurrent mitigation of traffic impacts with new development.

162. Furthermore, the 2010 General Plan does not set forth consistent or adequately complete

bjectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals for both its land use and circulation elements. The

bjectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals for the circulation element are incomplete and

nconsistent, and they do not support the land use element.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

LandWatch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

26

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

163. The EIR acknowledges that cumulative impacts to County roads and to regional roads will be

ignificant and unavoidable. However, neither the EIR nor the 2010 General Plan propose mitigation or

nclude program elements that will ensure construction of roadway improvements necessary to meet level

f service standards.

164. Development impact fees may not be imposed to address roadway deficiencies caused by

rior development without violating the nexus and proportionality requirements of CEQA and

onstitutional case law. 14 C.C.R.,  15126.4(a)(4). Neither the EIR nor the 2010 General Plan includes

dequate proposals that would address regional roadways currently operating below acceptable levels of

ervice.

165. Development phasing" policies in the 2010 General Plan that purport to bar development or

ccupancy until service standards are met does not cure the County's failure to meet the correlation

equirement. Such policies, if actually implemented, would not result in a circulation element that

upports the land use element. Such policies would simply result in the failure to attain land use goals

ather than circulation goals, and would leave the circulation element uncorrelated with the land use

lement.

166. The County's approval of the 2010 General Plan was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and

arbitrary and capricious in that the County did not proceed in the manner required by law and its decision

and findings are not supported by substantial evidence because the circulation element is not correlated

with the land use element. The County's action approving the 2010 General Plan was therefore arbitrary

and capricious and constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion, in that the County failed to proceed in the

nanner required by the State Planning and Zoning Law, and adopted findings of General Plan

ompleteness and consistency that are not supported by the evidence.

2. Plan Incomplete

167. A general plan and the elements and parts thereof must comprise a complete, integrated,

nternally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency.

168. The 2010 General Plan objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals do not comprise a

omplete, integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies.

28 IY

27

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Land Watch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�1

2

3

4

5

6

23

24

25

26

27

28

169. For example, as noted above, the 2010 General Plan contains scores of inadequately specified

policies that amount to nothing more than a promise to look into problems later. These policies lack the

ssential substantive detail to direct orderly growth, and they lack the performance standards required to

itigate environmental impacts.

170. Many 2010 General Plan policies are so vague, incomplete, untested, and unspecified that it

vas simply impossible for the Board of Supervisors to evaluate their effectiveness.

171. Expert opinion and evidence in the record demonstrates that many of the policies cannot be

ffective in meeting 2010 General Plan Goals. For example, slope development policies cannot prevent

ignificant erosion and sedimentation impacts.

172. Because many policies are so ineffective that they do not support the goals intended to ensure

hat permitted land uses are accommodated, the General Plan itself is incomplete.

173. The County's approval of the 2010 General Plan was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and

arbitrary and capricious in that the County did not proceed in the manner required by law and its decision

and findings are not supported by substantial evidence because the 2010 General Plan is incomplete. The

ounty's action approving the 2010 General Plan was therefore arbitrary and capricious and constituted a

rejudicial abuse of discretion, in that the County failed to proceed in the manner required by the State

tanning and Zoning Law, and adopted findings of General Plan completeness and consistency that are

of supported by the evidence.

3. Plan Internally Inconsistent

174. Numerous 2010 General Plan policies conflict with other policies and goals.

175. For example, 2010 General Plan policies permitting rural sprawl development conflict with

olicies calling for concentrating growth in Community Areas.

176. Policies requiring adequate levels of service on County and regional roadways are in

ndamental conflict with land use designations that permit development at an intensity and in locations

hat cannot be supported by existing or planned roadway improvements, or by improvements that may

feasibly be provided through implementation of the 2010 General Plan.

177. Policies requiring sustainable water supply for future development are in fundamental conflict

vith land use designations that permit development and agricultural expansion at an intensity and in

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

LandWatch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

28

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�1

2

3

4

5

6

7

19

27

28

locations that cannot be supported by a sustainable water supply. Since the 2010 General Plan purports

to require a sustainable water supply, designating permitted land uses that require a sustainable water

upply where there is no feasible method of providing such a supply creates an internal inconsistency.

178. The 2010 General Plan policies permitting substantial new development conflict with policies

equiring prevention of overdrafting of, and seawater intrusion into, groundwater aquifers.

179. The 2010 General Plan policies permitting substantial new development conflict with policies

equiring protection of water and biological resources.

180. The County's approval of the 2010 General Plan was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and

rbitrary and capricious in that the County did not proceed in the manner required by law and its decision

nd findings are not supported by substantial evidence because the 2010 General Plan is internally

nconsistent. The County's action approving the 2010 General Plan was therefore arbitrary and

apricious and constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion, in that the County failed to proceed in the

manner required by the State Planning and Zoning Law, and adopted findings of General Plan

ompleteness and consistency that are not supported by the evidence.

4. AWCP Internally Inconsistent

181. The County adopted the Agriculture and Winery Corridor Plan AWCP") as a part of the

010 General Plan. The AWCP purports to permit certain types of development and activities in the

WCP area with a ministerial permit," including certain Artisan Wineries," winery-related events,

finery tasting facilities, food service facilities, guesthouses, residential units, and employee housing.

182. In response, to public comments, the County acknowledged that these uses will result in

ignificant impacts to traffic and biological resources, impacts that are not adequately identified and

mitigated by the 2010 General Plan EIR.

183. The County then revised the draft 2010 General Plan to require discretionary review and

mitigation of biological and traffic impacts as part of these purportedly ministerial" AWCP permits.

184. Requirements for discretionary review are inconsistent with the AWCP's characterization of

ermits for AWCP facilities as ministerial." The AWCP and the 2010 General Plan are therefore

nternally inconsistent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Land Watch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

29

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

185. The County's approval of the 2010 General Plan was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and

arbitrary and capricious in that the County did not proceed in the manner required by law and its decision

and findings are not supported by substantial evidence because the AWCP is internally inconsistent. The

ounty's action approving the 2010 General Plan was therefore arbitrary and capricious and constituted a

rejudicial abuse of discretion, in that the County failed to proceed in the manner required by the State

Tanning and Zoning Law, and adopted findings of General Plan completeness and consistency that are

of supported by the evidence.

5. Planning Commission Recommendation And Referral

186. Prior to adoption or amendment of a general plan, a County's Planning Commission, if it has

ne, must make a written recommendation to the Board of Supervisors as to the adoption or approval.

overnment Code,  65354.

187. Any substantial modification proposed by the Board of Supervisors not previously considered

y the Planning Commission during its hearings must be referred to the Planning Commission for its

ecommendation prior to action by the Board of Supervisors. Government Code,  65356.

188. The Planning Commission failed, and acknowledged its failure, to make a recommendation to

he Board of Supervisors as to the definition of a Long Term Sustainable Water Supply or as to the

ontent of Policy PS-3.2, which was intended to provide criteria for a Long Term Sustainable Water

Supply.

189. The Board of Supervisors substantively modified to 2010 General Plan by adopting a

definition of Long Term Sustainable Water Supply, by drafting Policy PS-3.2, and by making other

ubstantive changes to the draft 2010 General Plan. However, the Board of Supervisors failed to refer

hese changes to the Planning Commission for its recommendation prior to action by the Board of

upervisors.

190. Because of these procedural errors, the public was denied an opportunity for meaningful

articipation in the formulation and approval of the 2010 General Plan.

191. The County's approval of the 2010 General Plan was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and

rbitrary and capricious in that the County did not proceed in the manner required by law and its decision

nd findings are not supported by substantial evidence because the Planning Commission

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Land Watch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

30

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,�I

2

3

4

5

6

7

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

recommendation and referral were improper. The County's action approving the 2010 General Plan was

therefore arbitrary and capricious and constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion, in that the County

ailed to proceed in the manner required by the State Planning and Zoning Law, and adopted findings of

General Plan completeness and consistency that are not supported by the evidence.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Water Supply  Violation of SB 610 and CEQA)

192. Petitioner here incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs in their entirety.

193. Under the provisions of Senate Bill 610 SB 610"), a lead agency is required to prepare or

btain a water supply assessment WSA") for large projects and to include this assessment in the CEQA

ocument prepared for the project. Pub. Resources Code,  21151.9; Water Code,  10911(b),

0912(a).

194. The water supply assessment and any plans for additional supplies must be included in the

IR. Water Code,  10911(b).

195. The AWCP is subject to these requirements because, inter alia, it is a project that will occupy

ore than 40 acres, will demand water equivalent to or greater than 500 dwelling units, and purports to

e exempt from further CEQA review. Water Code,  10912(a).

196. The EIR did not contain a water supply assessment for the AWCP in compliance with SB610.

197. Information in the EIR fails to meet the SB 610 informational requirements.

198. Because the EIR fails to present essential information that is statutorily required under SB

10, there is no substantial evidence to support a determination that there is an adequate water supply for

he AWCP. Most notably, the EIR does not present substantial evidence that essential additional

upplies can be developed in light of basin overdrafting and other environmental constraints.

199. In approving the 2010 General Plan without preparing an adequate water supply assessment,

he County prejudicially abused its discretion by failing to proceed in the manner required by SB 610 and

EQA, and by adopting findings that are not supported by the evidence.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

200. This action is brought consistent with the requirements of Public Resources Code section

1177 and Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and/or 1094.5. Petitioner objected to the County's

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

LandWatch Monterey County v. County ofMonterey

31

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

� ,�1

2

3

4

5

6

7

13

14

15

25

26

27

28

pproval of the 2010 General Plan orally or in writing prior to the close of the public hearing on the

roject before the issuance of the Notice of Determination. Petitioner and/or other agencies and

ndividuals raised the legal deficiencies asserted in this petition orally or in writing prior to the close of

he public hearing on the project before the issuance of the Notice of Determination.

201. Petitioner has performed all conditions precedent to filing this action by complying with the

equirements of Public Resources Code section 21167.5 in serving notice of the commencement of this

4ction November 24, 2010.

INADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW

202. Petitioner declares that it has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of

aw for the improper action of the County.

NECESSITY FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF

203. If development consistent with the 2010 General Plan is allowed to commence prior to the

ourt's final judgment on the merits, Petitioner and the environment will be greatly, permanently and

rreparably injured from the resulting unmitigated environmental, aesthetic, recreational, and land use

mpacts.

204. Government Code section 65757 provides that during the pendency of a challenge to a general

lan under the State Planning and Zoning Law, the court may, upon a showing of probable success on the

Brits, grant temporary relief, including suspension of authority to issue permits, to grant zoning

hanges, and to grant subdivision map approvals.

205. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 526, this Court may issue a temporary restraining

rder and/or a preliminary injunction during the pendency of the proceedings to prevent great or

rreparable injury.

206. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5(g), this Court may issue a stay order during the

endency of the proceedings unless it is satisfied that a stay would be against the public interest.

mposition of a stay would not be against the public interest in that the public will derive no benefit from

he 2010 General Plan prior to the Court's final judgment.

//

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

LandWatch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

32

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�!,�1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ATTORNEYS'FEES

207. Petitioners are entitled to recover attorneys' fees as provided in Code of Civil Procedure

ection 1021.5 if they prevail in this action and the Court finds that a significant benefit has been

onferred on the general public or a large class of persons, and that the necessity and burden of private

nforcement is such as to make an award of fees appropriate.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray for entry of judgment as follows:

1. For a peremptory writ of mandate directing the County:

a) to set aside its October 26, 2010 action certifying an EIR for the 2010 General Plan;

b) to set aside its October 26, 2010 action approving the 2010 General Plan;

c) to refrain from issuing permits, granting zoning changes, or granting subdivision map

approvals until the County has taken action necessary to bring its approval of a new general plan or

general plan amendments into compliance with CEQA, the Planning and Zoning Law, and SB 610;

d) to comply with CEQA in any subsequent action or actions taken to approve a general

plan;

e) to bring its General Plan into compliance with all applicable provisions of Government

Code section 65300, et seq. within 120 days.

2. For an order granting temporary relief, including a prohibition of permits, zoning

changes, and subdivision map approvals, pending the outcome of this proceeding.

3. For a preliminary and permanent injunction directing the County to cease and refrain

from engaging in any action purporting to be authorized by the 2010 General Plan that could result in

any change or alteration in the physical environment until the County takes any necessary action to bring

its action into compliance with CEQA, the Planning and Zoning Law, and SB 610.

4. For their costs of suit.

5. For an award of attorneys' fees.

6. For other legal or equitable relief that the Court deems just and proper.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Land Watch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

33

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�",�I

2

3

4

5

6

18

19

20

21

22

Dated: November 24, 2010 M. R. WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Mark R. Wolfe

John H. Farrow

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Petitioner

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

LandWatch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

34

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�#,�1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

23

24

25

26

27

28

VERIFICATION

I, Amy White, declare:

I am the Executive Director of LandWatch Monterey County, the Petitioner in the above-

captioned action. I have read the foregoing PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE and know the

contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein

alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

I am signing this document at Salinas, California, and affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the

foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: Novembero  2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Land Watch Monterey County v. County of Monterey

35

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�$,�CITY OF MARINA

211 Hillcrest Avenue

Marina, CA 93933

831-884-1278; FAX 831-384-9148

www.ci.marina.ca.us

June 13, 2011

Ms. Jane Parker, Chair

Board of Supervisors

County of Monterey

168 West Alisal Street, First Floor

Salinas, CA 93901

Dear Chair Parker,

The matter that will be before you on June 14th is one that relates directly to

which is the best approach to removing blight and developing the former Fort Ord

to be what the Fort Ord Reuse Plan mandates. This is most properly not a political

issue but one that calls for a decision based upon what should be done.

I urge the Board of Supervisors BOS) to affirm the recent unanimous County

Planning Commission decision on this issue or defer the certification of the

Whispering Oaks EIR until potential inadequacies in it can be addressed. Upon

review of the EIR it can be seen that the alternatives given were limited and did

not mention existing recreation across the Whispering Oaks location nor did they

fully address opportunities to reduce loss of recreation trail networks between the

Marina Equestrian Center and Jerry Smith Corridor or the loss of biotic resources

primarily the loss of oak woodland habitat).

The City Council of Marina and many concerned persons ask that you give the

staffs of the City, County, and MST 3-4 weeks additional time to compare the

advantages and disadvantages of the Whispering Oaks location to an alternate

location near the Marina Municipal Airport. The alternate location has many

advantages including but not limited to extensive existing infrastructure, no need

for tree removal, replanting or maintenance of trees. None of these advantages

exist at the Whispering Oaks location. Thus the alternate location may very well

turn out to be less expensive and faster to develop than the Whispering Oaks

location.

Serving a World Crass Community

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�%,�The Whispering Oaks location is within the Sphere of Influence SOI) of Marina,

just outside Marina City limits. On June 8th Marina's City Council held a

workshop to consider the annexation of this SOI and voted to produce a workplan

of the steps needed to achieve this. Whispering Oaks is within a few hundred feet

of occupied CSUMB land and therefore is important to be developed with uses

that integrate this currently-isolated university into the City of Marina.

While everyone supports MST's mission to provide mass transit as an alternative

transportation, very few, if any, at CSUMB seem to like the idea of removing

3400-4400 trees and placing a bus maintenance and admin facility so close to

their residences and other planned buildings. It does not make sense to them that

the opportunity to remove blight from the former Fort Ord is being disregarded

and natural habitat is being destroyed. Even the MST Board of Directors' vote on

going forward in this present manner was not unanimous. Evidently concerns

were expressed as to the reasonableness of going forward with a project that

harms the existing habitat while disregarding the existing blight.

As Marina has experienced, previously-desired developments on Fort Ord are

unlikely to occur in our near future. If this is true and we develop natural areas

before blighted areas we may be left with unused blight sucji as at the airport and

open space/habitat lost unnecessarily. The East Garrison Project is an example of

a planned and desired development that cleared woodland but failed to be

completed due to the lack of demand for housing and commercial real estate sites.

I have personally walked through and around the proposed location at

Whispering Oaks. I have observed oak woodlands throughout Fort Ord and the

State of California, it is apparent to me that the Whispering Oaks woodland is of

normal health. There is a mix of young, old, and dying trees. The nature of oak

woodland is not to be safe or pretty for human use, but to provide a matrix of

values to other plants and animals. This oak woodland is doing fine. It has dense

oaks, a plethora of native plant species such as wild currents and gooseberries,

wildlife such as black-tailed jack rabbit, bobcats, and the other typical characters

of oak woodland in Monterey County. When older oaks die, they simply create

openings for the younger oaks to grow into  these openings do not stay open for

long. One only needs to walk through or drive by this location's woodland to see

it is very normal as compared to the rest of Fort Ord. Thinking it's okay to

bulldoze this woodland because it has some older trees is mischaracterizing the

natural value and purpose of Coast Live Oak Woodland. Whether or not to

rezone the 58-acre site should not be decided on an erroneous understanding of

the value and purpose of woodland of this kind.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�&,�Opposition to the planned Whispering Oaks bus yard and business park is a case

where the public has provided leadership and now some leaders have followed

because of the logic and good sense of the public concerns. It is my hope that a

long-term partnership arrangement can be worked out between MST, County

RDA, Marina RDA, UCMBEST, and the City of Marina. Should further

consideration of the Marina Airport alternative be deemed best for the

community, then the County RDA and everyone involved can share in the success

of regional planning such that this is a win for all parties. This may involve

creative long-term financial arrangements with tax increment sharing or further

land sharing or exchanges.

You are urged to not certify the EIR. You are asked to proceed in a logical

manner that addresses the concerns of many while assuring that the MST facility

will be constructed in a location that is in the best interest of all involved. If you

are inclined to certify this EIR it is requested that you do so on condition that the

respective staffs meet and confer as to the advantages and disadvantages of

locating the facility at the Marina Airport location and report back to you at your

next scheduled meeting.

Finally, a lot has been made about the funds spent to date. A true understanding of

funds to be saved, excavation to be avoided, documentary process to be reduced

and benefits to be considered by locating this project at the Marina Airport have

not addressed. Your role in this matter is to make certain that these considerations

are fully vetted.

Thank you for your consideration and I hope you support a few weeks of

deliberation by the most affected entities instead of supporting this project

regardless of its drawbacks.

Below are the City of Marina's specific comments for your consideration

regarding political, environmental, operational, and financial points:

Political

1. Marina Airport location better fits the objectives of the FOR A Base Reuse Plan,

Monterey County's General Plan, City of Marina General Plan, CSUMB Master

Plan, and UCMBEST vision process better than the Whispering Oaks location.

Individually and collectively the policies and land use objectives of all these plans

place strong emphasis on respecting and enhancing the natural resources of Fort

Ord by developing jobs and services where they maximize job creation and

minimizing impacts to sensitive resources. Both the Marina Airport and

Whispering Oaks locations are located on former Fort Ord, but only one of them,

the airport, is dominated by blight and has no oak woodland.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�',�2. If the Marina Airport business park was used for MST operations EDA and

FORA investments would be finally utilized. Millions of dollars have already

been invested to bring roads and utilities to the site including roundabouts,

Research Dr. and University Dr., improved Blanco Road and Imjin Parkway

intersections with Reservation Rd., and improved Imjin Rd., Blanco Rd.  and

Reservation Rd. This infrastructure is in place and ready for expanded use,

enabling MST to have needed ingress and egress now.

3. Choosing the Marina Airport location would also provide an anchor tenant MST)

to the Marina Airport Business Park and UCMBEST area helping to achieve the

goals of current UCMBEST visioning process to jump start the job creation

envisioned there.

4. It is typically the role of a City to oversee development and the City of Marina

can likely process developments faster through the City process than County can

using County process.

5. City-centered growth principles are better served by redeveloping the blight at

Marina Airport than destroying oak woodland at the Whispering Oak site.

6. If development is to occur along Intergarrison Blvd. it is better for CSUMB to

have that development be a mixed-use of commercial, retail, and open space that

would bring college-friendly cafes, music venues, delis, and green businesses.

This would better serve University students, faculty, and staff and help them

mature into a university atmosphere like is found at nearby universities such as

Cal State San Luis Obispo.

7. It would be unwise politically to build a business park at the Whispering Oaks site

when the UC-MBEST site is almost completely vacant. Building a business park

at the Whispering Oaks site would make it hard for both that business park and

UC-MBEST project to succeed. Development of two heavy commercial projects

in two locations within two miles of the other is not justifiable in the current

economy. Current commercial/industrial vacancy rates prove that point. Both

Marina and BOS must scrutinize development plans which were viable if

economic projections of early years of the last decade were realized and

continued. Such economic projections were not realized; the impact of economic

principals of supply and demand are evident throughout our County and City.

Leaders are expected to adapt to such changes and the opportunity to do so is

presented given the Airport alternative.

8. The Whispering Oaks location would deprive Marina and the region of a

major future tourist draw; the coastal recreation trail to-Jerry Smith Corridor trail

system. Due to Marina's demographic composition of 40% very low and low

income households, for environmental justice reasons it is important to maintain

this connection to nature for Marina citizens. The current connection between the

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�(,�Marina Equestrian Center and Jerry Smith Corridor also makes Marina the literal

gateway to the peninsula and a primary destination in itself, because Marina

controls the sole trail hub and most of the thoroughfare. Not only does the

destruction of this system frustrate the intentions of the Army, FORA, and

National Park Service in deeding the Marina Equestrian Center to Marina), it

deals a blow to bike tourists and other recreationalists, now and in the future.

Environmental

1. As stated on pg. 4-1 of draft EIR for MST Whispering Oaks Business Park,

CEQA 15126.6b) requires that alternatives focus on those capable of eliminating

any significant adverse impacts even if these alternatives would impede to some

degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly. It is very

possible that the Marina Airport alternative would remove most significant

impacts, while still achieving project objectives and lowering the overall cost of

the project. The significant and unavoidable environmental impacts at Whispering

Oaks MST and business park that would NOT occur at the Marina Airport

Business Park site include the following(see pgs. 5-2,5-3):

a. The proposed project would remove trees from nearly half the project site.

Impacts to the overall visual quality of the site would be significant and

unavoidable when viewed from when viewed from Inter-Garrison Rd. and

public areas overlooking the site.

b. MST facility has potential to illuminate 15 acres of parking lots during

nighttime hours. This would result in significant and unavoidable light and

glare impacts in the vicinity of CSUMB. p. 5-2 draft EIR)

c. The addition of new vehicle trips to the northbound and southbound Hwy

1 off-ramps at Imjin Parkway which are already operating at Level of

Service F. This would be a significant impact. The required mitigation

measures are subject to Caltrans approval, and MoCo cannot be assured

the necessary improvements can be accomplished so this impact is

significant and unavoidable. Were the airport alternative site used, many

southbound buses could run thru Marina to the planned Monterey Branch

Line and avoid Imjin Parkway off ramps.

d. The proposed project would remove oak woodland over approx. 50 acres

of the site for urban development. This would be a significant irreversible

project effect.

2. The Whispering Oaks project would violate the County policy regarding Oak

woodlands. Please see Monterey County Planning Commission findings).

3. The EIR's decision to ignore a mile-long recreation trail on the Whispering

Oaks site is a large oversight. This trail has been in use for decades and was

enhanced within the past several months by CSUMB, which built it a crosswalk

over Intergarrison, and by FORA, which defined an access corridor from the

crosswalk to the Jerry Smith Corridor, and by the Monterey County Herald, who

put it on the front page.

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�),�4. No trees are currently at the Airport Site

5. No sensitive receptors, such as residential neighborhoods or recreation trails,

are at the Airport site. MST's plan to use Engineer Road" and Imjin Rd. for all

bus traffic to exit Whispering Oaks would create a health and safety hazard for

equestrians and other recreationalists who currently cross Imjin Rd. at a well-

signed and marked crosswalk.

6. No sensitive biological resources would be affected at the Airport site.

7. Heavy industrial use is more appropriate at the Airport than at the Intergarrison

Road site. CSUMB bicycle and other traffic will be severely degraded by

industrial uses and traffic along Intergarrison.

Operational

1. The Airport is closer to arterial roadways such as Blanco and Reservation Rd.

2. The Airport site is closer to Salinas.

3. Buses traveling to Salinas and south County would not need to go thru CSUMB

campus housing if MST were to locate at the Marina Airport.

Financial

1. It is possible that $2-4M will need to be invested by the County in road

improvements at Whispering Oaks site that would not be needed at Airport site.

2. The Airport site already has adjacent infrastructure

a. sewer service;

b. water service;

c. appropriate fire flows available in the water lines;

d. electrical power lines;

e. traffic signals;

f. roads;

g. 2011 remodeled fire station to provide fire protection services from the

City of Marina;

h. police protection service from the City of Marina;

j. high speed fiber optic lines.

3. FORA fees  $500K at WO  MST may not need to pay FORA fees at the

Airport site

4. The CEQA process for the Marina Airport site could incorporate much of the

environmental analysis already prepared for the Whispering Oaks location,

including air quality, and green house gas emissions. Environmental issue specific

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�*,�to the airport business park would include consistency with Airport Land Use

Plan and a traffic analysis. It is estimated these costs would likely not exceed

$100K-300K Entitlements for the project would include at a minimum a tentative

map, and design review.

5. The reported $4.7 million spent by MST on engineering and design for the

Whispering Oak site is used to imply prior expenses justify the Whispering Oaks

location However, if the final project cost is theoretically $90 million at

Whispering Oaks but only $75 million at the Marina Airport then the $4.7 million

of prior expenses wouldn't be a good justification of choosing the Whispering

Oaks location. The Airport site finances are at least worth comparing to the

Whispering Oaks proposal on a non-theoretical basis.

6. Due to rolling topography, 2 sewer lift stations are proposed for WO location.

One siphon may be required. p. 1-43) Clearly, the Airport business park would be

easier to install utilities than Whispering Oaks because all utilities to serve a

business park have been stubbed out on the UCMBEST land adjacent to the city's

business park.

7. Significant on and off-site drainage basins would need to be constructed at the

Whispering Oaks location given its rolling topography. On-site drainage alone

would likely suffice at the Airport site and would not be a significant design issue

as the airport area is relatively flat.

8. Significant grading of the site into two levels is planned as is the removal of

most of the existing vegetation and 3,400-4,400 oak trees with the exception of a

20-foot corridor buffer along Inter-Garrison Rd.

9. Existing structures would need to be removed including lead-paints and

asbestos if present.

In summary, it is my sincere hope and expectation and the hope and expectation

of thousands of both my and your constituents that the Board of Supervisors delay

certification of the Whispering Oaks Development Project until such time as

MST, the City of Marina, the County RDA, and possibly CSUMB and

UCMBEST have sufficient time to further explore, discuss, and possibly proceed

on locating this project in the City of Marina.

City of Marina

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�+,�Website: www.morcamtb.org

President: Gary Courtright; gacourtright(a~sbcglobal.net

To: Monterey County Board of Supervisors

Date: June 14, 2011

Subj: Item S-9, MST/Whispering Oaks, PLN110231

This letter is written on behalf of the MORCA Monterey Off Road Cycling Association),

a chapter of the International Mountain Bicycling Association IMBA). Our group has

several hundred e-mail members who regularly enjoy the trails of the former Fort Ord.

MORCA is a member of the FORA/ESCA Trail User's Group and FORT Friends, and

has established positive relationships with BLM and FORA land managers. MORCA is

particularly interested in preserving and enhancing trail access to enable local families

to enjoy riding mountain bikes in the former Fort Ord. We strive toward future

communities that include coordinated bike trails, parks, and access to local trails that

can be enjoyed by all user groups, while preserving the habitat quality of the area.

MORCA is concerned about the significant adverse impact of the proposed

MST/Whispering Oaks Project, as presently located, on an important trails corridor that

was not adequately described in the project Environmental Impact Report EIR). The

current Sgt. Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail is a major link from the Marina Equestrian

Center MEC) to the Jerry Smith Access Corridor, the primary entryway from the

Marina/Salinas area to the federal BLM public trail network. This trail would also be an

important link to the County-sponsored Fort Ord Recreation Habitat Area FORHA).

MORCA believes the EIR is lacking in that it does not review the alternative offered by

the City of Marina to locate the project at the Marina Airport. A thorough analysis of this

alternative is needed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA)

Guidelines 15126.6. Importantly, CEQA Guidelines 15126.6 b) specifically directs the

EIR to:

 focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of

avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if

these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project

objectives, or would be more costly." italic added for emphasis]

We appreciate County staffs effort to address the concerns raised by the Planning

Commission and public. However, there was little time for public review and

understanding of this response. Also, the suggested changes fall short of a thorough

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PUBLIC COMMENT�T��"�|E

�,,�assessment of: a) impacts to public recreation and mitigation), and b) determination

of whether the Marina Airport site is the least damaging feasible alternative, as required

by CEQA.

Similar to FORT Friends, MORCA urges the Board of Supervisors to: a) deny the

appeal; b) either deny the project without prejudice at this time, or delay a formal

decision; and c) direct staff to revise and recirculate the Draft EIR for later

consideration, including a careful review and discussion of public concerns previously

and in this letter, and an analysis of the Marina Airport site in the alternatives chapter.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Waryyourtright

President

MORCA, a Chapter of IMBA

U:\Henri\wp\misc\2011\MORCA_MSTletter_20110614.docx

BIB]

40745-U01

PUBLIC-U02

COMMENT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104426-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT A DISCUSSION OF PROPO�
�0

Exhibit A

Discussion of Proposed Project

The Redevelopment Agency of

Monterey County

The,' Monterey-Salinas Bus

Maintenance and

Adrtiinistrative Facility and

Whispering Oaks Business Park

PLN090071

Appeal PLN 110231

Board of Supervisors

June 14, 2011

0

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

A-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

OF-U02

PROPOSED-U02

PROJECT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104321-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT A DISCUSSION OF PROPO��EXHIBIT A

DETAILED PROJECT DISCUSSION

MST and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231)

1. PROJECT SETTING AND DESCRIPTION:

The project site is comprised of two parcels numbers APN: 031-101-056 and 031-101-041)

containing an area of 115.5$ acres on the former Fort Ord military base, east of the city limits

of Marina. These two parcels represent a portion of the over 300 acre former Army landfill site

situated between Imjin Parkway and Intergarrison Road east of Seventh Avenue. Neighboring

agencies or jurisdictions in~lude:

 The City of Marina to the north and west;

 The City of Seaside,to the south;

 Property owned by the University of California at Santa Cruz UCSC) directly to the

west;

 Property owned by California State University at Monterey Bay CSUMB) to the south

and east; and

 The Fort Ord Reuse Authority

Officially, the project is within the sphere of influence for the City of Marina and is within the

Fort Ord Reuse Authority jurisdictional boundaries.

The majority of the site is tndeveloped and is covered with coast live oak woodland. The site

also contains annual grassland, central maritime chaparral, and disturbed areas in pockets

throughout the site. These various habitat types are home to several sensitive plant and animal

species including Sand Gil}a, the dusky-footed woodrat, and potentially the California Tiger

Salamander CTS).

Land uses at the site are g

version of the Fort Ord Re

designated in the Fort Ord

the property is Public Qua

D-S). The PQP zoning wa

properties are developed p

jverned by the Fort Ord Master Plan which is the County adopted

se Plan within the 2010 Monterey County General Plan. The site is

Master Plan for Planned Development-Mixed Use. Current zoning at

i-Public with Design Control and Site Plan Review Overlays PQP-

applied to the entire County portion of the former Fort Ord. As

irsuant to the Fort Ord Master Plan land use designations, updated

equired.

zoning classifications are

As part of the Fort Ord Re se Plan, MST was given two parcels near the intersection of 7t'

Avenue and Gigling Road Lot 1 of the project Phase I) has been determined to be a better

location for the MST facility because of size needs and the location on the future multi-modal

corridor along Intergarris n Road. The subject site also provides better access to arterial

roadways. MST would rel Cate their existing bus operations from existing facilities in

Monterey and the City of Salinas to this new central location on proposed Lot 1. Operations

and development of Lot 1 would be guided by the proposed General Development Plan for the

MST property.

Whispering Oaks Business Park would occupy the remaining 15 lots within the subdivision.

Whispering Oaks Business Park has been envisioned as a self-contained, mixed use, green

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

A-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

OF-U02

PROPOSED-U02

PROJECT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104321-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT A DISCUSSION OF PROPO��EXHIBIT A  DETAILED PROJECT DISCUSSION

MST and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231)

Page 2

business park." One of the primary desired results of the business park construction is to create

local jobs in the Fort Ord area consistent with the goals of the Fort Ord Master Plan.

Development and operationhs on Lots 2-16 Whispering Oaks Business Park) would be guided

by a separate General Development Plan proposed for the Whispering Oaks Business Park.

Entitlements for the projec~ include:

1) Rezoning a 58 acre) portion of the former landfill site from PQP-D-S to Heavy

Commercial HC-1i-S) and rezoning approximately 58 acres from PQP-D-S to Open

Space O-D-S) to go into effect only if and when the first final map of the

MST/Whispering Oaks Business Park subdivision is recorded;

2) Standard Subdivision Phased Vesting Tentative Map consisting of subdividing two

parcels of 30.3 acres and 85.2 acres Assessor's Parcel Numbers 031-101-041-000 and

031-101-056-000) nto 16 buildable lots ranging in size from 1 acre to 3 acres with the

exception of Lot 1 which contains approximately 24 acres, a roadway parcel

approximately 7.319 acres, Parcel A), a drainage detention and percolation parcel

approximately 1.71 acres, Parcel B), and two Open Space parcels approximately 58

acres, Parcel C & 71 acres, Parcel D See Figure 1);

3) General Develop ent Plan for the proposed Whispering Oaks Business Park;

4) General Develop ent Plan and Use Permit to allow for the development of the

Monterey Salinas Transit MST) administrative and maintenance facility containing the

following: A) a 36p000 square foot three-story administrative building; B) a 96, 450

square foot two-story bus maintenance building; C) an 18,620 square foot

fuel/brake/tire building with underground tanks attached by a canopy to an 8,373 square

foot bus wash/stean cleaning building; and D) approximately 15 acres of paved parking

to accommodate up to 281 busses and 388 automobiles;

5) Two Use Permits o allow the removal of approximately 3,400 Coast Live Oak trees;

and

6) Administrative Pej-mit for Development in a Site Plan District and a Design Approval

for development in a Design Control D) District.

Phasing of the project will be done as follows:

 Phase 1 will consil t of a final map for Lot 1, a disposition and development agreement

to convey the 24. 7 acre Lot 1 from the Redevelopment Agency of Monterey County to

Monterey Salinas Transit MST), development of the new administrative and

maintenance bus facility as described above, road and driveway improvements

including construction of Engineers Equipment Road, and off-site drainage basins to

intercept storm off from the south that currently flows onto Lot 1.

 Phase 2 will consist of a final map for Lots 2 through 11, Parcel A and Parcel B,

consisting of road, improvements Parcel A), drainage detention Parcel B), and a

portion of Whispering Oaks Business Park Lots 2-11).

 Phase 3 will consist of a final map for Lots 12 through 16 and Parcels C & D

completing the Whispering Oaks Business Park parcels and the two Open Space

parcels.

Figure 1

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

A-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

OF-U02

PROPOSED-U02

PROJECT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104321-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT A DISCUSSION OF PROPO��EXHIBIT A  DETAILED PROJECT DISCUSSION

MST and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLNI 10231)

Page 3

II. INCORPORATIO

OF PREVIOUS REPORTS

Planning Commission Sta# Report

The description under Secti n I above is the same as it appears in the project discussion

contained in Exhibit A of th March 9, 2011 Planning Commission Staff Report with the

exception of the number of trees to be removed. Rather than repeat that information again, that

discussion is attached heretq as Exhibit G and incorporated herein by reference. This report will

summarize and highlight im

then focus on the action of t

comments received since th

III. SUMMARY AND

ortant information from the Planning Commission staff report and

e Planning Commission, the appeal contentions, and public

it time.

IGHLIGHTS

Fort Ord Reuse

The Planning Commission r port Exhibit G) contains a detailed discussion on the background

of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan version of which the County has adopted in the 2010 General

Plan. In light of the Plannin Commission decision and the public comment it is important to

reiterate that broad mitigatio is were implemented to address impacts of designating

development areas in the Fo Ord Reuse Plan. These mitigations include preservation of over

17,000 acres for habitat. Th Reuse Plan also addressed recreational uses. Fort Ord Dunes State

Park and several other small r recreation areas were designated for recreation, and trails

connecting the beach to the pen space areas were envisioned. Strategic areas were designated

for habitat conservation and ecreation throughout the Former Base including a portion of the

subject landfill site. The foll wing points further highlight the parcels' consistency with the

applicable legislation which esignate the site for development:

 The Fort Ord area is 1esignated as a Community Area in the 2010 General Plan. The

2010 General Plan d scribes Community Areas as the appropriate areas in which to

focus growth and development in Monterey County.

The Fort Ord Master Ian designates this site as Development with Restrictions"

specifically referencing the ability to develop approximately 80 acres of the 300 acre

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

A-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

OF-U02

PROPOSED-U02

PROJECT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104321-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT A DISCUSSION OF PROPO��EXHIBIT A  DETAILED PROJECT DISCUSSION

MST and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231)

Page 4

former landfill site. The restrictions stems from the Habitat Management Plan prepared

pursuant to the Fort Ord Reuse Plan.

 The development designation is further reflected in the land use map that shows the

subject site as being'lesignated for Planned Development and Mixed uses. Refer to

Figure # LU6a of the Fort Ord Master Plan.

 The site is subject tol restrictions on uses due to the proximity to the former army

landfill;

 Impacts to resources were mitigated when the lot was designated for development

including preservation of over 17,000 acres of permanent habitat/open space.

 The subject site bor ers on the City of Marina and is located in between the campus

center and campus sing of California State University at Monterey Bay. This

provides connectivity with other developed areas as is indicative of a planned approach

to concentrate development See Figure 2).

Subdivision Component

A detailed discussion of the subdivision and conformance with applicable policies and

regulations can be found in the attached discussion Exhibit G). Overall, the subdivision was

found to be consistent with the 2010 General Plan, the Fort Ord Master Plan, and the

Subdivision Ordinance Tit~e 19). Key highlights of the review of the subdivision component

are as follows:

 Land Use Element 4

o Again the site is located in a Community Area

o The site is designated for Planned Development and Mixed Use which allows

the types of uses proposed. The uses are also appropriate due to the landfill

buffer restrictions.

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

A-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

OF-U02

PROPOSED-U02

PROJECT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104321-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT A DISCUSSION OF PROPO��EXHIBIT A  DETAILED PROJECT DISCUSSION

MST and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231)

Page 5

o The Fort Ord Master Plan specifically recognizes the MST facilities and

Whispering Oaks Business Park as compatible commercial uses on the land fill

site Program E-2.2).

o General Development Plans have been prepared to address consistency with

other General Plan Policies such as lighting, colors and materials, and

compatibili y with surrounding land uses.

o Adequate p blic services and facilities exist to serve the proposed subdivision.

A Water Supply Assessment has been adopted by the Marina Coast Water

District. M WD will also provide sewer services.

 Circulation Eleme t

o The new de elopment will be located along the future multi-modal corridor.

This is an i eal location to allow direct access to the future bus rapid transit lane.

o The entire development has been reviewed for impacts to roadways and

intersections. Mitigations are included that require road improvements for Tier 1

impacts, payment of fair-share contributions for Tier 2 impacts, and payment of

City of Ma na traffic fees and Fort Ord Traffic Impact Fees.

o The projec would promote public transportation by allowing Monterey-Salinas

Transit to consolidate their operations to one location and also to provide room

for future growth of their operations

o The General Development Plans contain polices to encourage traffic trip

reductions and to promote other forms of transportation.

 Conservation and Open Space Element

o The site is relatively flat and is not located in a visually sensitive area.

o Two open pace parcels would be created totaling approximately 58 acres of

land. This acreage is equivalent to the acreage proposed for development.

o A tree miti ation plan has been developed consistent with the Oak Woodlands

Conservation Act SB 1334). The project would dedicate two open space parcels

and replan trees on a 1:1 basis. This is in addition to the background mitigation

that set-asi e over 17,000 acres for open space and habitat management.

o A 2081 T e Permit) is being considered by the Department of Fish and Game

DFG). T ough their permitting authority DFG will be responsible for ensuring

that the pr ject will not jeopardize the continued existence of State Listed rare or

endangere species, specifically Sand Gilia in this case.

o The projec also proposes to maintain Leadership in Energy and Environmental

Design Sil er standard for all construction. LEED building standards are

encourage in the 2010 General Plan.

The project also furthers the goals and policies of the 2010 General Plan by providing hundreds

of new jobs.

Title 19: The Vesting Te tative Map was reviewed for consistency with the County's

subdivision ordinance Title 19 of the Monterey County Code). The form and content of the

proposed map comply with the requirements of Section 19.05.040 of Title 19 and the required

process has been followe  None of the findings contained in Section 19.05.055 of Title 19,

requiring denial of the su division, can be made, except that there is one potential conflict with

Section 19.10.045 which equires access to the site. Access is proposed on both Engineer's

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

A-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

OF-U02

PROPOSED-U02

PROJECT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104321-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT A DISCUSSION OF PROPO��EXHIBIT A  DETAILED PROJECT DISCUSSION

MST and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231)

Page 6

Equipment Road and Inter;Garrison Road. Both roads are located on property with underlying

ownership by others and lack official easements or public road designations. The applicant has

negotiated with the University of California at Santa Cruz UCSC) to establish an easement

through UCSC property along Engineer Equipment Road. The applicant has also been working

with CSUMB to obtain official access along Inter-Garrison Road. To address the current

unsecured access situation,'I a condition of approval requiring access through agreement or, if

the applicant is unable to acquire legal access, the County will condemn the property at the

applicant's expense pursuant to California Government Code Section 66462.5. The applicant

has agreed to proceed in th s manner.

With the adequate utilities vailable, consistency with the General Plan, and the condition

requiring access, the subdi ision application conforms with the policies of the Subdivision

Ordinance.

Lot 1  Monterey-Salina III Transit MST)

Phase 1 of the subdivision is proposed to include the creation of an approximately 24 acre lot

along with road and subdi ision improvements. The 24 acre lot would contain a new bus

maintenance and operations facility for Monterey-Salinas Transit MST). MST has developed

detailed plans for the development of the site. The subject project includes entitlements to

permit development of the new MST facility.

The MST facility has been determined to be an allowed use within the Planned Development

Mixed Use General Plan designation and the proposed Heavy Commercial Zoning District

HC). The HC zoning requires preparation and approval of a General Development Plan

because the lot is in excess of 1 acre. A comprehensive General Development Plan was

prepared for the site. The 1 1ST facility design and General Development Plan reflect an

appropriate design concept. Lighting, signage, colors and materials, circulation, trash and

recycling, landscaping, an hazardous materials handling are addressed in the General

Development Plan. Findings required in order to grant a Use Permit pursuant to Section

21.74.050.B can be made r the proposed development.

Lots 2-16  Whispering aks Business Park

Phases 2 and 3 of the proposed subdivision would include the creation of new

commercial/industrial lots adjacent to the MST facility. No plans for the development of these

lots have been prepared. The lots would be created and then developed on a case-by-case basis.

Discretionary review of ea h development will be required because of the Site Plan Review

zoning overlay that will re ain in place.

The uses and intensities proposed within the Whispering Oaks General Development Plan

GDP) are of a business park character and include offices, limited local serving retail and food

services, limited manufacturing, research and development, artisan shops, and vocational

training. Additional uses such as public quasi public uses, sales of alcohol and wireless

communications facilities may be allowed subject to a Use Permit in each case. These uses are

consistent with the uses allowed in the HC zoning and are in keeping with the location near the

CSUMB campus.

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

A-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

OF-U02

PROPOSED-U02

PROJECT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104321-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT A DISCUSSION OF PROPO��EXHIBIT A  DETAILED PROJECT DISCUSSION

MST and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231)

Page 7

The General Development Plan also covers appropriate standards for the design of structures

and landscaping, the preservation of trees, lighting design, signage, parking requirements, and

contains policies aimed at reducing traffic impacts and greenhouse gas emissions.

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND REVIEW

The incorporated Planning Commission report contains details about several of the resource

topics discussed in the En ironmental Impact Report Prepared for the project. Among the

topics discussed are trees, iology, aesthetics, land use, traffic and circulation, and air quality

and greenhouse gases. Im acts to trees and the oak woodland at the site have been a subject of

concern in the processing of this application. Highlights from the resource discussion include:

Tree Removal

0

Preservation of tree

be set-aside as ope

The project compli

0

0

Buffers for

have been i

Trees will

s with the Oak Woodlands Conservation Act by providing land to

space and by providing a minimum of 1:1 replacement.

s on-site will be handled in the following manner:

maintaining a continuous tree corridor along Inter-Garrison Road

corporated in the design.

e preserved within setback areas and between lots as outlined in the

General D velopment Plan and based on the requirement for future permitting

of develop ent on the Whispering Oaks lots; and

Oak trees ill be replanted in the landscaping on each site.

FORA developme t impact fees will be paid. These fees cover, amongst other things,

costs of maintains g the large open space and habitat areas set-aside pursuant to the Fort

Ord Reuse Plan; d

Replant trees off-s to where appropriate to promote the health of other oak woodlands in

Fort Ord.

Biology

 A 2081 Take Pe it) is required for the take" of Sand Gilia. The applicant has been

working with the epartment of Fish and Game to secure permits;

 Measures have be n taken to minimize the potential for impacts to the California Tiger

Salamander even eyond the likely outermost extent of their habitat; and

 Numerous Mitiga ions have been applied to the development to avoid and protect other

sensitive plant an animal species.

Aesthetics

 The project will be visible for a short stretch along Imjin Parkway and from Inter-

Garrison road andl the CSUMB campus across the road.

The MST structures will be located approximately 10 feet below the elevation of Inter-

Garrison Road an will maintain a tree buffer between Inter-Garrison road and the

required security ence.

The MST structur s propose appropriate architectural character and colors and materials

to avoid creating unsightly maintenance yard and facilities that can often be found in

connection with a tomotive services.

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

A-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

OF-U02

PROPOSED-U02

PROJECT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104321-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT A DISCUSSION OF PROPO�                     �EXHIBIT A  DETAILED PROJECT DISCUSSION

MST and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231)

Page 8

 The Whispering Oaks General Development Plan requires a 20 foot tree buffer along

Inter-Garrison Road and it contains requirements for the appropriate design of

buildings.

Land Use-

 The allowable uses within the Whispering Oaks Business Park General Development

Plan have been nesotiated to maintain consistency with the sites location near the

CSUMB campus;

 The allowable uses are appropriate within the landfill buffer area; and

 The property is within the sphere of influence of the City of Marina. The Marina

General Plan desi ates the project area for open space and recreation; however, the site

is located within Monterey County and is subject to the Monterey County General Plan

which includes thel Fort Ord Reuse Plan.

Traffic

 A traffic report wa~ prepared by a licensed traffic engineer. The report was peer-

reviewed by a third party traffic engineer and by the Department of Public Works;

 All intersections, which would be significantly impacted according to the level of

service standards of Monterey County, will be mitigated through direct intersection

improvements at tine related phase of the project.

 An agreed upon tr ffic mitigation fee will be paid to the City of Marina

 FORA traffic imp ct fees will be paid for cumulative impacts;

 A fair-share contribution is required to mitigate impacts to intersections not covered by

a fee program or direct improvements;

 A significant unavoidable impact will occur at the Imjin Parkway and Highway 1 on

and off ramps;

 A minor amendment to the Fort Ord circulation plan is required. An equal or superior

road alignment is uggested for the Imjin Road, 8th Avenue, and 6th Avenue adjacent to

the site; and

 A condition of approval has been incorporated to require official legal access to the

project site through easements or through dedication Public Works.

Air Quality and Greenho

 The project comp

tse Gases

ies with the Air Quality Management Plan;

 Mitigations have een applied to minimize air quality impact from construction

activities;

 All development tt the site will meet LEED silver standards;

 A significant unavoidable impact was identified due to the project's contributions to

greenhouse gas emissions. There are currently no established thresholds of significance

for greenhouse gds emission in Monterey County;

 A greenhouse gas analysis was developed for the project in response to comments on

the EIR; and

 Measures to redu e or off-set greenhouse gas emissions have been incorporated in the

General Development Plans.

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

A-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

OF-U02

PROPOSED-U02

PROJECT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104321-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT A DISCUSSION OF PROPO�

�EXHIBIT A  DETAILED PROJECT DISCUSSION

MST and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231)

Page 9

The EIR, and the incorporated discussion, recognize that there may be impacts to

environmental resources. All the impacts have been evaluated and mitigated through project

design, General Development Plans, and mitigations with the exception of one intersection that

would operate at deficient levels of service Imjin Parkway and Highway 1 interchange) and

cumulative impacts to Gre nhouse Gas emissions.

A statement of overriding considerations has been prepared for the development. The

development would have p sitive benefits including promoting mass transit and creating jobs.

Reducing personal vehicle raffic with bus and rail transit is recognized as the primary method

to address greenhouse gas missions by the State and Federal governments. Job creation is also

a key goal of the 2010 Mo terey County General Plan and the Fort Ord Reuse Plan.

V. PUBLIC COMMI NTS AND CORRESPONDANCE

Letters in Opposition

Numerous comments have been received in opposition to the project. Those comments are

attached as Exhibit O. Mot of these comments contend that the site is not appropriate for the

project because of the imp cts to the existing oak-woodland and the fact that there are other

sites in close proximity th t are already disturbed and in disrepair. Many of letters received also

claim that the site is desig ated for recreational use and should remain preserved for recreation

and open space.

Impact to Oak Woodlands

There is no argument that he oak woodland at the project site will be impacted. Impacts to oak

woodlands should be and are discouraged. In this particular case, the development designation

along with the site's strategic location, has been the basis on which MST and the

Redevelopment Agency h ve relied in pursuit of permits for their project. This site happens to

be part of an over 300 acr former landfill site and is located in an area that is surrounded by

development. Developme is on all sides of the landfill parcel include roadways, the Marina

Heights subdivision, the SUMB campus, CSUMB housing and future planned development

areas. Although the site is designated for development and the Fort Ord Reuse Plan has

mitigated for loss of habit t on a programmatic level, the removal of trees and impacts to oak

woodlands have not been gnored.

A misconception thus far I

proposal actually would it

subdivision improvements

improvements will be don

that the trees will remain

are approved. Those plan

an individual basis includ

as been a stated belief that the site will be mass graded. The

volve removal of trees for the MST development and associated

at Phase 1 only at this time. The remaining infrastructure and lot

in the future as the business park lots are developed. This means

n Lots 2-16 of the subdivision until plans for development of the lots

would then be reviewed through a discretionary permit process on

ng review for consistency with the General Development Plan that

contains policies limiting tree removal of the individual lots. As the 15 lots are developed

within the business park, a maximum of 1,000 trees could be removed for those developments

before additional tree permitting is required. The sites would remain forested until demand for

the commercial/industrial lots come to fruition.

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

A-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

OF-U02

PROPOSED-U02

PROJECT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104321-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT A DISCUSSION OF PROPO�
�EXHIBIT A  DETAILED PROJECT DISCUSSION

MST and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231)

Page 10

Again the applicant has incorporated numerous reduction measures and policies to minimize

removal of trees at the site.l The EIR evaluated removal of 4,400 oak trees as the worst case

scenario. Tree corridors and buffers have been established to preserve trees in a logical manner

in the subdivision. Two op n space parcels equaling the size of the developed area are

proposed. Trees will be protected within the setback areas surrounding each lot and trees will

be replanted both on and o f-site to achieve at least a 1:1 ratio. In response to concerns that

have been raised the applic t has revisited the tree removal totals and is willing to be limited

to removal of 3,400 trees, 1,000 tree reduction from the worst case scenario. The project

description has been chang d to reflect permitting of tree removal at the reduced number.

At the Planning Commissi n hearing, impacts to trees were a main factor in the decision to

deny the Combined Development Permit. A comment was made at the hearing about the

standard to which the Redevelopment Agency was held in regards to tree removal. Most

developers are held to a tre by-tree evaluation and the review in this case was not to that level

of detail. In response, the applicant has pointed to the Forest Management Plans prepared for

the project. Those Forest Management Plans inventoried trees at the site and made

recommendations for tree reservation that have been incorporated in the project design,

General Development Plans, and Conditions of Approval. Trees at the site have been

inventoried; however, at t subdivision level, a program including tree corridors has been

applied on a broader level. At the project level, the MST project will require removal of most

of the trees at the site and reservation of trees around the perimeter of the site are the focus.

For Whispering Oaks Business Park, General Development Plan policies have been

incorporated to guide appropriate siting, design, and tree preservation measures for future

development. I

The MST portion of the d elopment will involve removal of most of the trees on the 24 acre

lot with the exception of te tree preserve at the south western corner of the property and the

landscape area along Inter garrison Road. A forester's estimate of the number of trees that will

be removed has not changed. The forester's report also evaluated trees that should be

considered for protection ear the fringes of the development. The Whispering Oaks lots were

evaluated for environmental impacts on a similar basis; however, the trees on the Whispering

Oaks lots will remain until lots are developed with the exception of the subdivision

improvements like the road and drainage parcel. Development of each lot will be reviewed on a

case-by-case basis thereby providing a greater degree of flexibility to preserve trees on the

newly created lots.

The EIR prepared for the project recognizes that there will be impacts to trees and oak

woodlands at the site. Th~ impact analysis tiers off the Fort Ord Reuse Plan EIR with the

habitat set-aside and the development limitations placed on the landfill parcel 80 developable

acres out of 300 acres). In addition the project implements the specific mitigation measures

discussed above. From a policy perspective, the decision to develop this site was made when

land use was allocated. This included the realization that tree would be removed. This land

use was selected based on the restrictions on the types of uses allowed within the landfill

buffer. The proposed uses associated with this application are consistent with the assigned land

use within the General Plan. The question now is whether the proposed development is

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

A-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

OF-U02

PROPOSED-U02

PROJECT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104321-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT A DISCUSSION OF PROPO�

�EXHIBIT A  DETAILED PROJECT DISCUSSION

MST and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231)

Page 11

consistent with the plans and policies of the County, and particularly County standards relating

to tree preservation.

The Zoning Ordinance req ires that in order to approve a Use Permit for tree removal, a

finding be made that the nmber of trees being removed is the minimum necessary under the

circumstances of the partic lar case." In the case of MST, there is a need for a large flat

unencumbered space for b s circulation and buildings. On a site with oak woodland and gently

rolling terrain, it is not pos ible to retain large numbers of trees and achieve the objectives of

the project. The best that an be done is to incorporate tree preservation strategies at the

perimeter of the site. This as been accomplished.

In the case of Whispering

yaks, tree removal will occur to accommodate infrastructure

a lot-by-lot basis with a total maximum of 1,000 trees permitted for

An oak woodland corridor is proposed along Intergarrison Road

cant number of trees. Future lot development will be subject to

improvements and then on

removal under this permit.

which will protect a sign

General Development Pla

Oaks portion of the develo

number of trees removed

policies that require minimum removal of trees. The Whispering

ment is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance requirement that the

e the minimum necessary.

Alternative Locations

Through the base reuse, ST was transferred two parcels on Giggling Road between 7th and

8th. One parcel was a fo er transportation depot site and contains little natural habitat. The

adjacent parcel is approxi ately the same site as the proposed site and is also covered in oak

woodland and has more to ographic relief which would require more grading. MST and the

Redevelopment Agency i entified benefits to both organizations in combining development

projects at the landfill site including better access to regional transportation networks for MST.

In relocating, MST would exchange their property on Giggling Road for Lot 1 of the subject

site with the Redevelopm nt Agency. The land swap will be accomplished in the future through

a disposition and development agreement that is subject to Board approval. Both properties are

located within the jurisdiction of Monterey County.

The Planning Commissionp and Public expressed a desire to see the MST site moved to one of

the sites in former Fort Oif d with dilapidated buildings on it. Those sites are either owned by

other property owners or developers which would require MST to purchase or rent the

alternative site. It would be better for MST to return to their existing site rather than to pursue

purchasing a new site. Th net result of this would be impacts to trees on a similar scale to that

proposed at the existing site.

Moving MST to an alternate location would not change the General Plan planned development

and mixed use designation at the subject site. It would still be subject to development with

some type of commercial use. Alternative sites and projects were evaluated in the EIR but sites

under the control of others jurisdictions were not considered due to the reasons described above

and the lack of public comment from interested jurisdictions during scoping and review.

Figure 3  County Lana in Fort Ord

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

A-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

OF-U02

PROPOSED-U02

PROJECT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104321-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT A DISCUSSION OF PROPO�

�EXHIBIT A  DETAILED PROJECT DISCUSSION

MST and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231)

Page 12

Recreation

The third main topic of concern in the

opposition letters was impacts to public

access of the site. Currently there is a

horse riding trail and some paths that

cross the subject site along an existing

PG & E easement. There are currently

no official plans, easements or rights of

access for this trail. There are

provisions in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan

to accommodate recreation uses

including a trail system that links Fort

Ord State Beach with Bureau of Land

Management BLM) lands. The

landfill caps are designated as habitat

management and recreation but the

proposed development area is not. It is

conceivable that a future trail could

cross the land fill site, but without an

official plan it is difficult to predict where this might be.

Staff has worked with Redevelopment regarding accommodating a trail easement at the site.

Staff recommends that the Whispering Oaks General Plan be modified to include policies that

would allow at least a 10 of trail along the rear setback of the northern lots in the subdivision.

These 10 feet would be w~thin the rear setback area of the newly created lots. The General

Development Plan site development standards should be modified to provide some tree

buffering for a future trail Pursuant to Fort Ord Master Plan Policies and Objectives, the

County will coordinate with the City of Marina and BLM to develop a unified system of

hiker/biker and equestrian] trails.

Other Correspondence

Letters of support for MST and the proposed project have been received by several local

jurisdictions including the Cities of Salinas, Soledad, King City, Sand City, Del Rey Oaks, and

the Transportation Agency of Monterey County TAMC). These letters reiterate the significant

investment that MST has made in reliance upon the land use designation of the site and the

benefits that can result from moving the MST and Redevelopment Agency project forward.

VI. CONCLUSION

The project is consistent with the applicable policies and regulations of the 2010 General Plan,

the Fort Ord Master Plan,''i the Subdivision Ordinance Title 19), and the Zoning Ordinance

Title 21) and that the EI1. prepared for the project is adequate. Because of the consistency with

the applicable policies and the potential benefits of the project, staff recommends that the

Board of Supervisors up ld the MST appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny the

project and adopt a resolution Exhibit B) certifying the Final EIR, approving a Combined

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

A-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

OF-U02

PROPOSED-U02

PROJECT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104321-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT A DISCUSSION OF PROPO��EXHIBIT A  DETAILED PROJECT DISCUSSION

MST and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231)

Page 13

Development Permit consisting of a 16 lot subdivision, two General Development Plans, and

Use Permits for development of Lot 1 and for removal of trees and adopt a separate resolution

approving the zoning amendment Exhibit D).

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

A-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

OF-U02

PROPOSED-U02

PROJECT-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104321-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �
C�

Exhibit B

Draft esolution to certify the

Final En ironmental Impact Report

The R development Agency of

Monterey County

The Monterey-Salinas Bus

Maintenance and

Ad inistrative Facility and

Whisp ring Oaks Business Park

PLN090071

Appeal PLN110231

oard of Supervisors

June 14, 2011

0

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�EXHIBIT B

DRAFT RESOLUTION

Before t Board of Supervisors in and for the

Con ty of Monterey, State of California

In the matter of the applicatio of:

The Redevelopment Agenc of Monterey County(( LN110231)

RESOLUTION NO.

Resolution by the Monterey ounty Board of

Supervisors Certifying the Fi al Environmental

Impact Report prepared fort e Monterey-Salinas

Transit/Whispering Oaks Bu iness Park project

Monterey-Salinas Transit Bus Maintenance and

Operations Facility an Whispering Oaks

Business Park  PLN 10231/Redevelopment

Agency of Monterey C unty, Former Army

Landfill site, Fort Ord Mas er Plan area)

The Monterey-Salinas Tra sit and Whispering Oaks Business Park application and

Environmental Impact Re ort PLN110231) came on for public hearing before the

Monterey County Board o Supervisors on June 14, 2011. Having considered all the

written and documentary idence, the administrative record, the staff report, oral

testimony, and other evide ce presented, the Board of Supervisors finds and decides as

follows:

FINDINGS

1. FINDING: CE

En

Fin

Co

infi

Th

EVIDENCE: a

b

A EIR)  The County of Monterey has completed a Final

ironmental Impact Report EIR) in compliance with CEQA. The

1 EIR was presented to the Board Of Supervisors of Monterey

nty, and the Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the

rmation contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project.

Final EIR reflects the County of Monterey's independent judgment

analysis.

The California Environmental Quality Act CEQA) requires preparation

n environmental impact report if there is substantial evidence in

t of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect

he environment.

Monterey County Planning Department determined that an EIR

wa clearly required for the project because of potentially significant

eff cts to biological and tree resources, traffic and circulation patterns,

an greenhouse gas emission contributing to global warming.

Th refore an environmental impact report was prepared.

c) Iss es that were analyzed in the EIR include aesthetic resources, air

qu lity, biological resources, geology and soils, hazards/hazardous

in erials, hydrology/water quality, land use and planning, noise, traffic

an transportation, utilities and service systems, and greenhouse gases.

Th EIR address all aspects of the proposed project including the

of~

lig~

on

Th

Exhibit B Resolution to Certify E vironmental Impact Report

Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whisp ring Oaks Business Park PLN 110231) Page 1

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�Zon t Amendment, the Combined Development Permit and the

disp siion and development agreement

d) All roject changes required to avoid significant effects on the

envi onment have been incorporated into the project and/or are made

con itions of approval. A Condition Compliance and Mitigation

Mo itoring and/or Reporting Plan has been prepared in accordance with

Mo terey County regulations and is designed to ensure compliance

duri g project implementation and is hereby incorporated herein by

refe ence. The applicant must enter into an Agreement to Implement a

Mitigation Monitoring and/or Reporting Plan" as a condition of project

app oval.

e) The Draft Environmental Impact Report DEIR") for the project

PL 090071) was prepared in accordance with CEQA and circulated

for ublic review from July 13, 2010 through August 27, 2010 SCH#:

200 121049). The Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan EIR was used as a Master

El for this project.

f) Evi ence that has been received and considered includes: the

app ication, technical studies/reports, staff reports that reflect the

Co nty's independent judgment, and information and testimony

pre ented during public hearings. These documents are on file in the

Planning Department PLN090071) and are hereby incorporated

her in by reference.

g) Re rculation of the EIR is not required pursuant to Section 15088.5 of

CE A. Comments received on the Draft EIR have been considered and

res onded to. No new information or substantial changes to circumstances

or s bstantial increase in the severity of the impacts were identified after

pu is review of the Draft EIR. Changes made to the DEIR in response to

co ents clarify and amplify issues already discussed in the DEIR.

h) Co ments have been submitted by CSUMB outside the EIR comment

per od but prior to the Planning Commission hearing on March 29,

2011. CSUMB claimed that the EIR is inadequate because of the

me hodology of trip distribution assignments and the traffic report

co clusions regarding impacts on specific intersections and roadways

wi in the campus. Specifically, the letter contains information which

CS MB contends supports their argument that it is reasonable to

ass me that at least some of the MST/WO project trips would also use

the same campus routes to get to and from the project site."

Th following information is relied on to support the conclusions in the

El in light of the CSUMB comments:

1. The traffic report for the EIR has been prepared by a licensed

traffic engineer who has justified and defended his

methodology and conclusions.

2. The traffic report was peer-reviewed by an independent out-

side traffic engineer Hexagon). The peer-review letter made a

general note that trip distributions could be more evenly

distributed among the possible routes, although the revised

numbers would be minimal and not likely change the impact

conclusions. Hexagon has confirmed that the stated reasoning

of the project traffic engineer to assign trips around campus

seemed reasonable and appropriate.

Exhibit B Resolution to Certify E vironmental Impact Report

Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whisp ring Oaks Business Park PLN110231) Page 2

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�The report and EIR have been reviewed by Public Works and

deemed adequate.

i) The County prepared Responses to Comments on the Monterey-

Sali as Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park Draft EIR". The

Res onses relate to chapters of the DEIR that were not recirculated.

The Response to Comments document was released to the public on

Feb ary 24, 2011 and responds to all significant environmental points

raised by persons and organizations that commented on the DEIR. The

County has considered the comments received during the public review

period for the draft EIR, and in the Responses document responds to the

comments received. Together, the DEIR and Responses to Comments

constitute the Final EIR on the project. Several mitigations were

sub tituted for mitigations that are equivalent or more effective in

mit gating or avoiding potential significant effects. The substituted

mit gations are described further in the Evidence j) through n)

foll wing.

j) Mitigation Measure BIO-1 required fencing for avoidance of sand gilia

and Monterey ceanothus. The mitigation has been updated to reflect a

more comprehensive fencing plan mitigation BIO 13) and to reflect the

2081 permit from the Department of Fish and Game that is being

considered for impacts to sand gilia.

k) Mi i ation Measure BIO-3 required surveys prior to ground disturbance

for off-site improvements. The mitigation has been updated to reflect

surveys done at the site that found impacts to species from off-site

development can be avoided. Also, there is an existing take permit

applicable to the UCSC property where Engineer's Equipment Road

will be improved. The new mitigation reflects in more detail the plan to

avoid impacts to protected species in the off-site improvements, thereby

mo e effectively mitigating potential impacts.

1) Mitigation Measure BIO-4 required protocol level surveys and/or

permitting for take of California Tiger Salamander CTS) on Lots 12-

16. The Department of Fish and Game has commented on the issue of

CT and revisions are suggested to the mitigation based on those

co iments. The revisions include more restrictive requirements on

Ph ses 1 and 2 including the need for a biological monitor.

Requirements for Lots 12-16 would remain unchanged.

m) Traffic Miti ation. The traffic mitigation measures were revised slightly

to allow flexibility on who" pays the impacts fees which is anticipated

to be negotiated through the Disposition and Development Agreement

and ensure enforceability with the appropriate timing. Mitigation for

impacts on City of Marina intersections have been amended so that the

ap licant will pay a fair-share contribution for the impacted

int rsections rather than paying the City of Marina traffic impact fee.

Th s change only provides a different method of mitigating impacts on

the City of Marina intersections and the effect of the mitigation has not

been changed.

n) Mitigation CC-1 The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction mitigation

has been revised to reflect the changes to the Whispering Oaks General

Development Plan that included incorporating some of the measures

previously contained in the Draft EIR mitigation language. Since

Exhibit B Resolution to Certify Environmental Impact Report

Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whisp ring Oaks Business Park PLN110231) Page 3

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�miti ation is incorporated by design the repetitive aspect of the

con ition language was not needed and has been deleted.

o) Staf analysis contained in the record as a whole indicates the project

could result in changes to the resources listed in Section 753.5(d) of the

Dep ment of Fish and Game DFG) regulations. All land development

prof cts that are subject to environmental review are subject to a State

filing fee plus the County recording fee, unless the Department of Fish

and ame determines that the project will have no effect on fish and

wil life resources.

The site supports Sand Gilia, Sandmat Manzanita, and Monterey

Spi eflower. For purposes of the Fish and Game Code, the project will

hav a significant adverse impact on the fish and wildlife resources

upo which the wildlife depends. State Department of Fish and Game

revi wed the EIR to comment and recommend necessary conditions to

pro ct biological resources in this area. Therefore, the project applicant

is r quired to pay the State fee of $2,839.25 plus a fee of $50.00 payable

to the Monterey County Clerk/Recorder for processing said fee and

pos ing the Notice of Determination NOD).

p) The Monterey County Planning Department, located at 168 W. Alisal,

Sec nd Floor, Salinas, California, 93901, is the custodian of documents

and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which

the ecision to certify the EIR is based.

2. FINDING: El ft-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO LESS

T AN SIGNIFICANT  The project would result in significant and

po entially significant impacts that would be mitigated to a less than

sig ificant level due to incorporation of mitigation measures from the

El into the conditions of project approval. Changes or alterations have

be n required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or

su stantially lessen significant environmental effects identified in the

El

EVIDENCE: a) Po ential Impacts were identified to Air Quality however with

in orporation of Mitigation Measures-AQ 1 and AQ2 these impacts

w uld be reduced to a less than significant level.

b) Po ential Impacts were identified to Biological Resources however

wi h incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIOI through B1013 and

th mitigation applied in the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan EIR, the

i acts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

c) P ential Impacts were identified to Geology and Soils however with

in orporation of Mitigation Measures GEO1 through GEO3 the

i acts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

d) P ential Impacts were identified to Hazards and Hazardous Materials

ho ever with incorporation of Mitigation Measures H1 and H2 the

i pacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

e) P tential Impacts were identified to Hydrology and Water Quality

h ever with incorporation of Mitigation Measures HY1 through HY3

th impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

f) A designed, the project was found to have no impact or a less than

si nificant impact on all other Environmental resource categories

c tained in appendix G of the CEQA guidelines not mentioned above,

Exhibit B Resolution to Certify Environmental Impact Report

Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whisp ring Oaks Business Park PLN110231) Page 4

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�except for the significant unavoidable impacts discussed in Finding 3

below.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT MITIGATED TO

S THAN SIGNIFICANT  The project would result in

significant and unavoidable impacts that would not be mitigated to a

less than significant level even with incorporation of mitigation

me sures from the EIR into the conditions of project approval, as

fur her described in this finding. Specific economic, legal, social,

tec ological, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation that

would reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance, and some

ch ges and alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of

ether agency and not the County.

nificant impacts to traffic based on Monterey County thresholds of

iificance have been identified through environmental review. The

n impact that could not be mitigated was the addition of traffic trips

to he north and southbound off-ramps at State Route 1 at Imjin

Parkway which would operate at a deficient level of service LOS)

under background conditions. Roads and interchanges under the control

an jurisdiction of the California State Department of Transportation

C lTrans) cannot be feasibly and reliably be mitigated because

im rovements to these roads require approval of CalTrans which is not

guaranteed. An improvement project that would address the

int rsection deficiencies has been identified and mitigation is required

to contribute a fair-share contribution towards this improvement;

however, until the project is approved and constructed by CalTrans,

there will be a significant unavoidable impact on traffic at this location.

T project will contribute to the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions

which lead to climate change. Design considerations including meeting

L ED standards and incorporating policies to minimize greenhouse gas

emissions have been incorporated in the proposed General

D velopment Plan for Whispering Oaks Business Park and the MST

facility. However, the project does not help to accomplish the ultimate

goal of a reduction in greenhouse gases from current conditions but it is

an improvement from business as usual. A Carbon sequestration report

ha been prepared in response to comments on the DEIR. The report

estimates the amount of Carbon that would be released to the

atmosphere from loss of sequestration through the removal of trees and

vegetation at the site. The project would release Carbon and without

thresholds with which to measure the significance, the project is

assumed to have a significant unavoidable impact. However, the project

does propose to replace all Oak Trees removed from the site on a one to

one basis which will provide some level of mitigation in the short term

an will have a beneficial impact on carbon sequestration in the long

to 50-100 years into the future).

T re Board is adopting a statement of overriding considerations as

uired prior to approving a project with significant unavoidable

rironmental impacts. see Finding 5D)

Exhibit B Resolution to Certify Environmental Impact Report

Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whisp ring Oaks Business Park PLN110231) Page 5

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�4. FINDING: EI CEQA ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Th EIR considered several alternatives to the proposed project in

co pliance with CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6. The EIR

con idered the following alternatives as more fully described in the

DE R. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other

co siderations make these project alternatives infeasible for reasons

des ribed below.

EVIDENCE: a) No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative would leave the site

in i s current condition and no development would occur and no land

wo Id be subdivided. The No Project Alternative would have fewer

im acts to the environmental issues and resources than the proposed

project would. However, the No Project Alternative would not meet

the project objective as no new jobs would be created and the

M nterey-Salinas Transit could not develop their centralized operations

fac lity along the future multi-modal corridor or have the ability at their

exi ting facilities to expand their operations.

b) MST Facility Only. This alternative would allow the development of

the MST facility only, without the Whispering Oaks business park.

Ov rall, the MST Facility Only Alternative would have fewer impacts

to he environment than the proposed project. However, the MST

Fa ility Only alternative would not meet the project objective of the

Re evelopment Agency to create jobs by developing a new

co ercial/industrial park. It should also be noted that appropriate

us s of the site are limited due to the project location near the former

Al n y landfill. Residential uses, Hospitals, Schools, and other similar

us s would be prohibited.

c) Al ernative Project Location. Per the CEQA Guidelines, Section

15 26.6 f)(2), an alternative project location need only be analyzed if

th significant effects of the proposed project would be avoided or

substantially lessened by putting the project in another location.

T project will require a Disposition and Development Agreement to

tr sfer Lot 1 of the recommended subdivision from the current

pr perty owner the Redevelopment Agency of Monterey County) to

M nterey-Salinas Transit MST). MST was transferred property

t ough the base closure at Seventh Avenue and Giggling. Two

alt rnatives were considered under this section.

T e first alternative considered constructing the new MST facility at

th Seventh and Giggling location rather than Lot 1 of the proposed

su division and creating a business park on the entire development area

of the project site off Inter-Garrison Road. This alternative would have

gr ater impact on the environment than the proposed project, yet could

ac omplish the project objectives.

T e second alternative considered includes constructing the MST

fa ility at Seventh and Giggling rather than Lot 1 of the proposed

su division and creation of open space and recreation at the subject site

o Inter-Garrison Road consistent with the Marina General Plan

designation). This alternative would have a similar impact to the MST

fa ility only" alternative described in Evidence b above. Development

o the ST facility at the Giggling location would require closure of 7th

and 8`hM Avenue to develop the site, would still require removal of large

Exhibit B Resolution to Certify Environmental Impact Report

Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231) Page 6

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�numbers of trees, would still be located adjacent to CSUMB but not on

the future multi-modal corridor) and not fit well with planned

development in the area. Recreation and Open space at the subject

property would also not achieve the goals of the Redevelopment

Agency to create jobs and financially support maintenance of the

former landfill parcel.

d) En ironmentall Superior Alternative. When all the alternatives were

considered, the No Project Alternative is considered to be the

En ironmentally Superior Alternative because only the No Project

Alternative avoided all the impacts related to the proposed project.

However, Section 15126.6(e) of CEQA requires that if the No Project

Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, than another

alternative must be identified amongst the alternatives considered.

Th refore, the MST facility at Seventh and Gigling with Recreation at

the project site alternative is considered to be the Environmentally

Superior Alternative because it meets one of the two project objectives

wi h incrementally less environmental impacts to biology, forest

resources, traffic, aesthetics, and green house gas emission than the

proposed project, none of which remain significant after mitigation.

e) Ec nomic factors exist that make adoption of the alternatives presented

financially impractical. The proposed project is the joint effort of the

Monterey- Salinas Transit and the Redevelopment Agency of Monterey

County. MST is relying on grant funds to pay for the development of

their proposed bus maintenance and operations facility. If approval of

the currently proposed project is not secured the grant funds may be

lot and the significant investment in project design and permitting of

the proposal will be lost. Additionally, if the project is allowed to move

forward the costs of infrastructure improvements and other

development related costs will be distributed among the two agencies

through a disposition and development agreement making a financially

feasible project for both. If approved the project will provide economic

benefits by creating hundreds of new jobs. Furthermore, the current

MST property is located within the jurisdiction of Monterey County.

TI e subject application involves a disposition and development

ag eement that would include a land exchange between the County and

MST. It would be impractical for MST to exchange their land within

the County's jurisdiction to a jurisdiction other than the County. The

Local Agency Formation Committee has not considered

j isdictional/boundary changes that may be involved if the MST land

is ransferred to a jurisdiction other than Monterey County.

5. FINDING: E R-STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS  In

ac ordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, the County

h s evaluated the economic, legal, social, technological, or other

benefits, including region-wide or state-wide environmental benefits, of

the project against its unavoidable significant environmental impacts in

determining whether to approve the project, and has determined that

th benefits of the project outweigh its unavoidable, adverse

environmental impacts so that the identified significant unavoidable

i pact(s) may be considered acceptable.

Exhibit B Resolution to Certify Environmental Impact Report

Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whisp ring Oaks Business Park PLN110231) Page 7

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �                     C�EVIDENCE: a) The project will result in significant unavoidable impacts by

contribution to traffic at the North bound and South bound on/off

ramps at Highway I and Imjin Parkway and by contributing to

greenhouse gases through removal of trees and development of new

stn ctures and uses. Impacts to traffic are mitigated to the extent

feasible and contributions toward a traffic improvement project that

wo ld address the impacted intersection are required; however the

short-term impact and the feasibility of the improvement project due to

jurisdictional control dictate the determination that there may be a

sig ificant impact at this location. The project will contribute toward

greenhouse gases through the removal of trees and vegetation and

construction of new structures and reasonably foreseeable on-going

operations within those structures. With design and mitigation applied,

on a large scale, the impact on global warming and greenhouse gases of

the project is miniscule; however, without thresholds by which to

measure, the contribution of greenhouse gases from the project is

considered significant.

b) Th proposed project will result in development that will provide

benefits described herein to the surrounding community and the County

has a whole.

c) T project allows continued growth and efficiency of MST with a

centralized location on the future Multi Modal corridor. The central

location provides easy access to Salinas and the Monterey Peninsula.

Expanded and efficient mass transit operations are a key method in

reducing both traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. Mass

transit is a key component in reducing vehicle miles traveled which is

on of the key methods of achieving a reduction in greenhouse gas

emissions by 2020 as mandated by Senate Bill 375.

d) The project will centralize two existing MST operations in the City of

S inas and the City of Monterey to a new efficient and green"

location thus reducing MST greenhouse gas emissions from current

levels. The MST facility would be centrally located with easy access to

re ional roadways and the future multi-modal corridor and would also

be centrally located near existing and planned housing. This provides

for more efficient service.

e) The project will provide economic benefits through the creation of jobs

within the Whispering Oaks Business Park. Additionally, the

Whispering Oaks Business Park is intended to serve as a location for

research and operations of green business products" promoting the

reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from current levels.

f) The Whispering Oaks Business Park will provide a location for

su portive business enterprises serving the Fort Ord area, CSUMB, and

MST.

DECISION

NOW, THEREFORE, bas d on the above findings and evidence, the Board of Supervisors does

hereby certify the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Monterey-Salinas Transit and

Whispering Oaks Business ark project which is on file with the Clerk of the Board of

Exhibit B Resolution to Certify Environmental Impact Report

Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whisp ring Oaks Business Park PLN110231) Page 8

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �

C�Supervisors and incorporated

herein by reference, adopt the CEQA findings herein, and adopt

the statement of overriding considerations herein.

PASSED AND ADOPTED

seconded by

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

his 14th day of June, 2011 upon motion of

 by the following vote:

I, Gail T. Borkowski, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey, State of California, hereby

certify that the foregoing is a true opy of an original order of said Board of Supervisors duly made and entered in

the minutes thereof of Minute Bo  for the meeting on

Dated:

Gail T. Borkowski, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

County of Monterey, State of California

By

Deputy

Exhibit B Resolution to Certify Environmental Impact Report

Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whisp ring Oaks Business Park PLN110231) Page 9

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �
C�RESOLUTION  EXHIBIT 1

Monterey County Resource Management Agency

Planning Department

Condition Compliance and/or Mitigation Monitoring

Reporting Plan

Project Name: Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park

File No: PLN 110231 APNs: 031-101-041-000 and 031-101-056-000

Approved by: Board of Supervisors Date: June 14, 2011

*Monitoring or Reporting refers to projects with an EIR or adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration per Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code.

RMA  Planning Department

  PD001- SPECIFIC USES ONLY Adhere to conditions and uses specified Owner/ Ongoing

  This Combined Development Permit PLN110231) in the permit. Applicant unless

  allows: 1) A Standard Subdivision Phased Vesting   otherwise

  Tentative Map dividing two parcels of 30.3 acres and   stated

  85.2 acres Assessor's Parcel Numbers 031-101-041- Neither the uses nor the construction RMA  

  000 and 031-101-056-000) into 16 buildable lots allowed by this permit shall commence Planning 

  including a 24.4 acre lot and 15 smaller lots ranging in unless and until all of the conditions of  

  size from 1 acre to 3 acres, a roadway parcel this permit are met to the satisfaction of  

  approximately 7.4 acres), a drainage detention and the Director of the RMA  Planning  

  percolation parcel approximately 1.7 acres), and two Department.  

  Open Space parcels approximately 49 acres and 8.7 To the extent that the County has WRA 

  acres); 2) A General Development Plan establishing delegated any condition compliance or  

  Allowed Uses, Conditional Uses allowed, and site mitigation monitoring to the Monterey RMA  

  development standards and design criteria for the County Water Resources Agency, the Planning 

  proposed Whispering Oaks Business Park; 3) A General Water Resources Agency shall provide  

  Development Plan and Use Permit to allow development all information requested by the County  

  of the Monterey- Salinas Transit MST) administrative and the County shall bear ultimate  

  and maintenance facility containing the following: A) a responsibility to ensure that conditions  

  36,000 square foot three-story administrative building; and mitigation measures are properly  

  B) a 96,450 square foot two-story bus maintenance fulfilled  

building; C) an 18,620 square foot fuel/brake/tire   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 1

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �

C�

building with underground tanks attached by a canopy to

an 8,373 square foot bus wash/steam cleaning building;

and D) approximately 15 acres of paved parking to

accommodate up to 281 busses and 388 automobiles; 4)

A Use Permit to allow the removal of approximately

2,400 Coast Live Oak trees on Lot 1 MST parcel); 5) A

Use Permit to allow the removal of approximately 1,000

Coast Live Oaks on Lots 2 through 16, and for

infrastructure improvements; and 6) An Administrative

ermi an esign pprova

Site Plan Review S") zoning district. The property is

located on a portion of the former Army Landfill site in

Fort Ord Assessor's Parcel Number's: 031-101-041-000

& 031-101-056-000), Fort Ord Master Plan area. The

applicant is the Redevelopment Agency of Monterey

County RDA) who is responsible for compliance with

these conditions unless otherwise noted. In the case that

RDA transfers lots to a developer, Lot I is anticipated to

be transferred to MST for development) the developer

shall be responsible for compliance with these conditions

unless otherwise noted. This permit was approved in

accordance with County ordinances and land use

regulations subject to the following terms and conditions.

Any use or construction not in substantial conformance

with the terms and conditions of this permit is a violation

of County regulations and may result in modification or

revocation of this permit and subsequent legal action. No

use or construction other than that specified by this permit

is allowed unless additional permits are approved by the

appropriate authorities. MST Use Permit" conditions

noted herein are conditions of the Use Permit and shall

remain in effect throughout the life of the Use Permit,

including following recordation of the final map. RMA-

Planning Department)

 r w x r ab�

4,14, d

eltg'eah lW t~ qtr� a s*

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 2

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �

C�     

2.  PDO02  NOTICE-PERMIT APPROVAL Proof of recordation of this notice shall Owner/ Prior to

  The applicant shall record a notice which states: A be furnished to the RMA  Planning Applicant recordation

  Combined Development Permit Resolution Department.  of final

  was approved by the Board of Supervisors for Assessor's   maps.

  Parcel Number's 031-101-041-000 & 031-101-056-000   

  on June 14, 2011. The Combined Development Permit   

  was granted subject to 83 conditions of approval which   

  run with the land. A copy of the Combined Development   

  Permit is on file with the Monterey County RMA    

  Planning Department." Proof of recordation of this notice   

  shall be furnished to the Director of the RMA  Planning   

  Department prior to issuance of building permits or   

  commencement of the use. RMA  Planning   

  Department)   

3.  PDO03(A)  CULTURAL RESOURCES  Condition of Development- Add a Owner/ Prior to

  NEGATIVE ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT ALL policy to the General Development Applicant/ recordation

  PHASES) Plan stating the condition language and Archaeo- of the Final

  A policy shall be added to both the MST and the comply with condition during all logist Map/ On-

  Whispering Oaks Business Park General Development ground disturbing activities.  going

  Plans stating If, during the course of construction,   

  cultural, archaeological, historical or paleontological   

  resources are uncovered at the site surface or subsurface   

  resources) work shall be halted immediately within 50   

  meters 165 feet) of the find until a qualified professional   

  archaeologist can evaluate it. The Monterey County RMA   

   Planning Department and a qualified archaeologist i.e.,   

  an archaeologist registered with the Society of   

  Professional Archaeologists) shall be immediately   

  contacted by the responsible individual present on-site.   

  When contacted, the project planner and the archaeologist   

  shall immediately visit the site to determine the extent of   

  the resources and to develop proper mitigation measures   

  required for the discovery." RMA  Planning   

  Department)   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 3

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�  1110 11 111   

4.  PDO05  FISH AND GAME FEE-NEG DEC/EIR The applicant shall submit a check, Owner/ Within 5

  Pursuant to the State Public Resources Code  753.5, State payable to the County of Monterey, to the Applicant working

  Fish and Game Code, and California Code of Regulations, Director of the RMA  Planning  days of

  the applicant shall pay a fee, to be collected by the Department.  project

  County, within five 5) working days of project approval.   approval.

  This fee shall be paid before the Notice of Determination If the fee is not paid within five 5) Owner/ Prior to the

  is filed. If the fee is not paid within five 5) working days, working days, the applicant shall submit Applicant recordation

  the project shall not be operative, vested or final until the a check, payable to the County of  of the final

  filing fees are paid. RMA  Planning Department) Monterey, to the Director of the RMA   map.

   Planning Department.  

5.  PDO06  MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 1) Enter into agreement with the Owner/ Within 60

  The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the County to implement a Mitigation Applicant days after

  County to implement a Mitigation Monitoring and/or Monitoring Program.  project

  Reporting Plan in accordance with Section 21081.6 of the   approval,

  California Public Resources Code and Section 15097 of 2) Fees shall be submitted at the time  prior to

  Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations. the property owner submits the signed  recordation

  Compliance with the fee schedule adopted by the Board mitigation monitoring agreement.  of the final

  of Supervisors for mitigation monitoring shall be   map or

  required and payment made to the County of Monterey   prior to the

  at the time the property owner submits the signed   issuance of

  mitigation monitoring agreement. RMA  Planning   grading

  Department)   and

     building

     permits,

     whichever

     occurs

     f irst.

6.  PD011- TREE AND ROOT PROTECTION MST  MST Use Permit  Submit evidence of Owner/ Prior to the

  PHASE 1) tree protection to the RMA  Planning Applicant/ issuance of

  Trees which are located close to the construction site(s) Department for review and approval. MST grading

  shall be protected from inadvertent damage from   and/or

  construction equipment by fencing off the canopy   building

  driplines and/or critical root zones whichever is greater)   permits

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071)

Page 4

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�     

  with protective materials, wrapping trunks with protective MST Use Permit  Submit on-going Owner/ During

  materials, avoiding fill of any type against the base of the evidence that tree protection measures Applicant/ Construc-

  trunks and avoiding an increase in soil depth at the feeding are in place through out grading and Arborist/ tion

  zone or drip-line of the retained trees. Said protection, construction phases. If damage is MST 

  approved by a certified arborist, shall be demonstrated possible, submit an interim report  

  prior to issuance of building permits subject to the prepared by a certified arborist.  

  approval of the RMA  Director of Planning. If there is   

  any potential for damage, all work must stop in the area MST Use Permit  Submit photos of Owner/ Prior to

  and a report, with mitigation measures, shall be submitted

by a certifie arb

o

rist

Should an

additi

l t

t the trees on the property to the RMA

Planning Department after construc ion Applicant/

MST final

y

ona

rees no

included in this permit be harmed, during grading or to document that tree protection has  

  construction activities, in such a way where removal is been successful or if follow-up  

  required, the owner/applicant shall obtain required remediation or additional permits are  

  ermits.(RMA  Planning Department required.  

7.  PDO12(G)  LANDSCAPE PLAN AND MST Use Permit  Submit landscape Owner/ Prior to

  MAINTENANCE OTHER THAN SINGLE plans and contractor's estimate to the Applicant/ issuance of

  FAMILY DWELLING) PHASE I) RMA  Planning Department for review Licensed Building

  The site shall be landscaped. Prior to the issuance of and approval. Landscaping plans shall Landscape Permits

  building permits, three 3) copies of a landscaping plan include the recommendations from the Contractor/ 

  shall be submitted to the Director of the RMA  Planning Forest Management Plan or Biological Licensed 

  Department. A landscape plan review fee is required for Survey as applicable. Landscape 

  this project. Fees shall be paid at the time of landscape  Architect/ 

  plan submittal. The landscaping plan shall be in sufficient  MST 

  detail to identify the location, species, and size of the MST Use Permit The landscaping Owner/ Prior to

  proposed landscaping and shall include an irrigation plan. shall be installed and inspected. Applicant/ Occupancy

  The landscaping shall be installed and inspected prior to  Licensed 

  occupancy. All landscaped areas and/or fences shall be  Landscape 

  continuously maintained by the applicant and all plant  Contractor/ 

  material shall be continuously maintained in a litter-free,  Licensed 

  weed-free, healthy, growing condition. RMA   Landscape 

  Planning Department)  Architect/ 

    MST 

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 5

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�     

   Condition of Permits  A note shall be Owner/ Prior to

   included in the General Development Applicant recordation

   Plan that requires: All landscaped  of the final

   areas and fences shall be continuously  map/

   maintained by the applicant; all plant  Ongoing

   material shall be continuously  

   maintained in a litter-free, weed-free,  

   healthy, growing condition."  

8.  PDO13  LIGHTING  STREET LIGHTS ALL Subdivision  Submit three copies of Owner/ Prior to the

   e ig tng plans tote  App icant recordation

  In order to minimize impacts from street lighting and Planning Department for review and  of final

  comply with the County dark sky requirements, all street approval. Approved lighting plans  maps

  lights in the development shall be approved by the shall be incorporated into final building  where

  Director of the RMA  Planning Department. RMA  plans.  applicable.

  Planning Department) Subivision  The lighting shall be Owner/ Ongoing

   installed and maintained in accordance Applicant 

   with the approved plan.  

9.  PDO15  NOTE ON MAP-STUDIES MST PHASE 1 Subdivision  an updated General Owner/ Prior to

  GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN) Development Plan containing all the Applicant recordation

  A note shall be placed on the Phase 1 final map or a policies required by the conditions of  of final

  separate sheet to be recorded with the final map stating approval shall be submitted with the final  maps

  that: A General Development Plan dated February 3, map. The Final recorded map, with the  

  2010, has been prepared on the Monterey-Salinas Transit General Development Plan notes, shall  

  property by AECOM. The approved plan is on file in the be submitted to the RMA  Planning  

  Monterey County RMA  Planning Department Department and Public Works for review  

  LIB 100235). The development standards contained in and approval.  

  the General Development Plan shall be followed in all   

  further development of this property." The note shall be   

  located in a conspicuous location, subject to the approval   

  of the County Surveyor. RMA  Planning Department)   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 6

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�     

      e

10.  PDO15  NOTE ON MAP-STUDIES WHISPERING Subdivision  The General Owner/ Prior to

  OAKS PHASES 2 & 3 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT Development Plan shall be updated and Applicant recordation

  PLAN) the updated GDP shall be submitted to  of final

  Prior to recordation of the final maps for Phase 2 and 3, the RMA  Planning Department for  maps

  the Whispering Oaks General Development Plan shall be review and approval.  

  updated to include all of the policies required by the   

  conditions of approval for the project in addition to a   

  policy that offers the ability to accommodate a 10 foot    

  wide trail along the northern boundary of the business

park for fiiti re trail planning purposes Once updated

a   

note shall be

laced on the Phase 2 and Phase 3 final ma   

  p

ps   

  or a separate sheet to be recorded with the final maps Subdivision  The Final recorded maps, Owner/ Prior to

  stating that: A General Development Plan dated October with notes, shall be submitted to the Applicant recordation

  19, 2010 and updated insert date) has been prepared on RMA  Planning Department and Public  of final

  the Whispering Oaks Business Park by RBF Consulting. Works for review and approval.  maps

  The approved plan is on file in the Monterey County   

  RMA  Planning Department LIB 100239). The   

  development standards contained in the General   

  Development Plan shall be followed in all further   

  development of this property." The note shall be located   

  in a conspicuous location, subject to the approval of the   

  County Surveyor. RMA  Planning Department)   

11.  PD022(A)  EASEMENT  CONSERVATION AND Subdivision  Submit the conservation Owner/ Prior to

  SCENIC PHASE 1) and scenic easement deed and Applicant/ recordation

  A conservation and scenic easement shall be conveyed to corresponding map, showing the exact Certified of the final

  the County over Parcels C of the Vesting Tentative Map. location of the easement on the Profession map for

  The easement shall be developed in consultation with property along with the metes and al Phase 2

  certified professional. An easement deed shall be bound description developed in  

  submitted to, reviewed and approved by, the Director of consultation with a certified  

  the RMA  Planning Department prior to issuance of professional, to the RMA  Planning  

  grading and building permits. RMA  Planning Department for review and approval.  

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 7

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�     

  Department) Subdivision  Record the deed and map Owner/ Prior to

   showing the approved conservation and Applicant final map

   scenic easement. Submit a copy of the  

   recorded deed and map to the RMA   

   Planning Department.  

12.  PD036  UTILITIES  SUBDIVISION ALL Subdivision  Place note on map or a Owner/ Prior to the

  PHASES) separate sheet and submit to the RMA  Applicant recordation

  A note shall be placed on the final maps or a separate Planning Department for review and  of final

  sheet to be recorded with the final maps indicating that

 approval. Install or bond for the  map.

  Underground utilities are required in this su ivision in underground utility facilities.  

  accordance with Chapter 19.10.095, Title 19 of the   

  Monterey County Code." Such facilities shall be installed   

  or bonded prior to filing the final maps. The note shall be   

  located in a conspicuous manner subject to the approval of   

  the Director of Public Works. RMA  Planning   

  Department)   

13.  PDSP003  PROOF OF ACCESS PRIOR TO Subdivision  Prior to recordation of Owner/ Prior to

  PHASE 1) the final map for any phase the Applicant/ recordation

  In order to provide legal access, the developer of Phase 1 applicant shall acquire necessary right Surveyor of the final

  shall do one of the following: of way to provide public access and  map for

  a) Obtain easements from the owners of underlying allow for necessary improvements.  Phase I

  property for Intergarrison Road and Engineer's   

  Equipment Road to allow public access to the site Subdivision  The applicant agrees to Owner/ Prior to

  and to allow all necessary frontage and road construct the necessary road Applicant/ recordation

  improvements; or improvements at the applicant's  of the final

  b) MST may condemn right-of-way or access to the expense.  map for

  project and provide legal proof of access to the   Phase 1

  RMA Planning and Public Works Department; or   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 8

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�     

  c) If access cannot be obtained and the County Subdivision  If necessary Owner/ Prior to

  condemns the rights-of-way pursuant to condemnation of property for access Applicant/ recordation

  California Government Code Section 66462.5 of will be at the expense of the applicant.  of the final

  the Subdivision Map Act the applicant shall pay   map for

  all expenses of any such condemnation.   Phase 1

  The developer of Phase I shall fully fund and/or construct   

  necessary improvements along Intergarrision Road and   

  Engineer's Equipment Road. Engineer's Equipment Road

shall he constaicted to its ultimate confi

uration as

art

f   

  g

p

o

Phase I improvements. RMA  Planning Department   

  and Public Works Department)   

14.  PDSP004  FIELD LOCATE ENGINEER'S Subdivision Improvements  The Owner/ Prior to

  EQUIPMENT ROAD NON-STANDARD) PHASE applicant shall arrange a meeting with Applicant/ recordation

  2) the planner to locate Engineer's Architect/ of the final

  In order to preserve oak trees at the intersection of Equipment Road improvements in the Contractor map for

  Engineer's Equipment Road and Intergarrison Road, the field, prior to acceptance of  Phase 1

  applicant shall develop improvement plans for Engineer's improvement plans for Phase 1.  

  Equipment Road in consultation with the RMA  Planning Subdivision Improvements  The Owner/ Prior to

  Department. The Planning Department shall visit the site improvement plans for Engineer's Applicant/ approval of

  and review the conceptual plans with the applicant. The Equipment Road shall be submitted to Architect/ improveme

  Planning Department shall have the ability to modify the the RMA  Planning Department for Contractor nt plans

  location of Engineer's Equipment Road to maximize tree review and approval.  

  protection where feasible

RMA  Plannin   

g   

  Department) Subdivision Improvements  Owner/ ongoing

   Improvements shall be carried-out in Applicant/ 

   accordance with the approved plans Architect/ 

    Contractor 

15.  PDO04  SUBDIVISION FENCING PLAN Subdivision  Submit fencing plan to Owner/ Prior to the

  APPROVAL ALL PHASES) the RMA  Planning Department for Applicant/ recordation

  In order to protect trees at the site, the property owner review and approval. Architect of final

  shall prepare a fencing plan for subdivision improvements   map.

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 9

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�     

  to be approved by the Director of the RMA  Planning Subdivision Prior to commencement Owner/ Prior to

  Department. The fencing plan shall: 1) establish of grading activities, protective fencing Applicant/ issuance

  maximum grading limits; 2) identify natural vegetation shall be in place. Contractor/ grading

  that should be retained; and 3) Incorporate the  Forester permits

  requirements of the California Department of Fish &   

  Game 2081 Permit and all avoidance and protection   

  measures required by fencing related conditions of   

  approval and mitigation measures e.g. BIO- 3 and BIO    

  13). Separate plans may be submitted for subdivision

i

  mprovements and MST site-~vements~.~

shall remain in place throughout construction of   

  subdivision improvements. RMA  Planning   

  Department)   

Public Works

16.  PW0011- SEWER MRWPCA) ALL PHASES) Condition of Permits  Applicant shall Owner/ Prior to

  Obtain sewer permits from the Monterey Regional obtain permits from Monterey Regional Applicant Building/

  Water Pollution Control Agency, and Marina Coast Water Pollution Control Agency, and  Grading

  Water District and pay all applicable fees. Public Marina Coast Water District.  Permits

  Works)   Issuance

17.  PWO014  DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT STUDY  Subdivision  Applicant's Engineer Owner/ Prior to

  ROAD DRAINAGE ALL PHASES) shall prepare drainage study and Applicant/ Building/

  Provide an on-site/off-site drainage improvement study improvement plans for review and Engineer Grading

  for all road improvements, prepared by a registered approval by DPW.  Permits

  Civil Engineer. Study to be approved by Public Works   Issuance or

  Department and the Water Resources Agency and shall   Recordation

  be incorporated in the improvement plans. Public   of Final

  Works)   Map

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 10

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�18.  PWO015  UTILITY'S COMMENTS PRIOR TO

 Subdivider shall provide

Subdivision

Owner/ Prior to

  PHASE 1) tentative

map to impacted utility

Applicant Recordation

  Submit the approved tentative map to impacted utility

companies for review. Subdivider shall  of Map

  companies. Subdivider shall submit utility company

submit utility comments to DPW  

  recommendations, if any, to the Department of Public   

  Works for all required easements. Public Works)   

19.  PW0016  MAINTENANCE OF SUBDIVISIONS Subdivision  A note shall be included Subdivider Prior to

  ONGOING) on the final maps stating that the  recordation

  Pay for all maintenance and operation of subdivision subdivider shall be responsible to  of the final

  improvements from the time of installation until maintain improvements until  maps/ on-

  acceptance of the improvements for the Subdivision by maintenance is assumed by another  going

  the Board of Supervisors as completed in accordance entity.  

  with the subdivision improvement agreement and until a   

  homeowners association or other entity with legal   

  authorization to collect fees sufficient to support the   

  services is formed to assume responsibility for the   

  services. Public Works)   

20.  PWO020  PRIVATE ROADS ALL PHASES) Subdivision  Subdivider's Surveyor Subdivider Prior to

  Designate on the final maps, any roads that are to be shall designate private roads on final  recordation

  retained in private ownership as Private Roads". map.  of the Final

  Public Works)   Map

21.  PWO021- ROAD NAMES PRIOR TO PHASE 1) Subdivision  Subdivider shall submit Subdivider Prior to

  Submit all proposed road names to the Department of proposed road names to DPW. DPW  Recordation

  Public Works for approval by County Communications. will submit to County Communications  of Final

  Public Works) for Approval.  Map

22.  PW0028  GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PHASES 2 Subdivision  Subdivider shall have Subdivider Prior to

  & 3) geotechnical report prepared and  Recordation

  A geotechnical report evaluating areas for roadways and submitted to DPW  of Final

  other structures within the public right-of-way will be   Map for

  required before recording final maps. Public Works)   Phases 2 &

     3

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071)

NZEEMIM

Page 11

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�     

23.  PWSP001-ENCROACHMENT NON-STANDARD) Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

  ALL PHASES WHERE APPLICABLE) Improvements  The applicant shall Owner Building/

  All Road improvements and driveway encroachments design and install road improvements to  Grading

  shall conform to the design standards of the Monterey in accordance with the design standards  Permit

  County Department of Public Works, or other applicable of the Monterey County Department of  Issuance

  agency. All road improvements shall be installed to the Public Works or the standards of the  

  standards applied to public County Roads. Public applicable agency in which the  

  Works) improvements are constructed. Applicant  

   is responsible to obtain all permits and

envir-onmental clearances  

24.  PWSPO02  IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT NON- Subdivision  The applicant shall enter Applicant/ Prior to

  STANDARD) ALL PHASES WHERE into an agreement in the form and Owner/ Recordatio

  APPLICABLE) manner prescribed by the Department Subdivider n of the

  Enter into an agreement with the County of Monterey to of Public Works to install Engineer's  Final Maps

  install Engineer's Equipment Road and all required on-site Equipment Road and all required on-  

  and off-site improvements. Public Works) site and off-site improvements.  

25.  PWSPO03  IMPROVEMENT PLANS NON- Subdivision  The applicant shall Applicant/ Prior to

  STANDARD) ALL PHASES) submit subdivision improvement plans Owner/ Recordatio

  Provide improvement plans for approval of the containing information required by Subdivider/ n of the

  Department of Public Works. Public Works) conditions of approval for this project, Engineer Final Map

   where applicable, to the Public Works  

   Department and the Planning  

   Department for Review and approval  

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071)

Page 12

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�26. PWSPO04  NON-ACCESS STRIP NON- Subdivision The easements shall be Applicant/ Prior to

STANDARD) PRIOR TO PHASE 1) shown on the final map(s). Owner/ Recordatio

A one-foot wide non-access strip shall be dedicated to Subdivider/ n of the

the County of Monterey in the following locations: Engineer Final Map

27.

1. along the Inter-Garrison Road frontage of Lots 1,

7-14, and Parcel D except for those locations

identified as access driveways for Lot 1;

aiongr

ngmeeri s

r_c

pment Road frontage

for Lots 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 except for those locations

identified as access driveways for Lot 1; and

3. Along the Whispering Oaks Way frontage for

Lots 11 and 12.

The non-access strips shall be reflected in the final map.

Public Works)

PWSPO05  DEDICATION NON-STANDARD)

Dedicate to the County of Monterey, Engineers

Equipment Road for street and right-of-way purposes.

Public Works)

Subdivision  Subdivider's Surveyor

shall include dedication of public roads

on final map.

Health Department

Environmental Health Bureau

Subdivider

Prior to

Recordatio

n of the

Final Map

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 13

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�     

28.  EH28  HAZ MAT BUSINESS RESPONSE PLAN MST Use Permit  Submit the signed Owner/ Prior to

  PHASE I) BRP MOU form available from EHD) Applicant/ recordation

  Comply with Title 19 of the California Code of that specifies the requirements of MST of final

  Regulations and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health Chapter 6.95 of the California Health  maps/ on-

  and Safety Code Hazardous Material Registration and and Safety Code. An approved BRP  going

  Business Response Plans) as approved by the Director must be on file with HMMS prior to  

  of Environmental Health. Environmental Health) bringing hazardous materials on site  

   and/or commencement of operation.  

   Once approved, the applicant shall

maintain an ttp-te4ate-]~~  

29.  EH30  HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL PHASE MST Use Permit  Contact the Owner/ Prior to

  I) Hazardous Materials Program of the Applicant/ recordation

  Comply with Title 22, Division 4.5 of the California Division of Environmental Health. MST of final

  Code of Regulations and Chapter 6.50 of the California   maps/

  Health and Safety Code Hazardous Waste Control) as   ongoing as

  approved by the Director of Environmental Health.   needed

  Environmental Health)   

30.   MST Use Permit  Submit plans to the Owner/ Prior to

  EH33  VEHICLES/PARTS IMPERVIOUS Division of Environmental Health for Applicant/ recordation

  SURFACE PHASE I) review and approval. MST of the final

  All vehicles or parts stored for longer than 72 hours that   map.

  contain gasoline, oils, lubricants, coolants, or any other   

  hazardous materials/wastes shall be stored indoors.   

  Environmental Health)   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 14

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�31.

 c 1 fi~Fl`

0

EH34  HAZ MAT SPCC PHASE I)

Submit a site Spill Prevention Control Countermeasure

SPCC) Plan to the California Regional Water Quality

Control Board for storage of petroleum products i.e.

diesel, oil, and gasoline) in above ground storage tanks

greater than 650-gallon capacity or for cumulative

storage of more than 1,320 gallons. The Plan shall

meet the standards as per Title 26, Division 22, Article

ons 66264.30-66264.56

32.

areanessan

Prevention). Environmental Health)

0

EHSP001 LANDFILL BUFFER REQUIREMENTS

NON-STANDARD)

Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the

applicant or parcel owner shall retain an independent

licensed professional engineer familiar with land fill gas

controls to design the specific land fill gas protection

features appropriate to the structures proposed. The

design shall consider the possibility that an on-site

subsurface wastewater disposal system may act as a gas

collector and pathway into the structures. The final

design should be consistent with California Code of

Regulations, Title 27, Section 21190 Post closure Land

Use. The building plans shall be submitted to

Environmental Health Bureau EHB) for review and

approval.

Environmental Health)

 R f

Mj$r~1~ Fi~1y~i'

Mul

MST Use Permit  Submit plan to the Owner/ Prior to

Hazardous Materials Program of the Applicant/ recordation

Division of Environmental Health for MST of the final

review and approval. map.

MST Use Permit  Submit specific Owner/ Prior to the

land fill gas protection design from an Applicant/ issuance of

independent licensed professional MST grading/

engineer to EHB for review and building

approval.

Monterey County Water Resources Agency

t old d:'

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 15

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�WR41  NOTICE OF WATER CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS ALL PHASES)

A note shall be placed on the final map or a separate sheet to be recorded with the final map stating: All new construction shall incorporate the use of low water use plumbing fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping, in

accordance with County Water Resources Agency

Ordinance No. 3932." The note shall be located in a

conspicuous manner subject to the approval of the

L__ Director

of Public Works and the Water Resources

33.   Subdivision  Place note on map or a Owner/ Prior to the

   separate sheet and submit to the RMA  Applicant recordation

   Planning Department and the Water  of final

   Resources Agency for review and  map.

   approval.  

  Agency for approval. Water Resources Agency)   

34.  WRSP001  DRAINAGE NOTE NON- Subdivision  Submit a copy of the Owner/ Prior to

  STANDARD) WHISPERING OAKS  PHASES 2 final map to be recorded, with Applicant recordation

  & 3) appropriate note, to the Water  of the final

  A note shall be recorded on the final map stating: Resources Agency for review and  map

  Impervious surface stormwater runoff shall be directed approval.  

  to the stormwater drainage system for the Whispering   

  Oaks Subdivision. If stormwater runoff from an   

  individual lot cannot be directed to the subdivision   

  drainage improvements, a drainage plan shall be   

  prepared by a registered civil engineer or architect prior   

  to issuance of any related grading or building permits.   

  Drainage improvements shall be constructed in   

  accordance with plans approved by the Water Resources   

  Agency." The applicant shall provide the Water   

  Resources Agency a copy of the map to be recorded.   

  Water Resources Agency)   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 16

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�     

35.  WRSP002  COMPLETION CERTIFICATION Condition of Permits  A note shall be Owner/ Prior to

  NON-STANDARD) ALL PHASES) added to the General Development Applicant recordation

  A note shall be added to the General Development Plans Plans requiring submittal of a letter to  of final

  for MST and Whispering Oaks Business Park requiring the Water Resources Agency, prepared  maps/

  that certification be provided to the Water Resources by a registered civil engineer or  Prior to

  Agency, from a registered civil engineer or licensed licensed contractor, certifying  issuance of

  contractor, that the stormwater retention/detention compliance with approved drainage  any

  facilities required for each phase have been constructed plans.  building

  in accordance with plans approved pursuant to 

 permits

Fire Agency

Monterey County Regional Fire District)

36.  FIRE008  GATES ALL PHASES WHERE Condition of General Development Applicant Prior to

  APPLICABLE) Plans  Applicant shall incorporate or owner/ recordation

  All gates providing access from a road to a driveway specification into design and enumerate MST of final

  shall be located at least 30 feet from the roadway and as Fire Dept. Notes" in the General  maps/ Notes

  shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing Development Plan.  shall also be

  traffic on the road. Gate entrances shall be at least the   included on

  width of the traffic lane but in no case less than 12 feet   building

  wide. Where a one-way road with a single traffic lane   plans prior

  provides access to a gated entrance, a 40-foot turning   to issuance

  radius shall be used. Where gates are to be locked, the   of Building

  installation of a key box or other acceptable means for   permits for

  immediate access by emergency equipment may be   MST

  required. Monterey County Regional Fire District) MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to final

   schedule fire dept. clearance inspection or owner/ building

    MST inspection

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 17

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�     

37.  FIRE010 ROAD SIGNS ALL PHASES WHERE Subdivision  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to

  APPLICABLE) incorporate specification into design or owner filing of

  All newly constructed or approved roads and streets and enumerate as Fire Dept. Notes" on  final map.

  shall be designated by names or numbers, posted on improvement plans.  

  signs clearly visible and legible from the roadway. Size   

  of letters, numbers and symbols for street and road signs   

  shall be a minimum 4-inch letter height, /2-inch stroke,   

  and shall be a color that is reflective and clearly   

  contrasts with the background color of the sign. All   

  numera-ls   

  non-combustible and shall be visible and legible from   

  both directions of vehicle travel for a distance of at least   

  100 feet. Height, visibility, legibility, and orientation of   

  street and road signs shall be meet the provisions of   

  Monterey County Ordinance No. 1241. This section   

  d

i

i

b   

  oes not requ

re any ent

ty to rename or renum

er   

  existing roads or streets, nor shall a roadway providing Subdivision  Applicant shall schedule Applicant Prior to

  access only to a single commercial or industrial fire dept. clearance inspection for each or owner issuance of

  occupancy require naming or numbering. Signs phase of development.  building

  required under this section identifying intersecting   permit(s) for

  roads, streets and private lanes shall be placed at the   develop-

  intersection of those roads, streets and/or private lanes.   ment on

  Signs identifying traffic access or flow limitations i.e.,   individual

  weight or vertical clearance limitations, dead-end road,   lots within

  one-way road or single lane conditions, etc.) shall be   the phase of

  placed: a) at the intersection preceding the traffic access   the subdivi-

  limitation; and b) not more than 100 feet before such   sion.

  traffic access limitation. Road, street and private lane   

  signs required by this article shall be installed prior to   

  final acceptance of road improvements by the   

  Reviewing Fire Authority. Monterey County   

  Regional Fire District   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 18

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�     

38.  FIRE011  ADDRESSES FOR BUILDINGS PHASE MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to

  I) incorporate specification into design or owner/ issuance of

  All buildings shall be issued an address in accordance and enumerate as Fire Dept. Notes" on MST building

  with Monterey County Ordinance No. 1241. Each plans.  permit.

  occupancy, except accessory buildings, shall have its   

  own permanently posted address. When multiple   

  occupancies exist within a single building, each   

  individual occupancy shall be separately identified by its   

  own address. Letters, numbers and symbols for   

  y   

  ddrvsses-shalzl be a v.:;..,,,m of inch-h$jgh 142-inc11    

  stroke, contrasting with the background color of the   

  sign, and shall be Arabic. The sign and numbers shall   

  be reflective and made of a noncombustible material.   

  Address signs shall be placed at each driveway entrance MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to final

  and at each driveway split. Address signs shall be and schedule fire dept. clearance inspection or owner/ building

  visible from both directions of travel along the road. In  MST inspection

  all cases, the address shall be posted at the beginning of   

  construction and shall be maintained thereafter. Address   

  signs along one-way roads shall be visible from both   

  directions of travel. Where multiple addresses are   

  required at a single driveway, they shall be mounted on   

  a single sign. Where a roadway provides access solely   

  to a single commercial occupancy, the address sign shall   

  be placed at the nearest road intersection providing   

  access to that site. Permanent address numbers shall be   

  posted prior to requesting final clearance. Monterey   

  County Regional Fire District   

39.  FIRE021  FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT & MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to

  SYSTEMS  FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM enumerate as Fire Dept. Notes" on or owner/ issuance of

  STANDARD) PHASE I) plans. MST building

  The building(s) and attached garage(s) shall be fully   permit.

  protected with automatic fire sprinkler system(s).   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 19

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�  Installation shall be in accordance with the applicable MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to

  NFPA standard. A minimum of four 4) sets of plans schedule fire dept. rough sprinkler or owner/ framing

  for fire sprinkler systems must be submitted by a inspection MST inspection

  California licensed C-16 contractor and approved prior   

  to installation. This requirement is not intended to delay   

  issuance of a building permit. A rough sprinkler MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to final

  inspection must be scheduled by the installing contractor schedule fire dept. final sprinkler or owner/ building

  and completed prior to requesting a framing inspection. inspection MST inspection

  Monterey County Regional Fire District)   

40.  FIRE023  FIRE ALARM SYSTEM  MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to

  COMMERCIAL) PAHSE I) enumerate as Fire Dept. Notes" on or owner/ issuance of

  The building(s) shall be fully protected with an plans. MST building

  approved central station, proprietary station, or remote   permit.

  station automatic fire alarm system as defined by NFPA MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to

  Standard 72. Plans and specifications for the fire alarm submit fire alarm plans and obtain or owner/ rough

  system shall be submitted by a California licensed C-10 approval. MST sprinkler or

  contractor and approved prior to requesting a rough   framing

  sprinkler or framing inspection. Monterey County   inspection

  Regional Fire District) MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to final

   schedule fire alarm system acceptance or owner/ building

   test. MST inspection

41.  FIRE026  ROOF CONSTRUCTION STANDARD) MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to

  PHASE 1) enumerate as Fire Dept. Notes" on or owner/ issuance of

  All new structures, and all existing structures receiving plans. MST building

  new roofing over 50 percent or more of the existing roof   permit.

  surface within a one-year period, shall require a   

  minimum of ICBO Class B roof construction.   

  Monterey Coun Regional Fire District   

42.  FIRE030  NON-STANDARD CONDITIONS MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to the

  ROAD ACCESS PHASE I) obtain fire district's approval of the or owner/ approval of

  Access roads shall be required for every building when subdivision improvement plans. MST the final

  any portion of the exterior wall of the first stoEyy is   map-

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 20

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �C�     

  located more than 150 feet from fire department access. MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to the

  All roads shall be constructed to provide a minimum enumerate this condition as a Fire or owner/ approval of

  width of 24 feet with an unobstructed vertical clearance Dept. Note" on the final map when MST the final

  of not less than 15 feet. The roadway surface shall improvements are to be bonded.  map.

  provide unobstructed access to conventional drive MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to

  vehicles including sedans and fire apparatus and shall be obtain fire code official's approval of or owner/ issuance of

  an all-weather surface designed to support the imposed the roadway construction. MST any

  load of fire apparatus 22 tons). Each road shall have an   subsequent

  approved name. Monterey County Regional Fire   construction

  District---   perms

     within the

     development

   MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to

   obtain fire code official's approval of or owner/ issuance of

   the Lot I site improvement plans. MST construction

     permit.

   MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to the

   enumerate this condition as a Fire or owner/ issuance of

   Dept. Note" on the construction plans. MST construction

     permit

   MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to

   obtain fire code official's approval of or owner/ issuance of

   the on-site roadway construction. MST any

     subsequent

     construction

     permit

     within the

     development

43.  FIRE030  NON-STANDARD CONDITIONS MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to

   FIRE ALARM SYSTEM  enumerate as Fire Dept. Notes" on or owner/ issuance of

  COMMERCIAL) PHASE I) plans. MST construction

  Any sprinklered building having 100 or more fire   permit.

  sprinklers shall be fully protected with an approved   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 21

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION � C�     

  central station, proprietary station, or remote station MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to

  automatic fire alarm system as defined by NFPA submit fire alarm plans to the fire or owner/ rough

  Standard 72. Plans and specifications for the fire alarm district and obtain approval. MST sprinkler or

  system shall be submitted by a California licensed C-10   framing

  contractor and approved prior to requesting a rough   inspection

  sprinkler or framing inspection. Monterey County MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to

  Regional Fire District obtain fire department approval of the or owner/ occupancy

   fire alarm system final inspection and MST 

   acceptance test.  

   44:       FIRE63O-TON=STANDARD CONDITIONS-    Subdivision  Applicant shaTobtam- Applicant Prior to the

  HYDRANTS AND FIRE FLOW- ALL PHASES) fire code official's approval of the or owner approval of

  Hydrants for fire protection shall be provided at subdivision water system improvement  the final map.

  locations approved by the Monterey County Regional plans.  

  Fire District and shall conform to the following   

  requirements:   

  FIRE FLOW  Pursuant to California Fire Code   

  Appendix B, the minimum fire flow requirement for Subdivision  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to the

  91,000 square foot commercial facilities built with enumerate this condition as a Fire or owner approval of

  Type IIB construction is 6,500 gallons per minute with Dept. Note" on the final map when  the final map.

  a residual pressure of 20 psi under normal operating improvements are to be bonded.  

  conditions for a duration of 4 hours. Fire flow for   

  facilities protected with automatic fire sprinkler   

  systems may be reduced to 3,250 gallons per minute   

  with a residual pressure of 20 psi under normal   

  operating conditions for a duration of 4 hours   

TIMING OF INSTALLATION  Approved fire

Subdivision  Applicant shall obtain

Applicant

Prior to

  protection water supply systems must be installed and fire code official's approval of the or owner issuance of

  made serviceable prior to the time of construction.   

HYDRANT/FIRE VALVE ADDITION)  A   subsequent

new hydrant shall be installed.   construction

permit within

  HYDRANT/FIRE VALVE LOCATION)  The   the

     development.

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 22

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �!C�     

R`.     

  hydrant or fire valve shall be 18 inches above grade, 8 MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to

  feet from flammable vegetation, no closer than 4 feet obtain fire code official's approval of or owner/ issuance of

  nor further than 12 feet from a roadway, and in a the on-site private water system MST construction

  location where fire apparatus using it will not block the improvement plans.  permit.

  roadway.   

  FIRE HYDRANTS  Hydrants shall be installed   

  in accordance with spacing set forth in California Fire   

  Code Appendix C and in accordance with the following MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to

  specifications:

HYDRANT enumerate this condition as a Fire

 or owner/ issuance of

  SIZE  The hydrant shall have a Dept. Note" on the building MST construction

  minimum of two 2) 2-1/2 inch outlets NST and one 1) construction plans.  permit.

  4-1/2 inch outlet NST. The riser shall be a minimum of   

  six 6) inches and shall be wet barrel type with a   

  coefficient of 0.9.   

  SIGNING OF WATER SOURCES

H

d

t   

y

ran

or   

  fire valve identification may be allowed as specified in MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to

  the State Fire Marshal's Guidelines for Fire Hydrant obtain fire code official's approval of or owner/ occupancy.

Markings Along State Highways and Freeways, May the

c

e

private water system

MST 

  1988. t

consstructtru

ion

construction.  

  Monterey County Regional Fire District   

45.  FIRE030 NON-STANDARD CONDITIONS  MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to

  EMERGENCY ACCESS KEYBOX PHASE I) incorporate specification into design or owner/ issuance of

  Emergency access keybox shall be installed and and enumerate as Fire Dept. Notes" on MST construction

  maintained. The type and location shall be approved by plans.  permit.

  the fire department. The fire department shall be   

  notified when locks are changed so that the emergency MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to final

  access keybox can be maintained with current keys. install the emergency access keybox or owner/ building

  Monterey County Regional Fire District and obtain approval of a final fire dept. MST inspection.

   inspection.  

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 23

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �"C�     

46.  FIRE030  NON-STANDARD CONDITIONS  MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to

  PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS PHASE 1) incorporate specification into design or owner/ issuance of

  Portable fire extinguishers shall be installed and and enumerate as Fire Dept. Notes" on MST building

  maintained in accordance with NFPA Standard 10. plans.  permit.

  Monterey County Regional Fire District   

   MST Use Permit  Applicant shall Applicant Prior to final

   install the portable fire extinguishers or owner/ building

   and obtain approval of a final fire dept. MST inspection.

   inspection.  

Sheriffs Department

47.  SHERIFFSP001- PUBLIC SAFETY AND MST Use Permit The developer must Owner/ Prior to

  SECURITY GUIDELINES NON-STANDARD) submit plans to the Sheriff's Office for Applicant/ recordation

  ALL PHASES) review and approval. MST of final

  Prior to issuance of building permits for MST the   maps.

  applicant or developer must comply with the Monterey   

  County Public Safety and Security Guidelines to the   

  satisfaction of the Monterey County Sheriffs Office.   

  These guidelines require the applicant to work with the   

  Sheriff's Office to implement satisfactory public safety   

  and security measures in new development both private   

  and commercial. The Sheriff has the discretion to modify   

  requirements on a case-by case basis to suit the needs of   

  individual applicants and the community. Sheriffs   

  Department)   

Mitigation Measures

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 24

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �#C�48. AQ-1. MM001- DUST CONTROL PLAN ALL PHASES) Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

  Prior to issuance of the tree removal, grading, or building Improvements  The applicant shall Developer/ issuance of

  permits, the applicant shall prepare a dust control plan for submit a dust control plan to the RMA Contractor the tree

  submittal to and approval of the Monterey County  Planning Department for review and  removal,

  planning director. approval.  grading, or

  The dust control plan shall be implemented for all   building

  construction sites when total project area under grading   permits or

  exceeds 2.2 acres per day. The dust control plan shall limit   prior to

  onsite construction emissions to 82 pounds per day. As   recordation

  uore detailed construction in

form

ati

on becomes ilable    

   o

thefnal

  emissions from grading activities should be reassessed to   map

  determine if the area of grading could be increased.   whichever

  The following measures shall be included in the dust   occurs first

  control

lan:   

  p   

  1

W

t

ll

ti

i Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

a

er a

ac

ve construct

on areas at least twice daily   

  and more often during windy periods. Active areas Improvements  The contractor shall Developer/ commencem

  adjacent to existing businesses should be kept damp at appoint a qualified site monitor to Contractor ent of

  all times. If necessary, during windy period, watering ensure that the dust control plan is  construction

  is to occur on all days of the week regardless of onsite implemented.  activities

  activities.   

  2. Cover all trucks hauling trucks or maintain at least   

  two feet of freeboard.   

  3. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non-   

  toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,   

  parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.   

  4. Sweep daily all paved access roads, parking areas and   

  staging areas at construction sites.   

  5. Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is deposited Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Monthly

  onto the adjacent roads. Improvements  The applicant shall Developer/ during

  6. Hydroseed or apply non-toxic) soil stabilizers to submit reports to the RMA  Planning Contractor grading and

  inactive construction areas previously graded areas Department for review and approval,  construction

  inactive for ten days or more). describing actions taken during  activities

  7. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic) construction in compliance with the  

  soil binders to exposed stockpiles. dust control plan I I I 1~

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 25

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �$C�     

  8. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

  9. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as Improvements  A note shall be added Developer/ Recordation

  possible. to the final map stating that A dust MST of the final

  10. Suspend excavation and grading activity when hourly- control plan has been approved by the  map

  average winds exceed 15 mph and visible dust clouds RMA  Planning Department and all  

  cannot be contained within the site. grading shall be done in accordance  

  RMA  Planning Department) with the approved plan."  

49. AQ-2. MM002  DIESEL EQUIPMENT AND Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

  PARTICULATE MATTER ALL PHASES) Improvements  The applicant shall Developer/  building or

  All effiraad en greater-than require in construction contract that all Contractor grading

  100 horsepower that will be used on site for more than one off-road construction vehicles comply  permits or

  week shall: 1) be manufactured during or after 1996, and with the specifications outlined in the  recordation

  2) shall meet the NOX emissions standard of 6.9 grams mitigation measure, and shall submit a  of final

  per brake-horsepower hour. Alternatively, the project shall report to the Planning Department  maps

  implement a combination of the following emission demonstrating compliance.  whichever

  reduction measures on some or all of the above described   occurs first

  vehicles and equipment, subject to approval by the   

  MBUAPCD:   

  1

Use alternative fuels such as biodiesel blends); Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

2. Require diesel particulate matter filters on equipment; Improvements  The project proponent Developer/ commencem

  3. Require diesel oxidation catalyst on equipment; shall submit a written roster of Contractor ent of

  4. Install temporary electrical service whenever possible equipment anticipated to be used on the  grading

  to avoid the need for independently powered project site, including fuel use  

  equipment e.g. compressors). information on each to the RMA   

  5. Enforce state required idle restrictions e.g., post Planning Department and MBUAPCD.  

  signs). Diesel equipment standing idle for more than   

  five minutes shall be turned off. This would include   

  trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate or   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 26

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �%C�     

  other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Monthly

  may keep their engines running continuously as long Improvements  The contractor shall Developer/ During

  as they were onsite and staged away from residential keep a certified daily log of each Contractor grading and

  areas. activity performed during construction  construction

  6. Properly tune and maintain equipment for low including date and photographs, as  activities

  emissions. necessary. Monthly reports shall be  

  7. Stage large diesel-powered equipment at least 100 feet submitted to the Monterey County  

  from any active land uses e.g., residences). Planning and Building Inspection  

  8. Limit the hours of operation for heavy-duty Department. Failure to submit a report,  

   mplywith the.--    

  RMA- Planning Department and MBUAPCD) requirements of the mitigation measure,  

   shall cause all work to be stopped until  

   the report is received and approved by  

   the Monterey County Planning  

   Department.  

50. BIO-1. MM003  AVOIDANCE AND PROTECTION OF Condition of Permits and Applicant/ Prior to tree

  LISTED PLANT SPECIES ALL PHASES) Subdivision Improvements  Obtain Developer/ removal or

  Disturbance or relocation of sand Gilia shall be done in Section 2081 permit from CDFG to Biologist grading

  conformance with an approved 2081 Permit from the allow for disturbance in areas known to  activities or

  California Department of Fish and Game. The Monterey support sand gilia.  recordation

  Ceanotus shall be flagged for avoidance and fenced off as   of the Final

  described in BIO-13.   Map

  RMA  Planning Department)   whichever

     occurs first

   MST  Flag and fence Monterey Applicant/ Prior to

   Ceanothus prior to any construction Developer/ Construction

   activity. Biologist/ 

    MST 

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 27

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �&C�a3".aLX., w.�ua+.'dtf+r t`8r',3yf prz7 t4

Condition of Permits and

Subdivision Improvements  Reports

documenting compliance with

mitigation requirements shall be

submitted RMA- Planning for

review.

51.

BIO-2.

MM004  2081 TAKE") PERMIT REQUIRED

ALL PHASES)

The County of Monterey has consulted with the CDFG

regar dffiing the potential for take of sand gilia within the

entire landfill site and the agencies have agreed upon an

acceptable mitigation strategy for the proposed impacts.

Under this mitigation strategy, none of the project site

would need to be preserved or restored, and the site could

be developed in its entirety. However, the County has not

obtained a permit for incidental take of sand gilia on the

landfill parcel, including the project site, at this time.

Therefore, no vegetation removal, grading, or other

ground-disturbing construction activities that may result in

take of the sand gilia populations shall occur prior to the

issuance of a Section 2081 permit.

RMA  Planning Department)

Condition of Permits and Subdivision

Improvements  The applicant shall

provide evidence of the issuance-ii a___

Section 2081 permit.

Condition of Permits and Subdivision

Improvements  Reports documenting

compliance with mitigation

requirements shall be submitted to

Monterey County Department of

Planning and Building Inspection.

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 28

Applicant/

Developer

Applicant/

Developer

Prior to

grading

er its or- 

recordation

of final

maps

whichever

occurs first

Weekly

during

grading

activities

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �'C�

Pl PRA F BtA>g: 7  & Pffftp # t1'M_?

52. BIO-3. MM005 AVOIDANCE OF PROTECTED PLANT Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

  SPECIES OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 1 Improvements  Surveys for Monterey Developer/ Ground

  & 2  OFF-SITE IMPROVMENTS) spineflower, sand gilia, coast Biologist Disturbance

  The applicant shall have a qualified biologist develop a wallflower, and Kellogg's horkelia  or

  species protection plan for each species found at the site. shall occur during the blooming period  recordation

  The species protection plan shall include the following: in spring. Additional surveys for  of the final

   Avoidance criteria necessary for plant Yadon's rein orchid shall occur during  maps

  protection; the blooming period in the summer. If  whichever

   Fencing Plan individuals of this species are found,  occurs first

the UYte fl7ftd lldhf8_-  

   Follow-up surveys and reports. Service and the California Department  

  The plan shall be submitted to the RMA  Planning of Fish and Game shall be consulted to  

  Department for Review and approval. determine the appropriate course of  

  If species are found and cannot be avoided, the applicant action.  

  shall consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

  Service and the California Department of Fish and Game Improvements  If surveys find the Developer/ Ground

  to determine the appropriate course of action. presence of the species of concern, the Biologist Disturbance

  RMA-Planning Department) applicant shall have a qualified  or

   biologist prepare a species protection  recordation

   plan demonstrating avoidance of all the  of final

   subject species. The plan shall be  maps

   submitted to the RMA Planning  whichever

   Department for review and approval.  occurs first

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 29

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �(C�   

53. BI 4. MM006  CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

  TAKE AUTHORIZATION Improvements  A note shall be Developer/ recordation

  For development of Lot 1, off-site drainage included on the final map or separate Biologist of Final

  improvements, and road improvements to Intergarrison sheet to be recorded with the final map  Maps/

  Road and Engineer's Equipment Road Phase 1) and that: all development shall be  During all

  development of Lots 2, 3, 7, and 8 with improvement to monitored by a qualified Biologist  ground

  Whispering Oaks Drive part of Phase 2): All consistent with Mitigation Measure  disturbing

  development shall be monitored by a qualified biologist BIO-5, including monitoring and  and

  consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-5. If at any time reporting indicating that the biologist  vegetation

  CahforniaTigerSalamandersare, fou�nrlin_~rthe   was-en-site-idur-l-ngvegetation-removal--   removal-

  development area, all construction shall cease, and the and grading activities and explaining  activities.

  Department of Fish & Game and U.S. Fish & Wildlife any observations of California Tiger  

  shall be consulted. Development may not resume until Salamander.  

  clearance from Fish & Game and Fish & Wildlife is   

  secured.   

  F

th

i

i

i

i

Ph

2

L

4

5

6 Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

  or

e rema

n

ng

mprovements

n

ase

ots

  and 10, Parcel B, and the remaining Whispering Oaks Improvements  Provide evidence to Developer/ ground

  Drive improvements) and all of Phase 3 Lots 12 16): the RMA  Planning Department that Biologist disturbance

  Prior to the initiation of any ground-disturbing activities, criteria for a Negative Finding have  outside the

  including vegetation removal and grading, the applicant been met, or that the requirements of  area fenced

  shall comply with one of the following three approaches: the ESA or HCP will be implemented.  in

  1. Conduct protocol surveys to determine the presence or   accordance

  absence of California tiger salamander within Lots 4,   with part 1

  5, 6, 10, 12-16, and Parcel B. Protocol surveys   of this

  conducted in compliance with the protocols outlined   condition

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 30

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �)C�     

  in the /Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ During

  Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Improvements  Contract with a Developer/ construction

  Finding of the California Tiger Salamander /(USFWS qualified biologist to provide reports Biologist outside the

  October 2003). Two consecutive years of upland drift for submittal to the RMA  Planning  area fenced

  fence studies are required. Fencing arrays shall be Department as may be required by  in

  installed and approved by USFWS prior to October 15 conditions of the Incidental Take  accordance

  of each survey year. Surveys shall continue until Permit or Fort Ord HCP.  with part 1

  individuals are found or the criteria for a Negative   of this

  Finding are met. If individuals are found, either   condition.

  ppreach or3-shalfbe mplem`nte;   

  2. If the presence of California tiger salamander is   

  documented or the applicant chooses to assume the   

  species is present, the project shall comply with the   

  ESA and CESA and obtain Incidental Take   

  Authorization from the USFWS and CDFG for the   

  loss of California tiger salamander individuals and   

  upland habitat associated with construction and   

  operation of the project; or   

  3. Following adoption of the Fort Ord HCP and issuance   

  of base-wide federal and state incidental take permits,   

  all applicable conditions of the HCP shall be followed   

  and individual incidental take permits are not required.   

  RMA  Planning Departmeng   

54. BIO-5. MM007  BIOLOGICAL MONITOR AND Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

  CONTRACTOR/EMPLOYEE EDUCATION ALL Improvements  Conduct an Employee Developer/ recordation

  PHASES) Education Program for the construction Biologist of final

  For all development areas: prior to construction activities, crew on the points listed in the  maps/ Prior

  project proponents shall retain a qualified biologist to mitigation measure. Submit evidence of  to issuance

  monitor construction. The biological monitor shall training to Monterey County RMA   of grading

  conduct an Employee Education Program for the Planning Department. A note shall be  permits

  construction crew. The biologist shall meet with the added to the General Development  

  construction crew at the project site at the onset of Plans requiring compliance with this  

  construction to educate the construction crew on the condition.  

  following:   

   A review of the project boundaries including those   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 31

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �*C�     

  established under Condition 15; Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

   All special-status species that may be present, their Improvements  Submit a monitoring Developer/ foundation

  habitat, and proper identification; report following completion of grading Biologist inspection

   The specific mitigation measures and success criteria activities prepared by a qualified  

  that will be incorporated into the construction effort biologist demonstrating compliance  

  Measures BIO-6 through BIO-9); with the biological mitigations for the  

   The general provisions and protections afforded by the project.  

  USFWS and CDFG; and   

   The proper procedures if a special-status animal is   

  pr_Poject cite-                 

   Planning Departmeng   

55. BIO-6. MM008  BIOLOGICAL MONITOR DUTIES AND Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

  AUTHORITY ALL PHASES) Improvements  A policy shall be Developer/ recordation

  For all development areas: The biological monitor shall be added to the General Development Contractors of Final

  onsite during initial grading and vegetation removal Plans stating that a biological monitor / Biologist/ Maps/

  activities to protect any special-status species encountered. shall be onsite during grading activities MST During

  The qualified biologist shall identify and explain the to stop work and take appropriate  construction

  protection methods during the Employer Education action consistent with the DFG take"  activities

  Program as described in Mitigation Measure BIO-5. These authorization requirements and the  

  methods could include, but are not limited to, stopping conditions of project approval.  

  k i

th

h

th

i

l i

t

til i

d   

  wor

n

e area w

ere

e an

ma

s encoun

ere

un

t

h

it

d

t

id

th

it

k

Condition of Permits and Subdivision

Applicant/

Monthly

  as move

s own ou

 on

e

e project s

e or ta

s

e   

  appropriate action consistent with the DFG take" Improvements  Reports documenting Developer/ during

  authorization requirements. compliance with biological mitigation Contractors construction

  RMA  Planning Department) requirements, prepared by the /Biologist/ 

   biological monitor, shall be submitted MST 

   to Monterey County RMA  Planning  

   Department monthly during  

   construction activities.  

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071)

Page 32

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �+C�     

56.  MM009  DUSKY FOOTED WOODRAT ALL Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

  PHASES) Improvements  Retain a qualified Developer/ grading or

  For all development areas: To avoid and reduce impacts to biologist to conduct focused pre- Biologist/ vegetation

  the Monterey dusky footed woodrat, project proponents construction survey for dusky footed MST removal

  shall retain a qualified, CDFG approved biologist to woodrat nests in all areas proposed for  

  conduct pre construction surveys within three day prior to construction, ground disturbance, or  

  construction for woodrat nests within the project area and staging two weeks prior to construction.  

  in a buffer zone 100 feet out from the limit of disturbance. Provide evidence of the survey and the  

  All woodrat nests shall be flagged for avoidance of direct results to the RMA  Planning  

  construction impacts, where feasible, Any active nP~ that-

 Pa-Drm nt-pr-ienta construction

epar-----  

  not be in areas of grading or vegetation removal will

will activities.  

  be avoided and protected during project activities with a   

  minimum 25 foot buffer. Nests that cannot be avoided   

  shall be manually deconstructed prior to land clearing   

  activities to allow animals to escape harm and to   

  reestablish territories for the next breeding season. Nests   

  shall be dismantled during the non-breeding season,   

  between October 1 and December 31. Dismantling shall   

  be done by hand, allowing any animals to escape either   

  along existing woodrat trails or toward other available   

  habitat. If a letter of young is found or suspected, nest   

  material shall be replaced, and the nest left alone for three   

  weeks before rechecking the nest to verify that young are   

  capable of independent survival before proceeding with   

  nest dismantling.   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 33

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �,C�     

57. BIO-8. MM010  AMERICAN BADGER ALL PHASES) Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Survey/

  For all development areas: To avoid and reduce impacts to Improvements  Retain a qualified Developer/ report no

  the American badger, project proponents shall retain a biologist to conduct focused pre- Biologist more than

  qualified biologist to conduct focused pre-construction construction survey for badger dens in  two weeks

  surveys for badger dens in all areas proposed for all areas proposed for construction,  prior to

  construction, ground disturbance, or staging no more than ground disturbance, or staging two  construction

  two weeks prior to construction. If no potential badger weeks prior to construction. Provide  

  dens are present, no further mitigation is required. If evidence of the survey and the results  

  potential dens are observed, the following measures are to the RMA  Planning Department  

     recuir avoid potential sig ificant lpacts to the ter to con~tr tiertacttvttles.  

  American badger:   

   If the qualified biologist determines that potential dens   

  are inactive, the biologist shall excavate these dens by   

  h

d

ith

h

l

d

i

b

f   

  an

w

a s

ove

to prevent

a

gers

rom re-us

ng

th

d

i

t

ti

Condition of Permits and Subdivision

Applicant/

Ongoing

  em

ur

ng cons

ruc

on.   

   If the qualified biologist determines that potential dens Improvements  The biological Developer/ during

  may be active, the entrances of the dens shall be monitor shall be onsite to stop work Biologist grading and

  blocked with soil, sticks, and debris for three to five and cease work until the animal leaves  construction

  days to discourage the use of these dens prior to the site on it's own.  activities

  project disturbance. The den entrances shall be   

  blocked to an incrementally greater degree over the   

  three to five day period. After the qualified biologist   

  determines that badgers have stopped using active   

  dens within the project boundary, the dens shall be   

  hand-excavated with a shovel to prevent re-use during   

  construction.   

  RMA  Planning Department & DFG)   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 34

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �-C�

 rF

Yp t in t i('1 t r d a,  t r Safi i

z a< 5 94 thi a''gJ d

58. BIO-9. MM011- WHITE-TAILED KITE ALL PHASES) Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Survey/

  For all development areas: To avoid impacts to the white- Improvements  The applicant shall Developer/ report no

  tailed kite and other nesting raptors, construction activities time construction activities to avoid the Biologist more than 30

  can be timed to avoid the nesting season period. nesting season period. If construction  days prior to

  Specifically, tree removal can be scheduled after cannot be timed outside of the nesting  the start of

  September 1 and before January 31 to avoid impacts to period, pre-construction surveys shall  construction

  these species. Alternatively, if avoidance of the nesting be conducted for nesting raptors within  

  period is not feasible, pre-construction surveys shall be 300 feet of proposed construction  

  conducted for nesting raptors within 300 feet of proposed activities if construction. Reports  

  construction activities fconstruction is to h initiated  documenting compliance with      

  between February 1 and August 31. Pre-construction mitigation requirements shall be  

  surveys shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to submitted to Monterey County RMA   

  the start of construction. If nesting raptors are identified Planning Department.  

  during the pre-construction surveys, the CDFG shall be Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

  contacted and an appropriate no-disturbance buffer Improvements  Establish buffers in Developer/ issuance of

  imposed within which no construction activities or conjunction with CDFG if necessary. Biologist grading or

  disturbance shall take place generally 300 feet in all   building

  directions for raptors) until the young of the year have   permits

  fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental   

  care for survival, as determined by a qualified biologist Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

  and the CDFG. Improvements  Submit evidence of Developer/ issuance of

  RMA  Planning Department) CDFG compliance Biologist grading or

     building

     permits

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 35

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �.C�     

59. BIO-10. MM012  FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

  COMPLIANCE ALL PHASES) Improvements  A note shall be Developer/ grading or

  The applicant shall comply with the measures included in included with the final map stating that Contractors vegetation

  the Forest Management Plans that were prepared for the a Forest Management Plan has been /MST removal or

  MST and Whispering Oaks Business Park sites. The prepared for the MST site and the  Recordation

  Forest Management Plans include measures to avoid tree Whispering Oaks Business Park. All  of the Final

  removal and/or transplant trees whenever possible as well development shall be in accordance  Map

  as suitable mitigation ratios and planting areas. If off-site with the applicable Forest Management  whichever

  improvements result in disturbance to oak trees, the Plan. A policy shall also be added to  occurs first

  provisiousoftheMST Forest Manag entPlanshatl_  the-Generarleve-topmentPtansTo-thie-  

  apply to that off-site location. The applicant shall also same effect.  

  comply with the Oak tree preservation and recovery Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

  strategy prepared in compliance with the recommendation Improvements  Construction Developer/ grading or

  of the Forest Management Plan for effective supervisors shall review the Forest Contractors vegetation

  implementation. Management Plans and Oak tree /MST removal

  RMA  Planning Department) preservation and recovery strategy to  

   identify and prepare mitigation directed  

   Consistent with these reports.  

   Condition of Permits and Subdivision Owner/ Prior to

   Improvements  Protect, Preserve, and Applicant removal of

   replant trees in accordance with the  trees.

   reports.  

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 36

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �/C�     

60. 13I0-11. MM013  OAK WOODLAND HABITAT Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

  MITIGATION PLAN COMPLIANCE ALL Improvements  A note shall be Developer/ grading or

  PHASES) included with the final map stating that Contractors vegetation

  For both projects, in order to minimize impacts to Oak a Oak Woodland Habitat Mitigation /MST removal or

  woodlands and in compliance with PRC 21083.4: The Plan has been prepared for the MST  Recordation

  appropriate strategy for compliance, as identified in the Whispering Oaks Business Park  of the Final

  Oak Tree Preservation-Recovery Strategy for this project project. All tree removal and replanting  Map

  is as follows: shall be done in accordance with the  whichever

   Pay FORA impact fees for maintenance of permanent plan. A policy shall also be added to the  occurs first

   pen space in-the-For rd area---------------  GeneralT)eve pment?lans-to the same            

   The maximum amount of native oak trees as feasible effect.  

  for screening and habitat purposes shall be retained in Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ During

  coordination with a qualified arborist, the General Improvements  A qualified arborist Developer/ Construction

  Development Plans, and Condition # 15. shall be consulted as necessary Contractors 

   Trees shall be replanted in the landscaping areas, the regarding the best removal, protection, /MST 

  street frontages, the buffer areas, and within Parcel D. transplanting, planting and irrigation  

   Off-site replanting and habitat management or methods as construction proceeds.  

  payment of equivalent in-lieu fees to the Parks Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to final

  Department will occur. The Youth Camp parcel has Improvements  Submit a report to the Developer/ building

  been identified as an appropriate off-site mitigation RMA  Planning Department Contractors inspection

  area to achieve a minimum 1:1 replacement. demonstrating compliance with the  

  RMA  Planning Department) report and mitigation requirements  

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071)

Page 37

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �0C�     

61. BIO-12. MM014  TREE REPLACEMENT AND Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Two, five,

  MONITORING ALL PHASES) Improvements  A qualified arborist Developer and eight

  Two, five, and eight years following mitigation plantings, shall inspect replacement tree plantings  years

  the applicant shall arrange for a qualified arborist to following project completion. Reports  following

  inspect replacement tree plantings following project documenting compliance with  mitigation

  completion. Any trees that have died or are in poor mitigation requirements shall be  plantings and

  condition in the judgment of the arborist shall be replaced submitted to Monterey County RMA   as needed

  and inspected on a two, five and eight year schedule Planning Department for review.  thereafter.

  beginning with the next inspection on the original   

  schedule, and with the same replacement location    

  requirements.   

  RMA  Planning Department   

62. BIO-13. MM015  MARITIME CHAPARRAL AVOIDANCE Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

  AND PROTECTION PHASES 1 & 2) Improvements  Protect the maritime Developer/ issuance of

  For the MST project, gas line realignment, Lots 2-11, chaparral vegetation immediately Biologist building or

  Engineer's Equipment Road, and off-site drainage adjacent to the project site using an  grading

  improvements: The maritime chaparral vegetation appropriate barrier.  permits

  immediately adjacent to the construction area shall be   

  protected during construction. This includes the use of   

  exclusionary fencing of herbaceous and shrubby Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Weekly

  vegetation, such as hay bales and protective wood barriers Improvements  After initial grading Developer/ during

  for trees. Only certified weed-free straw shall be used to and vegetation removal activities are Biologist construction

  avoid the introduction of non-native, invasive species. A completed, the biological monitor shall  activities

  biological monitor shall supervise the installation of check that the protective fencing  

  protective fencing. The monitor shall remain on-site remains intact and that all construction  

  during the initial grading activities and vegetation work is maintained within the limits of  

  removal. After these activities are completed, the construction at least once per week  

  biological monitor shall check at least once per week until until the construction is complete.  

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 38

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �1C�     

  the construction is complete that the protective fencing Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ During

  remains intact and that all construction work is maintained Improvements  Standard erosion Developer/ construction

  within the limits of construction. This fencing requirement control techniques to minimize erosion Biologist activities

  shall be incorporated into a comprehensive fencing plan as and sedimentation to native vegetation  

  described in Condition # 15. shall be utilized in consultation with a  

  RMA  Planning Department) qualified hydrologist, engineer, or  

   erosion control specialist.  

63. GEO-1. MM016  GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

  SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ALL Improvements  The applicant shall Developer approval of

  PHASES) design all development using the  grading or

  All future development within the project site shall be parameters for code-based design listed  building

  designed using the parameters for code-based design listed in the Fugro West report and according  plans.

  in the Fugro West report. to Seismic Design Category D".  

  RMA  Planning Depaq!pent   

64. GEO-2. MM017  BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE AND Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

  ADDITIONAL SOILS REPORTING SEE TEXT) Improvements  A note shall be added Developer/ Recordation

  All future development within the project site shall be to the Whispering Oaks General Geotechnic of the Final

  designed consistent with the latest edition of the California Development Plan requiring al Engineer Map/ Prior

  Building Code as adopted by Monterey County and its preparation of a geotechnical report to  to the

  related seismic standards, as well as any additional inform design and engineering for  issuance of a

  standards required as standard conditions of approval by development within the Whispering  grading or

  the County of Monterey. Future development on the MST Oaks Business Park.  building

  site shall incorporate all recommendations from the   permits for

  geotechnical report, and if necessary, a supplemental   phases 2 &

  exploration may be required depending on the final layout   3.

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 39

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �2C�     

  of the proposed structures and facilities. A geotechnical Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to the

  report shall be required prior to development on any lot Improvements  Design all Developer/ issuance of a

  within the Whispering Oaks Business Park. Final development within the project site to Geotechnic grading or

  improvement plans and building plans shall be based on be consistent with the latest edition of al Engineer building

  recommendations in the geotechnical report, and subject the California Building Code as  permit

  to review and approval of Monterey County prior to adopted by Monterey County and its  

  issuance of a grading or building permit. A geotechnical related seismic standard, and well as  

  report may be prepared to apply to more than one lot. any additional standards required as  

  RMA  Planning Department) standard conditions of approval by the  

     CouW o onrey.  

65. GEO-3. MM018  EROSION CONTROL ALL PHASES) Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to the

  Each applicant shall prepare an erosion control plan Improvements  A qualified engineer Developer/ approval of

  consistent with the requirements of Monterey County shall prepare an erosion control plan, Contractor/ permits for

  Code Chapter 16.12 prior to approval of tree removal, including but not limited to the methods Geotechnic tree

  grading, or building permits. All erosion control measures outlined in the mitigation measure. The al Engineer removal,

  required by the approved erosion control plan shall be in erosion control plan shall be submitted  grading, or

  place until work is completed. Grading, excavating, and to the Monterey County Planning  other site

  other activities that involve substantial soil disturbance Department and the Water Resources  improve-

  shall be planned and carried out in consultation with a Agency for review and approval, based  ments

  qualified hydrologist, engineer, or erosion control on conformance with the methods  

  specialist, and shall utilize standard erosion control outlined in the mitigation measure and  

  techniques to minimize erosion and sedimentation to consistent with the requirements of  

  native vegetation. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy Monterey County Code Chapter 16.12.  

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071)

Page 40

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �3C�     

  permit, permanent erosion control measures shall be in Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Monthly

  place and approved by the Resource Management Agency Improvements  The contractor shall Developer/ between

  and the Water Resources Agency. An erosion control plan submit a letter report and/or Contractor/ October 15

  may be prepared to apply to more than one lot or for photographs from a qualified soils Geotechnic and April 15

  related projects at different sites. engineer to the Monterey County al Engineer 

  RMA  Planning and Water Resources Agency) Planning Department and Water  

   Resources Agency documenting the  

   ongoing maintenance and the condition  

   of the erosion control fencing and other  

   erosion control measures. The

Monterey County Planning Department  

   and Water Resources Agency shall  

   review the reports for conformance  

   with the methods outlined in the  

   mitigation measure. Failure to submit a  

   report showing that the proposed  

   project is in conformance with the  

   methods outlined in the mitigation  

   measure shall cause all work to be  

   stopped until conformance is confirmed  

   and the report is received by the  

   Monterey County Planning Department  

   and Water Resources Agency. The  

   project proponent shall be responsible  

   for correcting any violations  

   immediately. Frequency of the  

   reporting may be decreased at the  

   discretion of the Monterey County  

   Planning Department and Water  

   Resources Agency if there is no active  

   grading.  

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 41

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �4C�Condition of Permits and Subdivision

Improvements  The project proponent

shall demonstrate to the Monterey

County Planning Department and

Water Resources Agency that the

applicable provisions of the approved

landscape, re-vegetation, and erosion

control plans have been implemented.

The report shall briefly explain why

measures not employed are not

necessary or applicable.

Condition of Permits and Subdivision

Improvements  The applicant shall

submit to Monterey County Planning

Department and Water Resources

Agency a certified report from a

qualified soils engineer regarding how

each post-construction erosion control

measure has been implemented at the

subject lot.

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 42

Applicant/

Developer/

Contractor/

Geotechnic

al Engineer

Applicant/

Developer/

Contractor/

Geotechnic

al Engineer

Prior to final

inspection

of grading

permits

Prior to

issuance of

each

occupancy

permit

x6z'i' 01

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �5C�Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/

Improvements  The project proponent Developer/

shall demonstrate to the Monterey Contractor/

County Planning Department and Geotechnic

Water Resources Agency that the al Engineer

applicable provisions of the approved

landscape, re-vegetation, and erosion

control plans have been implemented.

The report shall briefly explain why

mneasures motzraployed-am not 

necessary or applicable.

Prior to final

inspection

of grading

permits

Condition of Permits and Subdivision Applicant/ Prior to

Improvements  The applicant shall Developer/ issuance of

submit to Monterey County Planning Contractor/ each

Department and Water Resources Geotechnic occupancy

Agency a certified report from a al Engineer permit

qualified soils engineer regarding how

each post-construction erosion control

measure has been implemented at the

subject lot.

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 42

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �6C�    

71. T-1. MM024  TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES PHASE 1) Subdivision  Pay fees to the Applicant/ Prior to the

  In order to mitigate impacts from additional trips added by appropriate jurisdiction and submit Developer issuance of

  Phase Ito intersections already operating at LOS E or F. evidence to the RMA- Planning  Building

  Prior to recordation the final map for Phase I, the fees Department.  Permits for

  listed below fair share costs for project-level impacts   Phase 1

  based on estimated 2010 project costs to be adjusted   

  annually on July 1 by the Engineering Record's   

  Construction Cost Index) shall be paid.   

   County of Monterey fair share costs for improvements   

  at the foil-owing intersectionc�_----   

   Davis Road/Reservation Road 1.3%of   

  $1,825,600  $23,389)   

   Blanco Road/Reservation Road 2.0% of   

  $263,400  $5,288).   

   City of Marina fair share costs for lane improvements   

  at the following intersection:   

   Imj in Road/Imj in Parkway  eastbound right   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 46

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �7C�17.5% of $466,888  $81,791) Note: this fee

would be reimbursable to Whispering Oaks

Business Park  see Mitigation Measure T-6.

City of Marina fair share costs for two lane

improvements at the following intersection:

 Imj in Parkway/Reservation Road 1.7% of

$222,700  $3,764).

City of Seaside fair share costs for improvements at

the following intersections:

General Jim Moore Boulevard/Broadway Avenue

0.4% of $300,000  $1,054)

 Caltrans fair share costs for improvements at the

following intersections:

 Northbound State Route 1/Imj in Parkway 0.7%

of $151,428  $1,012)

 Southbound State Route 1/Imjin Parkway 0.8%

of $965,308  $7,562)

RMA  Planning Department and Public Works)

T-2 MM025  ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 1)

In order to mitigate potential safety impacts from left-turn

queues exceeding the left-turn lane storage capacity at

Imj in Parkway and Imj in Road, phase I improvements

shall include:

 Construction of a second westbound left-turn lane at

the intersection of Imj in Road and Imj in Parkway.

RMA  Planning and Public Works)

Subdivision  Submit improvement

plans for the identified off-site

improvements to the City of Marina

public works department for review and

approval.

Prior to

recordation

of final

maps for

Phase I

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 47

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �8C�     

   City of Marina fair share costs for two lane   

  improvements at the following intersection:   

   Imj in Parkway/Reservation Road 4.1 % of   

  $222,700  $9,207).   

   City of Seaside fair share costs for improvements at   

  the following intersection:   

   General Jim Moore Boulevard/Broadway Avenue   

  4.0% of $300,000  $12,119)   

   Caltrans fair share costs for improvements at the   

  To1fowfrigiirsections:   

   Northbound State Route 1/Imjin Parkway 3.2%   

of $151,428  $4,797)   

   Southbound State Route 1/Imjin Parkway 2.6%   

  of $965,308  $24,759)   

  RMA  Planning and Public Works)   

74. T-4. MM027  ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 2) Subdivision  Submit improvement Applicant/ Prior to

  In order to mitigate impacts resulting in an unacceptable plans for the identified off-site Developer recordation

  LOS at the intersection of Imj in Road and Eighth Street, improvements to the City of Marina  of final maps

  Phase II improvements shall include: public works department for review and  for Phase 2

   approval.  

   Signalizing intersection of Imjin Road/Eighth Street   

  and adding a southbound Imjin Road left turn lane,   

  and corresponding second eastbound Eighth Street   

  receiving lane, or   

   Constructing the re-alignment of Imjin Road between   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 49

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �9C�    

  Imjin Parkway and Eighth Street, realigning Imjin Subdivision  Construct listed Applicant/ Prior to

  Road as a fourth approach to the Sixth Avenue/Eighth improvements in accordance with Developer occupancy

  Street-Engineer's Equipment Road intersection. approved plans and submit evidence of  permits.

   completion to the RMA-Planning 

  RMA  Planning and Public Works) Department. 

75. T-5. MM028  ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 3) Subdivision  Submit improvement Applicant/ Prior to

  In order to mitigate impacts resulting in an unacceptable plans for the identified off-site Developer recordation

  LOS at the intersection of Imjin Road and Eight Street, improvements to the City of Marina  of final maps

  Phase III improvements shall include: public works department for review and  for Phase 3

   approval.  

   Adding a westbound right-turn lane at the Itnj in   

  Road/Eighth Street intersection, or   

   Constructing the re-alignment of Imj in Road between   

  Imjin Parkway and Eighth Street, realigning Imj in   

  Road as a fourth approach to the Sixth Avenue/Eighth Subdivision  Construct listed Applicant/ Prior to

  Street-Engineer's Equipment Road intersection. improvements in accordance with Developer occupancy

   approved plans and submit evidence of  permits.

  RMA  Planning and Public Works) completion to the RMA-Planning  

   Department.  

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 50

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �:C�   l o w

76. T-6. MM029  ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 2) Subdivision  Submit improvement Applicant/ Prior to

  In order to mitigate potential safety impacts from right- plans for the identified off-site Developer approval of

  turn queues exceeding the right-turn lane storage capacity improvements to the City of Marina  a final maps

  at Imjin Parkway and Imjin Road, phase II road public works department for review and  for Phase 2

  improvements shall include: approval.  

   Constructing an eastbound right-turn lane at the   

  i

ti

f I

i

d

P

k

t

R

d I

i   

  n

ersec

on o

mj

n

oa

an

mj

n

ar

way.   

   Subdivision  Construct listed Applicant/ Prior to

  PLa_nningandPublie t$rks)

RMA improvemen s in- accordance with------ Developer  occupancy-  

   approved plans and submit evidence of  permits.

   completion to the RMA-Planning  

   Department.  

77. T-7 MM030  ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 3) Subdivision  Submit improvement Applicant/ Prior to

  In order to mitigate impacts resulting in an unacceptable plans for the identified off-site Developer recordation

  LOS at the intersection of Engineer's Equipment Road improvements for review and approval  of final maps

  and Inter-Garrison Road, phase III road improvements to the RMA  Public Works Department  for Phase 3

  shall include: for review and approval.  

   Signalization of the intersection of Whispering Oaks Subdivision  Construct listed Applicant/ Prior to

  Drive/Engineer's Equipment Road. The signal light improvements in accordance with Developer occupancy

  shall be coordinated with the signal light at Engineer's approved plans.  permits.

  Equipment Road and Inter-Garrison Road.   

   Construction of northbound and southbound left turn   

  lanes.   

   Construction of eastbound and westbound right turn   

  lanes.   

  RMA-Planning and Public Works)   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 51

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �;C�     

78. T-8 MM031- BUS CIRCULATION MST  PHASE 1) Condition of Permits  A policy shall County/MS Prior to

  MST shall include a policy in the General Development be added to the GDP or condition placed T approval of

  Plan to require out-of-service buses traveling to and from upon the approval to require the policy  the MST

  the beginning or ends of their day's runs to use routes that prior to project development.  GDP

  avoid the following streets within the CSUMB campus   

  core area: Inter-Garrison Road/Third Street Sixth Avenue   

  to General Jim Moore Boulevard) and Divarty Street east   

  of General Jim Moore Boulevard). The restriction shall   

  not apply to routes serving CSUMB.   

  PUn   

79. T-9 MM032  TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES Condition of Permits  Submit the Applicant/ Prior to the

  CUMULATIVE  MST) required fees to the appropriate Developer issuance of a

  In order to mitigate the Phase 1 portion of the cumulative jurisdiction and provide evidence of fee  building

  impact of the proposed subdivision, prior to issuance of payment to the RMA  Planning  permit

  building permits, evidence of payment of the fees listed Department.  

  below fair share costs for cumulative impacts based on   

  estimated 2010 project costs to be adjusted annually on   

  July 1 by the Engineering Record's Construction Cost   

  Index) shall be submitted to the RMA-Planning   

  Department.   

   FORA development impact fees.   

  County of Monterey fair share costs for improvements at   

  the following intersections:   

   Inter-Garrison Road/Reservation Road 1.8% of   

  $612,100  $11,056)   

   Engineer's Equipment Road/Whispering Oaks Way   

  17.8% of $300,000  $53,251)   

   Engineer's Equipment Road/Inter-Garrison Road   

  3.6% of $300,000  $10,827)   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 52

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �<C�     

  City of Marina fair share costs for reimbursement to   

  Whispering Oaks Business Park at the following   

  intersection a per-tip equivalent payment can also satisfy   

  this requirement):   

   Imjin Road/Eighth Street 21.8% of $1,136,064    

  $247,689)   

   Fifth Avenue  California Avenue/Imj in Parkway   

 1.Z1~f-$310,TLf=$6,6-32}---------------

   Third Avenue/Imj in Parkway 1.1 % of $543,000    

  $6,110),   

  Second Avenue/Imjin Parkway 0.7% of $42,000    

  $307)   

   Abrams Drive/Imj in Parkway 1.6 % of $1,304,596    

  $20,770) and   

   Imj in Parkway/southbound State Route 1 ramp 1.1%   

  of $488,582  $5,207)   

   Imjin Parkway/northbound State Rout I ramp 0.9%   

  of $488,582  $4,563)   

  RMA  Planning and Public Works)   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 53

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �=C�     

80. T-10 MM033  TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES Subdivsion  Submit the required fees Applicant/ Prior to

  CUMULATIVE PHASES 2 & 3) to the appropriate jurisdiction and Developer issuance of

  In order to mitigate the Phase 2 & 3 portions of the provide evidence of fee payment to the  building

  cumulative impact of the proposed subdivision, prior to RMA  Planning Department.  permits

  issuance of building permits, evidence of payment of the   

  fees listed below fair share costs for cumulative impacts   

  based on estimated 2010 project costs to adjusted annually   

  on July 1 by the Engineering Record's Construction Cost   

  Index) shall be submitted to the RMA  Planning   

  DeRaTtmenL    

  FORA development impact fees.   

  City of Marina fair-share contributions for improvements   

  at the following intersections a per-tip equivalent   

  payment can also satisfy this requirement):   

   Fifth Avenue  California Avenue/Imjin Parkway   

  4.1% of $390,111  $16,168)   

   Third Avenue/Imjin Parkway 3.7% of $543,000    

  $19,857)   

   Second Avenue/Imjin Parkway 2.4% of $42,000    

  $997)   

   Abrams Drive/Imjin Parkway 4.3% of $1,304,596    

  $55,574)   

   Imjin Parkway/southbound State Route I ramp 3.5%   

  of $488,582  $17,299)   

   Imjin Parkway/northbound State Route I ramp 3.0%   

  of $488,582  $14,830)   

  County of Monterey fair share costs for improvements at   

  the following intersections:   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 54

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �>C�     

   Inter-Garrison Road/Reservation Road 3.3% of   

  $612,100  $20,468)   

   Engineer's Equipment Road/Whispering Oaks Way   

  82.2% of $300,000  $248,749)   

   Engineer's Equipment Road/Inter-Garrison Road   

  7.8% of $300,000  $23,298)   

  City of Seaside fair share costs for improvements at the   

  wingintersections!       

   General Jim Moore Boulevard/Light Fighter Drive   

  1.1% of $654,185  $7.416)   

   Second Avenue/Light Fighter Drive 0.9% of $18,000   

   $159)   

   First Avenue/Light Fighter Drive 1.1 % of $102,600    

  $1,141)   

  RMA  Planning and Public Works)   

81. T-11 MM034  ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Subdivision  Submit improvement Applicant/ Prior to

  CUMULATIVE  PHASE 3) plans for the identified improvements for Developer recordation of

  In order to mitigate impacts resulting in unacceptable LOS review and approval.  final maps for

  at Phase 3 under the cumulative conditions, the following   Phase 3

  improvements shall be constructed prior to acceptance of   

  Phase 3 lots 13-16) improvements at the intersection of   

  Whispering Oaks Way and Intergarrison Road:   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 55

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �?C�     

   Subdivision  Provide evidence of Applicant/ Prior to

   Construct a southbound Whispering Oaks right turn completion and acceptance of off-site Developer acceptance of

  lane; improvements to the RMA  Planning  subdivision

   Construct an eastbound Inter-Garrison Road left turn Department  improvement

  lane;   s for Phase 3

   Construct a westbound Inter-Garrison Road right turn   

  lane;   

   Construct second eastbound and second westbound   

  Inter-Garrison Road through lanes; and   

  Construct-ame an of turn aeeeleration lane- on-Inter   

  Garrison Road.   

   Planning and Public Works)   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 56

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �@C�     

82. CC-1 MM035  GREENHOUSE GAS EMMISSIONS Condition of Permits  Prepare a  Prior to

  REDUCTION PLAN ALL PHASES) project-wide greenhouse gas reduction Applicant/ Board of

  The project applicant and/or succeeding developers shall plan for the review and recommendation Developer Supervisors

  follow the greenhouse gas reduction measures contained of RMA  Planning Department and  approval of

  in the General Development Plans prepared for the sites. include applicable measures from the  the

  In addition, the following specific measures shall be greenhouse gas reduction plan in the  development

  implemented as part of the general development plan, general development plan and  agreement or

  development agreement, final map, and/or development development agreement.  general

  plans as applicable:   development

     plan

  1. MST shall analyze future bus routes and modify these   

  routes to effectively reduce daily vehicle miles   

  traveled. For near term, the proposed project is   

  expected to result in an average of 1,959 miles of   

  additional travel each day to serve existing routes that   

  are served by the two existing transit facilities. This   

  assessment uses a worst case analysis that this mileage   

  would increase proportionally with new bus routes in   

  the future. However, MST has outgrown their existing   

  facilities, so new facilities would be necessary to serve   

  the future transit demands. Potential reductions: 20   

  percent of the daily increased vehicle miles travelled.   

  This 20 percent reduction would equate to a reduction   

  of 392 miles when the project first becomes   

  operational assuming 186 daily bus trips).   

  2. MST and Whispering Oaks employees and visitors   

  shall be provided opportunities for using transit that   

  would reduce travel to the site. Potential reductions:   

  up to 15 percent according to the URBEMIS2007   

  model. This reduction is based solely on the transit   

  service at the site e.g., frequency of buses within one-   

  quarter mile and regional transit service within /2   

  mile). With future transit routes, the project could   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 57

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �AC�    

  achieve a 10 percent reduction in mobile non-bus) Subdivision  The applicant/developer Applicant/ Prior to

  GHG emissions. shall include applicable measures from developer approval of a

  3. MST and Whispering Oaks employees shall be the project-wide greenhouse reduction  final map

  provided incentives to use transit, such as discounted plan on the final map, subject to the  

  transit passes. Potential reductions: five percent of review and approval of the RMA   

  employee mobile source emissions. Planning Department.  

  4. Provide local retail uses. Retail services, such as   

  restaurants, markets, and automatic teller machines   

  located in proximity could substantially reduce   

  employee vehiclemiffs-rave-lied during the day-   

  lunch period). The Whispering Oaks General   

  Development Plan shall allow for local retail and food   

  service uses. Potential reductions: two percent of   

  employee mobile source emissions according to the   

  URBEMIS2007 model.   

  5. Provide amenities for bicycle and pedestrian modes of   

  travel. Sidewalks and bicycle lanes shall be provided   

  on both sides of all streets to serve the project site   

  except sidewalks on the north side of Engineer's   

  Equipment Road where it abuts open space). In   

  addition, secure employee bicycle facilities, along   

  with lockers and showers shall be provided at each lot,   

  and at least one public bicycle parking space shall be   

  provided at each lot. Signal light sensors shall be set to   

  respond to bicycle traffic, and an automatic walk   

  signal shall be provided with green lights. Potential   

  reductions: up to nine percent of employee mobile   

  source emissions, depending on the network of   

  bicycle lanes and sidewalks serving the project site,   

  according to the URBEMIS2007 model. An   

  additional two percent could be achieved with on-site   

  amenities that would encourage employees to bike or   

  walk to work. The total combined reductions for these   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071) Page 58

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �BC�     

  measures could reach 10 percent, depending on the The applicant/developer shall comply Applicant/ As stated in

  network of developed sidewalks and bicycle lanes in with the greenhouse gas reduction developer the condition

  the future. Note: this measure shall not be required on measures incorporated in the Whispering  of approval.

  interim access driveways built within street rights-of- Oaks General Development Plan.  

  way.   

  6. LEED credits shall focus to the extent feasible on   

  approaches that directly or indirectly reduce   

  greenhouse gas emissions. Potential reductions: 20   

  percent or more by meeting LEED Silver design level.   

  The project applicant and/or succeeding developers may   

  elect to utilize other measures not specifically listed,   

  including measures to reduce dependence on gas or   

  electrical space or water heating, and additional means to   

  encourage forms of transportation that reduce greenhouse   

  gas emissions. Use of other methods may be credited   

  toward fulfilling this measure based on anticipated   

  emissions reductions.   

  RMA  Planning Department)   

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN090071)

Page 59

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT B - DRAFT RESOLUTION �CC�    

83.  PD004  INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT Submit signed and notarized Owner/ Upon demand

  The property owner agrees as a condition and in Indemnification Agreement to the Applicant of County

  consideration of the approval of this discretionary Director of RMA  Planning Department  Counsel or

  development permit that it will, pursuant to agreement for review and signature by the County.  concurrent

  and/or statutory provisions as applicable, including but not   with the filing

  limited to Government Code Section 66474.9, defend, Proof of recordation of the  of the final

  indemnify and hold harmless the County of Monterey or

Indemnification Agreement, as outlined,  map,

  its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action shall be submitted to the RMA   whichever

  or proceeding against the County or its agents, officers or Planning Department.  occurs first

  employees to attack, set aside, void or annul this approval,   

  which action is brought within the time period provided   

  for under law, including but not limited to, Government   

  Code Section 66499.37, as applicable. The property   

  owner will reimburse the county for any court costs and   

  attorney's fees which the County may be required by a   

  court to pay as a result of such action. County may, at its   

  sole discretion, participate in the defense of such action;   

  but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his   

  obligations under this condition. An agreement to this   

  effect shall be recorded upon demand of County Counsel   

  or concurrent with the issuance of building permits, use of   

  the property, filing of the final map, whichever occurs first   

  and as applicable. The County shall promptly notify the   

  property owner of any such claim, action or proceeding   

  and the County shall cooperate fully in the defense   

  thereof. If the County fails to promptly notify the property   

  owner of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to   

  cooperate fully in the defense thereof, the property owner   

  shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify or   

  hold the county harmless. The Property owner in this case   

  refers to the Redevelopment Agency and Monterey-   

  Salinas Transit. RMA  Planning Department)   

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

B-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTION-U02

FEIR-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104322-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT C - DRAFT ORDINANCEE,
�

Exhibit C

Draft Ordinance for approval of the

Zoning Amendment

The Redevelopment Agency of

Monterey County

The Monterey-Salinas Bus

Maintenance and

Administrative Facility and

Whispering Oaks Business Park

PLN090071

Appeal PLN 110231

Board of Supervisors

June 14, 2011

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

C-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

ORDINANCE-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104323-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT C - DRAFT ORDINANCEE,�EXHIBIT C

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AMENDING SECTION 21.08.060 OF TITLE 21 OF THE MONTEREY COUNTY CODE

TO AMEND THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE

COUNTY OF MONTEREY.

County Counsel Summary

This ordinance amends Section 21-11 of the Sectional District Maps of

Section 21.08.060 of Title 21 non-coastal zoning) of the Monterey County Code

to change the zoning classification on approximately 58 acres from PQP-D-S"

Public/Quasi-Public with Design Control and Site Plan Review Overlays) to

HC-D-S" Heavy Commercial with Design Control and Site Plan Review

Overlays) and to change the zoning classification on the remaining approximately

58 acres from PQP-D-S" Public/Quasi-Public with Design Control and Site

Plan Review Overlays) to the O-S-D  Open Space with Design Control and Site

Plan Review Overlays) zoning classification. The rezoning will go into effect only

if and when the first final map for the Monterey Salinas Transit/ Whispering Oaks

Business Park subdivision is recorded. 10601 Inter-Garrison Road; Assessor's

Parcel Numbers 031-101-041-000 and 031-101-056-000).

The Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey ordains as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 21-11 of the Sectional District Maps of section 21.08.060 the

Monterey County Code is hereby amended to change the zoning from PQP-D-S" Public/Quasi-

Public with Design Control and Site Plan Review Overlays) to HC-D-S" Heavy Commercial

with Design Control and Site Plan Review Overlays) on approximately 58 acres 10601 Inter-

Garrison Road; Assessor's Parcel Numbers 031-101-041-000 and 031-101-056-000), as shown

on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, to go into effect

only as specified in Section 4 herein.

SECTION 2. Section 21-11 of the Sectional District Maps of section 21.08.060 of the

Monterey County Code is hereby amended to change the zoning from PQP-D-S" Public/Quasi-

Public with Design Control and Site Plan Review Overlays) to O-S-D" Open Space with

Design Control and Site Plan Review Overlays) on an additional approximately 58 acres 10601

Inter-Garrison Road; Assessor's Parcel Numbers 031-101-041-000 and 031-101-056-000), as

shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, to go into

effect only as specified in Section 4 herein.

SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase

of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity

of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby declares that it

l

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

C-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

ORDINANCE-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104323-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT C - DRAFT ORDINANCEE,�would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase

thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or

phrases be declared invalid.

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE AND OPERATIVE DATES. This Ordinance shall

become effective upon the thirty-first day following its adoption, but this Ordinance shall

become operative only if and when the first final map for the Monterey Salinas

Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park subdivision Redevelopment Agency of the County of

Monterey/PLN 11023 1) is recorded. The Board of Supervisors is considering an application for a

Vesting Tentative Map for the Monterey Salinas Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park

Redevelopment Agency of the County of Monterey/PLN 11023 1). The Vesting Tentative Map

would result in the creation of sixteen parcels totaling approximately 58 acres which, with the

operation of this ordinance, would be reclassified HC-D-S" Heavy Commercial with Design

Control and Site Plan Review Overlays), with remaining parcels totaling approximately 58 acres

to be reclassified O-S-D" Open Space with Design Control and Site Plan Review Overlays).

The rezoning accomplished by this ordinance is necessary only if the Vesting Tentative Map is

approved and the final map is approved and recorded. The applicant is proposing to record the

final map in phases. Accordingly, the rezoning will go into effect only if and when the first final

map for the Monterey Salinas Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park subdivision is recorded.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of June, 2011 by the following vote:

AYES: Supervisors

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Jane Parker, Chair

Monterey County Board of Supervisors

ATTEST:

GAIL T. BORKOWSKI

Clerk of the Board

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Deputy

LEROY W.`BLANKENSHIP

Assistant County Counsel

2

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

C-U02

U02

DRAFT-U02

ORDINANCE-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104323-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT D-1 WATER ALLOCATION2
�

Exhibit D-1

Draft Resolution allocating 92.7 acre feet of

the Monterey County, Fort Ord Water

Allocation

The Redevelopment Agency of

Monterey County

The Monterey-Salinas Bus

Maintenance and

Administrative Facility and

Whispering Oaks Business Park

PLN090071

Appeal PLN 110231

Board of Supervisors

June 14, 2011

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

D-1-U02

WATER-U02

ALLOCATION-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104324-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT D-1 WATER ALLOCATION2�Exhibit D-1

RESOLUTION ALLOCATING 92.7 ACRE-FEET PER YEAR

OF POTABLE WATER TO THE MSTIWHISPERING OAKS

COMBINED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT

Before the Board of Supervisors in and for the

County of Monterey, State of California

Resolution No.

Resolution of the Monterey County

Board of Supervisors allocating 92.7 acre-

feet per year for the MST/Whispering Oaks

Combined Development Permit

PLN 110231)

The MST/Whispering Oaks Combined Development Permit and related actions

came on for public hearing on June 14, 2011. Having considered all the written and

documentary evidence, the administrative record, the staff report, oral testimony, and

other evidence presented, the Board of Supervisors allocates 92.7 acre-feet per year to the

MST/Whispering Oaks Combined Development Permit, as required by actual

construction, with reference to the following facts:

1. RECITALS

1 MST/Monterey County Redevelopment Agency applied on November 24, 2009

for approval of a Combined Development Permit and Rezone to create a 16 lot

business park including lot 1, consisting of 24 acres for development of a

Maintenance and Operations facility for MST PLN090071) and to set aside 58

acres of open space on land designated Planned Development for Mixed Use in

the Fort Ord Reuse Plan Reuse Plan") and Monterey County General Plan

General Plan").

2. The Project is located within the former Fort Ord and is governed by the Fort Ord

Reuse Plan as well as the Monterey County General Plan.

3. The Fort Ord Reuse Plan, as adopted by the Fort Ord Reuse Authority on June 13,

1997, contains development policies and standards for the redevelopment of the

former Fort Ord.

5. The Reuse Plan limits development through its Development and Resource

Management Plan, Section 3.11.5, due to infrastructure and resource constraints.

One of the constraints is water supply.

6. The Fort Ord Reuse Authority has allocated available water to various land use

jurisdictions. Monterey County has been allocated 710 acre-feet per year of

Page 1 of 3

Water Allocation  MST/Whispering Oaks

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

D-1-U02

WATER-U02

ALLOCATION-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104324-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT D-1 WATER ALLOCATION2�Exhibit D-1

potable water to serve property within the unincorporated area that is also within

the Fort Ord Reuse Plan planning area.

7. The MST/Whispering Oaks area is served by the Marina Coast Water District

MCWD").

8. Monterey County has complied with California Environmental Quality Act

requirements California Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) by

preparing and certifying a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report

SCH2009121049) FEIR") for the Project.

9. The FEIR prepared for the MST/Whispering Oaks Project included and analyzed

the project's water use, determined whether potentially significant environmental

effects would result from development of the Project.

10. As part of the preparation of the EIR, the County retained Carollo Engineers to

prepare a Water Supply Assessment for the Marina Coast Water District in

compliance with Water Code Sections 10910 and 10912 and Government Code

Sections 65867.5 and 66473.7, to evaluate and determine whether sufficient

potable water will be available to serve Project water demand.

11. MCWD, in response to the County's request, prepared the WSA, dated November

2010 attached hereto as Attachment A, which document was approved by the

MCWD's governing body in accordance with Water Code Section 10910(g)(1)

following a public hearing held on November 9, 2010 MCWD Resolution No.

2010-743).

12. On April 27, 2011 the Monterey County Planning Commission held duly noticed

public hearings to consider certification of the FEIR, the proposed

MST/Whispering Oaks Combined Development Permit and Rezone. At least 10

days before the public hearing, notices of the hearing before the Planning

Commission were published in both the Monterey County Herald and the Salinas

Californian and were also posted on and near the property and mailed to property

owners within 300 feet of the subject property as well as interested parties.

13. On June 14, 2011 the Monterey County Board of Supervisors held a duly noticed

public hearing to consider certification of the FEIR, the proposed

MST/Whispering Oaks Combined Development. At least 10 days before the

public hearing, notices of the hearing before the Board of Supervisors were

published in both the Monterey County Herald and the Salinas Californian. The

notice was also posted on and near the property and mailed to property owners

within 300 feet of the subject property as well as interested parties.

14. Prior to allocating water for the Combined Development Permit, the Board of

Supervisors certified the FEIR.

Page 2 of 3

Water Allocation  MST/Whispering Oaks

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

D-1-U02

WATER-U02

ALLOCATION-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104324-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT D-1 WATER ALLOCATION2�Exhibit D-1

II. DECISION

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors

hereby allocates 92.7 acre-feet per year to the approved MST/Whispering Oaks

Combined Development Permit and makes the following findings:

FINDING: Projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of

the Water District, including the MST/Whispering Oaks Project, in

addition to existing and planned future uses, for normal, single dry,

and multiple dry water years.

EVIDENCE: Water Supply Assessment, MST/Whispering Oaks Development

WSA), prepared by Corollo Engineers, dated November 2010.

EVIDENCE: Marina Coast Water District Resolution No. 2010-74 adopting the

WSA.

EVIDENCE: MST/Whispering Oaks, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Section

2.10.

PASSED AND ADOPTED on this day of June, 2011, by the following vote:

AYES: Supervisors

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Jane Parker, Chair

Monterey County Board of Supervisors

ATTEST:

GAIL T. BORKOWSKI

Clerk of the Board

By:

Deputy

Page 3 of 3

Water Allocation  MST/Whispering Oaks

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

D-1-U02

WATER-U02

ALLOCATION-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104324-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT D-2 DRAFT RESOLUTONE7
�Exhibit D-2

Draft Resolution to:

1. Grant the appeal of MST/Redevelopment

Agency

2. Approve the Combined Development

Permit

3. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and

Reporting Plan

The Redevelopment Agency of

Monterey County

The Monterey-Salinas Bus

Maintenance and

Administrative Facility and

Whispering Oaks Business Park

PLN090071

Appeal PLN 110231

Board of Supervisors

June 14, 2011

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

D-2-U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTON-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104328-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT D-2 DRAFT RESOLUTONE7�EXHIBIT D-2

DRAFT RESOLUTION

Before the Board of Supervisors in and for the

County of Monterey, State of California

In the matter of the application of:

The Redevelopment Agency of Monterey County PLN110231)

RESOLUTION NO.

Resolution by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors:

1) Granting the appeal by Monterey-Salinas Transit

MST)/Redevelopment Agency of the County of Monterey from the

April 13, 2011 decision of the Monterey County Planning

Commission; and

2) Approving a Combined Development Permit consisting of:

a) Standard Subdivision Phased Vesting Tentative Map dividing two

parcels of 30.3 acres and 85.2 acres Assessor's Parcel Numbers

031-101-041-000 and 031-101-056-000) into 16 buildable lots

including a 24.4 acre lot and 15 smaller lots ranging in size from 1

acre to 3 acres, a roadway parcel approximately 7.4 acres), a

drainage detention and percolation parcel approximately 1.7 acres),

and two Open Space parcels approximately 49 acres and 8.7 acres);

b) General Development Plan establishing Allowed Uses,

Conditional Uses allowed, and site development standards and

design criteria for the proposed Whispering Oaks Business Park;

c) General Development Plan and Use Permit to allow development

of the Monterey- Salinas Transit MST) administrative and

maintenance facility containing the following: 1) a 36,000 square

foot three-story administrative building; 2) a 96,450 square foot

two-story bus maintenance building; 3) an 18,620 square foot

fuel/brake/tire building with underground tanks attached by a

canopy to an 8,373 square foot bus wash/steam cleaning building;

and 4) approximately 15 acres of paved parking to accommodate up

to 281 busses and 388 automobiles;

d) Use Permit to allow the removal of approximately 2,400 Coast

Live Oak trees on Lot 1 MST parcel); and

e) Use Permit to allow the removal of approximately 1,000 Coast

Live Oaks on Lots 2 through 16, and for infrastructure

improvements; and

3) Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan.

PLN110231, Redevelopment Agency of Monterey County, A

portion of the former Army Landfill site in Fort Ord, Fort Ord

Master Plan Area APNs: 031-101-041-000 and 031-101-056-

000)]

The Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park application

PLN110231) came on for public hearing before the Monterey County Board of

Supervisors on June 14, 2011. Having considered all the written and documentary

evidence, the administrative record, the staff report, oral testimony, and other evidence

presented, the Board of Supervisors finds and decides as follows:

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

D-2-U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTON-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104328-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT D-2 DRAFT RESOLUTONE7�FINDINGS

1. FINDING: CONSISTENCY  The Project, as conditioned, is consistent with the

applicable plans and policies which designate this area as appropriate

for development.

EVIDENCE: a) Plan Consistency During the course of review of this application, the

project has been reviewed for consistency with the text, policies, and

regulations in:

 The 2010 Monterey County General Plan

 Fort Ord Master Plan,

 Monterey County Zoning Ordinance Title 21)

 Monterey County Subdivision Ordinance Title 19)

 The City of Marina General Plan

 Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan

Conflicts with the City of Marina General Plan land use designation

were identified. The project is within the sphere of influence of the City

of Marina and the City of Marina General Plan designates the subject

property as Open Space and Recreation. However, the Marina General

Plan land use designation is not consistent with the Fort Ord Reuse Plan

designation for the property. The site is under the jurisdiction of the

County of Monterey who has designated the property for development

consistent with the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. Findings of consistency with

the Marina General Plan land use designation are not required for this

project. No other communications were received during the course of

review of the project indicating any inconsistencies with the text,

policies, and regulations in these documents.

b) Use Allowed The project is designated for planned development

mixed use" by the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. This land use designation has

been incorporated into the Monterey County General Plan. The uses

allowed by the mixed use designation include retail, business parks,

offices, research and development, light industrial development, and

transit centers. The General Development Plans for the proposed project

allows these same uses. Therefore, the proposed uses are consistent with

the 2010 Monterey County General Plan designation.

c) General Plan Consistency The site is located within Fort Ord which is a

designated Community Area in the 2010 General Plan and the proposed

development is consistent with the land use designation of the Fort Ord

Master Plan LU-1.11). Community Areas are a top priority for

development according to the General Plan LU-1.19) because these

areas have opportunities for adequate public services and facilities. The

subject project has adequate public services and facilities. A Water

Supply Assessment WSA) has been adopted for the proposed project

by the Marina Coast Water District. The WSA contains findings that

there is an assured long-term water supply and adequate water quality

for the project PS-3.1 and PS-3.2). All traffic impacts were evaluated

using a minimum level of service standard C which is more restrictive

than the General Plan acceptable level of service D C-1.1). Mitigations

for traffic impacts comply with policy C-1.3 by installing improvements

for Tier 1 impacts and paying a fair-share for Tier 2 and 3 impacts. The

project has been clustered in the area corresponding to the Fort Ord

Master Plan land use designation on the property Figure #LU6a).

Exhibit D Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231) Page 2

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

D-2-U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTON-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104328-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT D-2 DRAFT RESOLUTONE7�Program E-2.2 of the Fort Ord Master Plan specifically lists and

encourages commercial development compatible with the landfill site

including the MST facility and Whispering Oaks Business Park. Open

space area equal to the area proposed for development has been

incorporated, and mitigations have been included to minimize biological

impacts at the site OS-5.4). The applicant has consulted with the

Department of Fish and Game and is in the process of obtaining a Take

Permit" for sand gilia.

d) Zoning Consistency The property is located off Intergarrison Road, north

of Seventh Avenue, in the Former Fort Ord Assessor's Parcel Numbers:

031-101-041-000 and 031-101-056-000), Fort Ord Master Plan area.

The parcel is currently zoned Public Quasi-Public with Design Control

and Site Plan Review overlays PQP-D-S). The proposed project

includes a request to amend the zoning on the newly created parcels

from PQP to Heavy Commercial with the D and S overlays remaining

HC-D-S). Parcels C and D of the Tentative Map are to be rezoned to

Open space O-D-S). Prior to adopting this resolution approving the

Combined Development Permit, the Board adopted a zoning ordinance

that rezones the property as described, with the rezoning to go into

effect only if and when the first final map for the subdivision herein

approved is recorded. The two open space parcels are beneficial as

vegetated buffers between housing located to the east and the project

site and for connectivity of open space from the landfill site to the open

space south of Intergarrison Road. The Heavy Commercial Zoning

district will allow commercial uses including bus storage, offices,

maintenance, repair, and fueling subject to a General Development Plan.

This project includes a General Development Plan and Use Permit for

the construction of a new Bus Maintenance and Operations facility on

over 24 acres of land and a separate General Development Plan to guide

the construction and end users of the Whispering Oaks Business Park.

The proposed zoning with uses restrictions of the General Development

Plans complies with the 2010 General Plan designation of Planned

Development/Mixed Use". With the zoning amendment approved by the

Board of Supervisors under separate ordinance, the project will be an

allowed land use under the HC zoning on this site. No development is

proposed in the area of the Open Space parcels

e) Site Visit The project planner conducted site inspections on January 5,

2010 and February 16, 2010 to verify that the project on the subject

parcel conforms to the plans.

f) Subdivision The proposed subdivision complies with Monterey County

Code, Title 19 Subdivision Ordinance). The site is within a Community

area and has adequate public services and facilities to serve the

proposed development. On February 10, 2011 the Monterey County

Standard Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the project

by a vote of 5-0. See Finding #7 for more detail.

g) General Development Plans The project includes a General

Development Plan for the Monterey-Salinas Transit property Lot 1)

and for the Whispering Oaks Business Park properties Lots 2-16). The

General Development Plans establishes parking, setbacks, height,

design standards, landscaping requirements, sign programs, and use

restrictions. see Finding #6)

Exhibit D Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231) Page 3

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

D-2-U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTON-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104328-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT D-2 DRAFT RESOLUTONE7�h) Use Permit  MST Subject to rezoning the property to Heavy

Commercial, the use of the property for bus maintenance and operations

is allowed subject to a Use Permit. Approval of a Use Permit is included

in this resolution. A General Development Plan is proposed for the

property that describes the proposed development and anticipated

operations. The MST buildings have been designed to meet anticipated

operations and future fleet expansion needs. The main operations

building has been designed with a color palate that is appropriate and

meets LEED silver requirements. The other maintenance buildings will

be shorter and less visible from off-site due to the tree screening,

topography and security wall.

i) Use Permits  Tree Removal A Use Permit to approve removal of

approximately 2,400 oak trees for the MST development on Lot 1 and

approximately 1,000 additional oak trees for the Whispering Oaks

Business Park is included in this resolution. An Oak Woodlands

Mitigation Strategy has been prepared for the project and a

comprehensive approach to tree preservation and replanting has been

developed. See Finding #8.

j) Biological Resources  2081 Permit The project site contains sensitive

plant and animal species. Conditions and mitigations have been

incorporated to minimize impacts to these resources to the maximum

extent feasible. The project is consistent with the Installation-Wide

Habitat Management Plan for the former Fort Ord HMP). A 2081

incidental take permit from the Department of Fish & Game DFG) will

be required for Sand Gilia prior to construction. The take permit has

been applied for and is currently in process. The project site is also

located on the outer limits of the two 2) kilometer California Tiger

Salamander CTS) habitat buffer. As a result of negotiations with DFG,

biological monitoring is required for all development. If presence of

CTS is discovered at the site, work must cease and consultation with

DFG will be required Mitigation Measure #53). In order to diminish

any potential of the presence of CTS beyond the 2k buffer, the applicant

proposes to install fencing with one-way doors prior to development for

Phase 1 and a portion of Phase 2 including lots 2, 3, 7, and 8. The

remaining lots and improvements in the subdivision will require

protocol level surveys Mitigation Measure #53). If presence of CTS is

identified, development of the remaining Lots and improvements will

require permits through DFG and US Fish and Wildlife most likely

through the base-wide Habitat Conservation Plan currently being

developed). Prior to development in Phase 3 of the project if protocol

level surveys do not reveal presence of CTS, development can proceed

subject to conditions imposed through the 2081 permit for Sand Gilia

and this permit. The project as mitigated and conditioned will not

jeopardize the long-term existence of rare or endangered plant or animal

species.

k) Oak Tree Corridor The project site design seeks to maintain oak

woodland corridor along Intergarrison Road by incorporating a tree

preservation area on Lot 1, a 24 foot landscaped buffer between

Intergarrison Road and the MST security wall, and a 20 foot setback

outlined in the General Development Plan for the Whispering Oaks

Business Park along Intergarrison Road. Oaks will also be preserved

Exhibit D Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231) Page 4

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

D-2-U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTON-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104328-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT D-2 DRAFT RESOLUTONE7�along the roads within the subdivision and between lots in the

Whispering Oaks Business Park.

1) Access Title 19 Section 19.10.045 requires each parcel to provide

access either by fronting on a publicly maintained road or by having

approved legal access via a private road of adequate right-of-way width.

The proposed parcels would be accessed by Engineer's Equipment Road

and Intergarrison Road. Both of these roads will be open to the public

but are not currently publicly maintained roads and there is currently no

legal access on these Roads. The underlying property at Engineer's

Equipment Road is owned by the University of California at Santa Cruz

and the underlying property on Intergarrison Road is owned by

California State University at Monterey Bay. A condition requiring that

the applicants obtain adequate access pursuant to Title 19 requirements

or fund the condemnation of the access pursuant to the Subdivision Map

Act California Government Code Section 66462.5) has been

incorporated Condition #13). See Findings 7 for more detail.

m) Recreation Trail Comments have been made at the Planning

Commission hearing and received in writing from the public regarding

the recreational uses at the project site. The subdivision ordinance Title

19) Section 19.05.055.B.7 requires denial of a Vesting Tentative Map

when the project would conflict with easements, acquired by the public

at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed

subdivision. This provision applies only to easements of record or to

easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.

The trail at the project site does not have a recorded easement and is not

established per any court order nor does it have a planned alignment. In

order to facilitate the possibility of a trail on the land fill parcel, a

condition has been added to incorporate language in the Whispering

Oaks General Development Plan that would allow a 10 foot wide trail

easement along the northern portion of the subdivision Condition #10).

n) LUAC The project was not referred to the Land Use Advisory

Committee LUAC) for review because no advisory committee has been

created to review and make recommendations on development projects

in the Fort Ord area.

o) The application, project plans, and related support materials submitted

by the project applicant to the Monterey County RMA  Planning

Department for the proposed development found in Project File

PLN090071.

2. FINDING: SITE SUITABILITY  The site is physically suitable for the use

proposed.

EVIDENCE: a) The project has been reviewed for site suitability by the following

departments and agencies: RMA  Planning Department, Monterey

Regional Fire Protection District, Parks, Public Works, Environmental

Health Bureau, Water Resources Agency, the Transportation Agency of

Monterey County, and the Monterey County Sheriff's Department.

There has been no indication from these departments/agencies that the

site is not suitable for the proposed development. Conditions

recommended have been incorporated.

b) Potential impacts to Biological Resources, Hydrology and Water

Quality, Hazards and Hazardous materials, Traffic and Circulation,

Exhibit D Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231) Page 5

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

D-2-U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTON-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104328-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT D-2 DRAFT RESOLUTONE7�Forest Resources, Noise, and Geology and Soils have been identified.

Technical reports by outside consultants indicated that there are no

physical or environmental constraints that would indicate that the site is

not suitable for the use proposed. County staff independently reviewed

these reports and concurs with their conclusions. These impacts were

evaluated in the EIR and the Board of Supervisors has certified the EIR

see Finding #5). The following reports have been prepared:

 Finding of Suitability to Transfer  prepared by the United States

Army, Hampton Field Office, VA, July 27, 2005.

 Biological Assessment" prepared by Denise Duffy and

Associates, Inc., Monterey, CA, August 2009.

 Biological Assessment Letter Addendum 1  prepared by Denise

Duffy and Associates, Inc., Monterey, CA, December 22, 2009.

 Biological Assessment Letter Addendum 2" prepared by Denise

Duffy and Associates, Inc. Monterey, CA, April 20, 2010.

 Biological Assessment Letter Addendum 3  prepared by Denise

Duffy and Associates, Inc., Monterey, CA, June 18, 2010.

 Oak woodland Habitat Tree Removal and Mitigation Strategy"

prepared by Denise Duffy and Associates, Inc., Monterey, CA,

August 25, 2009.

 Forest Management Plan for MST" prepared by Bill Ruskin, Ben

Lomond, CA, August 2009.

 Forest Management Plan for Whispering Oaks Business Park"

prepared by Bill Ruskin, Ben Lomond, CA, August 2009.

 Geotechnical Report" prepared by Furgo West, Inc., Ventura,

CA, May 7, 2009.

 Traffic Impact Analysis  prepared by Hatch Mott McDonald

including subsequent addendums), Gilroy, CA, June 18, 2010.

 Preliminary Drainage Calculations  prepared by Whitson

Engineers, Monterey, CA, April 8, 2010.

 Noise Assessment" prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc.,

Petaluma, CA, January 19, 2010.

 Water Supply Assessment" prepared by Carollo Engineers,

Fresno, CA, November 2010.

All reports are appendices to the Draft EIR and are contained in

Library File number LIB090306.

c) The project is located adjacent to a landfill area. Because of the

proximity to the landfill there are restrictions on the types of uses

allowed at the site. The proposed uses are allowed within a landfill

buffer area. No residential uses, hospitals, or schools are allowed on the

resulting properties.

d) Staff conducted site inspections on January 5, 2010 and February 16,

2010 to verify that the site is suitable for this use.

e) The application, project plans, and related support materials submitted

by the project applicant to the Monterey County RMA  Planning

Department for the proposed development found in Project File

PLN090071.

3. FINDING: HEALTH AND SAFETY  The establishment, maintenance, or

operation of the project applied for will not under the circumstances of

this particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,

Exhibit D Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231) Page 6

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

D-2-U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTON-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104328-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT D-2 DRAFT RESOLUTONE7�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 County.

EVIDENCE: a) The project was reviewed by the Planning Department, the

Environmental Health Bureau, Water Resources Agency, Public Works,

Parks, Monterey Regional Fire District, the Sheriff's Department, and

Marina Coast Water District,. The respective departments/agencies have

recommended conditions, where appropriate, to ensure that the project

will not have an adverse effect on the health, safety, and welfare of

persons either residing or working in the neighborhood.

b) Necessary public facilities will be provided. Public water and sewage

disposal will be provided using existing facilities maintained by the

Marina Coast Water District. The water used by the project would be

subtracted from the Monterey County water allocation provided through

the base closure and reuse plan. The project will also be served gas and

electric through existing Pacific Gas and Electric Services. The project

involves relocating several PG&E power poles and the CSUMB Gas

meter.

c) A Finding of Suitability to Transfer" has also been issued by the

Department of Defense meaning that the project was suitable to be

transferred from the Army to local jurisdictions.

d) Preceding findings and supporting evidence for PLN110231.

4. FINDING: NO VIOLATIONS  The subject property is in compliance with all

rules and regulations pertaining to zoning uses, subdivision, and any

other applicable provisions of the County's zoning ordinance. No

violations exist on the property.

EVIDENCE: a) Staff reviewed Monterey County RMA  Planning Department and

Building Services Department records and is not aware of any

violations existing on subject property.

b) Staff conducted site inspections on January 5, 2010 and February 16,

2010 and researched County records to assess if any violation exists on

the subject property. The property was formerly under the control of

the Department of Defense and was not subject to County permits or

zoning requirements. No development or uses have occurred since the

land was transferred to the Redevelopment Agency of Monterey

County.

c) There are no known violations on the subject parcel.

d) The application, plans and supporting materials submitted by the project

applicant to the Monterey County Planning Department for the

proposed development are found in Project File PLN090071.

5. FINDING: CEQA EIR)  By separate resolution, the Board of Supervisors

certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed

project and adopted CEQA findings and a statement of overriding

considerations in accordance with CEQA, prior to granting approval of

this permit.

EVIDENCE: a) A separate resolution containing Findings and Evidence for the

certification of the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the

Monterey-Salinas Transit and Whispering Oaks Business Park project

Exhibit D Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231) Page 7

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

D-2-U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTON-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104328-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT D-2 DRAFT RESOLUTONE7                     �was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on June 14, 2011 prior to

adopting this resolution. The Board voted to certify the Environmental

Impact Report made CEQA findings for each environmental impact

identified by the EIR, and adopted a statement of overriding

considerations.

6. FINDING: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Monterey County Code

requires a General Development Plan GDP) prior to the establishment of

uses/development if there is no prior approved GDP, and if. 1) the lot is in

excess of one acre; or, 2) the development proposed includes more than

one use; or, 3) the development includes any form of subdivision.

EVIDENCE: a) The proposed project meets the size and number of uses criteria to require

a GDP pursuant to the Monterey County Zoning Ordinance Title 21)

Section 21.20.030.A; therefore, approval of a GDP included in this

resolution.

b) The project as described in the application and accompanying materials

was reviewed by the Planning Department, Monterey Regional Fire

Protection District, Parks Department, Public Works Department,

Environmental Health Bureau, Sheriff, and the Water Resources Agency.

The respective departments have recommended conditions, where

appropriate, to ensure that the project will not have an adverse effect on

the health, safety, and welfare of persons either residing or working in the

neighborhood; or the County in general.

c) A General Development Plan GDP) has been developed for the

Monterey-Salinas Transit facility on Lot 1 that describes the proposed

structure locations, heights, design, general operations to occur at the

site, establishes a sign program, guides landscape installation and

maintenance, discusses hazardous materials handling, transport, spill

prevention, and response; requires best management practices during

construction, addresses storm drainage and maintenance, and

establishes parking needs and requirements. The GDP is attached

hereto as Exhibit K and incorporated herein by reference Condition

#9).

d) A General Development Plan has been developed for the Whispering

Oaks business Park that establishes allowed uses and conditional uses

allowed in the business park, provides guidance and requirements

dealing with operations, site design including setbacks, access,

circulation, building placement, materials, heights, architecture,

lighting, signage, and parking, sets requirements for landscaping and

tree protection, and provides incentives for vehicle trip reductions. The

GDP is attached hereto as Exhibit L and incorporated herein by

reference. Language has been added to the General Development Plan

condition to require that new policy language be added to the General

Development Plan that would allow a trail easement along the northern

edge of the Whispering Oaks Business Park subject to appropriate trail

planning and implementation Condition #10).

e) Staff conducted site inspections on January 5, 2010 and February 16,

2010, to verify that the proposed uses contained in the GDPs are

consistent with surrounding land uses.

f) Materials in Planning File PLN090071.

Exhibit D Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231) Page 8

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

D-2-U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTON-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104328-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT D-2 DRAFT RESOLUTONE7

�7. FINDING: SUBDIVISION  Section 66474 of the California Government Code

Subdivision Map Act) and Title 19 Subdivision Ordinance) of the

Monterey County Code require that a request for subdivision be denied if

any of the following findings are made:

1. That the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general

plan and specific plans.

2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not

consistent with the applicable general plan and specific plans.

3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.

4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of

development.

5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is

likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and

avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely

to cause serious public health problems.

7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will

conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access

through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

EVIDENCE: a) Consistency. The project as designed and conditioned is consistent

with the 2010 Monterey County General Plan Fort Ord is designated as a

community area), and the Fort Ord Master Plan. Finding 1)

b) Design. The lot design is consistent with the Lot Design Standards of

Section 19.10.030 of the Monterey County Code.

c) Site Suitability. The site is suitable for the proposed project including

the type and density of the development Finding 2)

d) Environment. The subdivision design and improvements will not cause

environmental damage to fish or wildlife habitat see Finding 5).

e) Health and Safety. The proposed project as designed and conditioned

will not, under the circumstances of the particular application, be

detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general

welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the

general welfare of the County see Finding 3).

f) Water Supply. Section 19.10.070 of the Monterey County Code

requires provision be made for domestic water supply as may be

necessary to protect public health, safety, or welfare, and that the source

of supply is adequate to serve the project in the long-term. The project

would be connected to the Marina Coast Water District for water

supply. A Water Supply Assessment was done by Carollo Engineers for

the project pursuant to California Water Code Section 10620 et. seq.

and Section 10910 et. seq. The proposed project requires approximately

92.7 acre-feet of water per year. This 92.7 acre-feet per year demand is

subtracted from the Fort Ord allotment of which the County's share was

710 acre-feet plus 144 acre-feet from other sources). 233.8 acre-feet

per year would remain in the Monterey County share. As a public utility

Marina Coast Water District manages quality and quantity of the water

provided and has approved the Water Supply Assessment for the

proposed project.

g) Sewage Disposal Section 19.05.040.K). Sewage Disposal will be

provided by the Marina Coast Water District MCWD). The MCWD

has an agreement with the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control

Exhibit D Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231) Page 9

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

D-2-U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTON-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104328-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT D-2 DRAFT RESOLUTONE7
�Agency MRWPCA) to have the district's wastewater treated at the

regional treatment plant. The regional treatment plant has a permitted

capacity of 29.6 million gallons per day mgd). The project is estimated

to generate approximately 71,562 gallons per day gpd) of wastewater.

MRWPCA has concluded based on existing demands including other

projects in the vicinity that adequate capacity exists at their facility to

serve the proposed project. Some infrastructure improvements will be

required to convey the wastewater to the treatment plants including on-

site lift stations and piping to connect to the existing main sewer lines in

the streets. The collection and conveyance improvements have been

designed to accommodate peak flows and oil/grease separators will be

included where appropriate. also see Finding 3)

h) Easements. The subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict

with easements. The subdivision ordinance Title 19) Section

19.05.055.B.7 requires denial of a Vesting Tentative Map when the

project would conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large,

for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.

This provision applies only to easements of record or to easements

established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. The trail

at the project site does not have a recorded easement or judgment from

the court. Although no official easement exists, provisions to allow trail

opportunities near where the trail currently exists are warranted. This

accommodation would allow approval of the subdivision pursuant to

the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance Title 19) Section

19.10.045; however, even if official easements existed at the site the

project would be consistent with the Objectives of the Fort Ord Master

Plan Objective E and F). A condition requiring that policy language be

added to the Whispering Oaks General Development Plan to allow a 10

foot trail easement along the northern portion of the subdivision subject

to future trail planning has been incorporated in the conditions of

approval for the project Condition #10). The Department of Defense

maintains the right to access the landfill site through Engineer's

Equipment Road. The project will not restrict, prohibit, or impede this

access. Provisions have been made with Pacific Gas and Electric

Company to accommodate or relocate existing gas and electric utility

easements through the property.

i) Traffic Projects located in Fort Ord are subject to the FORA

development impact fees which have been established to pay for area

wide circulation improvements. Impacts to roads and intersections not

covered by a fee program were also identified. Mitigations have been

applied that would require fair share payments for improvements to

impacted intersections not covered by one of the fee programs. The

exception to this is the City of Marina impacted intersections which are

covered by a fee program but will be mitigated based on a fair-share

contribution for each intersection instead of paying the more general

traffic impact fee because the project will only impact a small number

of intersections whereas payment of the traffic fee is more generally

distributed. Payment of fair-share fees to the City of Marina more

directly addresses the project impacts and the method and amount has

been agreed upon by the City. All immediate project impacts are

required to be corrected through project improvements funded by the

Exhibit D Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231) Page 10

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

D-2-U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTON-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104328-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT D-2 DRAFT RESOLUTONE7

�applicant including improvements of internal roads Intergarisson Road,

and Engineers Equipment Road, and turn-lanes at Imjin Road/Imjin

Parkway, Imjin Road/Eighth Street, and signals at warranted

intersections. A significant unavoidable traffic impact has been

identified at the Imjin Parkway/Highway 1 interchange due to the

addition of project generated trips on an intersection already operating

at LOS F under background conditions.

j) Affordable Housing Subdivisions in Monterey County are subject to

review by the Resource Management Agency  Housing and

Redevelopment Office for conformance to the Inclusionary Housing

Ordinance as codified in Chapter 18.40 of the Monterey County Code.

In this case the RMA-Planning Department has reviewed the project for

consistency with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The project

consists of the subdivision of a 115-acre site into 16 parcels and two

open space parcels, that will accommodate a new bus maintenance and

operations facility and a 15 lot commercial business park. The project is

not for residential use and will not create any new residential lots.

Therefore, the project is not required to provide affordable housing or

pay affordable housing fees pursuant to the Inclusionary Housing

Ordinance.

k) Parks and Recreation The project includes a commercial subdivision

that will not affect park lands. No new residential units are proposed

and the project includes two open space parcels totaling approximately

58 acres. The project has been reviewed by the Monterey County Parks

Department who did not require any conditions of approval. The

County has begun a process to address trails and recreation in the

Habitat Reserve and Habitat Corridor areas of Fort Ord. A portion of

the landfill site, just north of the project location is designated for

Habitat Management" is planned to be included in the trail planning

efforts. The portion of the parcels being subdivided that are within this

Habitat Management" area are proposed to be rezoned to open space

and no development will occur within these areas.

1) The application, tentative map and supporting materials submitted by

the project applicant to the Monterey County Planning Department for

the proposed development are found in Project File PLN090071.

8. FINDING: TREE REMOVAL The tree removal is the minimum required under

the circumstances and the removal will not involve a risk of adverse

environmental impacts.

EVIDENCE: a) The project includes application for the removal of approximately 3,400

trees. In accordance with the applicable policies of the Fort Ord Reuse

Plan and the Monterey County Zoning Ordinance Title 21), a Use

Permit is required and the standards to grant said permit have been met.

b) On a programmatic level, designation of the lot for development at the

site was mitigated for by way of permanent conservation of over 17,000

acres of the former Fort Ord. At the site, the Habitat Management Plan

HMP) allowed 88 acres of the 308 acre landfill property to be

developed leaving approximately 227 acres to be managed as habitat

area pursuant to the HMP Programs A-2.3 and 2.4 of the Fort Ord

Reuse Plan). The MST/Whispering Oaks Business Park project includes

development of approximately 58 acres. Specific policies were also

Exhibit D Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231) Page 11

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

D-2-U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTON-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104328-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT D-2 DRAFT RESOLUTONE7

�included in the Fort Ord Reuse Plan to further guide development and

limit tree and habitat impacts at the sites designated for development.

Consistency with those policies is described further in the evidence that

follows.

c) Bio Policy A-9) The County shall encourage the preservation of small

pockets of habitat and populations of HMP species within and around

developed areas. The proposed project includes two open space parcels

totaling approximately 58 acres of land to be maintained as open space.

The Oak tree preservation and recovery strategy includes design

requirements that would preserve pockets of trees on-site where

possible, in addition to providing detailed plans for protection,

relocation, and replanting of trees both on and off-site to mitigate the

impacts of tree removal.

d) Bio Policy B-2) The County shall coordinate with the Cities of Seaside

and Marina, California State University, FORA and other interested

entities in the designation of an oak woodland conservation area

connecting open space lands of the HMP. Proposed open space Parcel

D would connect open space and woodland areas to the south across

Intergarrison Road with the landfill site and the open space Parcel C on

the west side of the landfill. The Cities, CSU, and FORA have all been

involved, consulted with, and provided notice of, the proposed project.

e) Bio Policy C-2) The County shall preserve and encourage the

preservation and enhancement of the oak woodland elements in the

natural and built environments. The MST project requires construction

of three large buildings and large paved areas to accommodate their

operations in the foreseeable future. Therefore, MST proposes an Oak

preservation area at the south west corner of the property. Additionally,

provisions have been made to preserve oaks along Intergarrison Road

and Engineer's Equipment Road frontages to the maximum extent

including a landscape buffer between the edge of the pavements

including road and driveway improvements) and the planned security

wall. MST will replant native oaks in their landscaping where possible

including in the drainage detention basin area, the administrative

building parking lot, and around the edges of the property in and outside

the security wall where possible. Similarly, the Whispering Oaks

Business Park General Development Plan includes a 20 foot oak tree

buffer along the Intergarrison Road frontage, and policies that require

siting and design to preserve Oaks in landscaping in and around the

built environment.

f) Bio Policy D-1) The applicant shall implement a contractor education

program that instructs construction workers on the sensitivity of

biological resource in the vicinity and provides specifics for certain

species that may be recovered and relocated from particular

development areas. Oak woodlands provide habitat for several plant and

animal species identified in the biological assessments and potential

habitat for several other animal species known to occur in the area but

not specifically identified at the project site. Mitigation has been

incorporated to require biological education of contractors and

contractors' employees MM  BI05).

g) Forest Management Plans FMPs) for MST and for Whispering Oaks

Business Parks were prepared by Bill Ruskin. Recommendations from

Exhibit D Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231) Page 12

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

D-2-U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTON-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104328-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT D-2 DRAFT RESOLUTONE7�the FMPs have been incorporated in the project design and a condition

requiring compliance with the FMPs has been incorporated MM

BIO10).

h) An Oak Woodland Habitat Tree Removal and Mitigation Strategy Plan

has also been prepared for the project by Denise Duffy and Associates,

Inc. to demonstrate and ensure compliance with California Public

Resources Code section 21083.4 Oak Woodlands Conservation Act). A

condition requiring compliance with this strategy has been incorporated

MM  BIO 11). To compliment this document an Oak tree Preservation

and Recovery plan has also been prepared outlining the tree

preservation and replacement strategy above and beyond the minimum

regulatory requirements.

i) Measures for protection of trees to be preserved that are located in

proximity to construction activities have been incorporated as

conditions and include tree protection zones, trunk protection, hand

excavation and bridging roots Condition #6).

j) The project has been designed and sited to minimize the removal of

protected trees to the greatest extent feasible. Due to the restrictions on

land use from the landfill buffer, the project includes development of

commercial and industrial uses. These types of uses require large

building area necessitating removal of trees. The strategy for tree

preservation is to reserve areas within the subdivision for tree

preservation which also provides a visual buffer. Polices have been

incorporated in the Whispering Oaks General Development Plan to

minimize removal of trees between lots. Based on the limitations built

into the project, the applicant has indicated that 1,000 trees, which were

previously identified for removal, can be preserved. Preserving 1,000

trees reduces the number of trees previously analyzed for removal from

4,400 to 3,400. The project description has been updated to reflect the

reduced tree removal numbers.

k) The removal will not involve a risk of adverse environmental impacts.

The project has been designed consistent with the appropriate plans and

policies in place. Those Plans are designed to protect tree and biological

resources among other things. With previous mitigation considered and

project specific mitigation incorporated the tree removal has been

sufficiently mitigated. The project is also subject to a 2081 incidental

take permit from the Department of Fish & Game. DFG will need to

determine that the project will not jeopardize the existence of state

listed plant and animal species prior to construction.

1) Staff conducted site inspections on January 5, 2010 and February 16,

2010, to verify that the tree removal is the minimum necessary for the

project and to identify any potential adverse environmental impacts

related to the proposed tree removal.

m) The application, plans and supporting materials submitted by the project

applicant to the Monterey County Planning Department for the

proposed development are found in Project File PLN090071.

9. FINDING: APPEAL  On May 10, 2010 the subject application was deemed

complete. On April 13, 2011 the Monterey County Planning Commission

unanimously voted to deny the Combined Development Permit and

recommend denial of the zoning amendment. On April 22, 2011

Exhibit D Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN 110231) Page 13

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

D-2-U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTON-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104328-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT D-2 DRAFT RESOLUTONE7�Monterey-Salinas Transit and the Redevelopment Agency of Monterey

County timely appealed the decision of the Planning to deny the

Combined Development Permit. On June 14, 2011 the Board of

Supervisors held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal. In

the appeal the appellants contend that the Planning Commission's

decision was not supported by the evidence. Upon consideration of the

documentary information in the files, the staff reports, the oral and

written testimony, and all other evidence presented before the Board of

Supervisors, the Board responds and finds as follows to the Appellants'

contentions:

EVIDENCE: a) Appellant's Contention #1: The Planning Commission's decision to

deny the project based on the number of trees to be removed and the

possibility of alternative sites for the proposed development is not

supported by substantial evidence demonstrated by all the available

technical and supporting documentation included in the EIR and

corresponding appendices.

Response No. 1: Since the Planning Commission action, the applicant

has revised the number of trees to be removed down from a maximum

of 4,400 to 3,400 to reflect the preservation measures which were

presented to the Planning Commission. The preservation measures

have not changed but the limit on the trees to be removed have been

modified to reflect the effectiveness of the preservation measures. This

supports the finding that the minimum number of trees is being

removed in this particular case can be made. Based on the supporting

documentation in the record and the additional clarification on the tree

preservation strategy, the project is consistent with the Monterey

County tree preservation policies as further described in Findings 1 and

8 including supporting evidence.

Alternative locations for the project have been considered. The only

economically viable location for MST is the property that they were

given as part of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan at 7t and Giggling. There are

a limited number of areas within Monterey County's jurisdiction near

the subject site that can accommodate the proposed development. The

subject site is designated for development by the 2010 General Plan and

contains restrictions stemming from the closed landfill. The site is

consistent with the General Plan land use and the landfill buffer

limitations making it appropriate for the type of development proposed.

Any other location within Monterey County would have less convenient

access, and would also require significant tree removal. Sites with old

dilapidated buildings that could be redeveloped do not exist within

Monterey County's jurisdiction. Relocation to one of these locations

would require additional property acquisition which makes them

economically infeasible. There are not alternative sites which are more

desirable when all factors land use, existing use patterns, convenient

access, and biological impacts) are considered as a whole

b) Appellants Contention #2: The project does conform to the 2010

Monterey County General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance Titles 19 and

21. The site is physically suitable for the proposed project and the

proposed project is consistent with the county tree preservation policies

and regulations.

Exhibit D Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN11023 1) Page 14

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

D-2-U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTON-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104328-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT D-2 DRAFT RESOLUTONE7�Response No. 2: Findings of consistency with the 2010 General Plan,

the Zoning Ordinance Title 21 and the Subdivision Ordinance Title 19

have been made see Findings 1- 8 with supporting Evidence).

Specifically Finding 2 contains evidence supporting the conclusion that

the site is physically suitable for the proposed development and Finding

8 contains evidence supporting the conclusion that the project is

consistent with the tree preservation policies and removal requirements

of Monterey County Code.

c) Conclusion: Based on all the facts in the record, the Board finds that the

appeal has merit.

DECISION

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, based on all of the above findings and evidence,

that the Board of Supervisors does hereby:

1. Grant the appeal by Monterey-Salinas Transit MST)/Redevelopment Agency of the

County of Monterey from the April 13, 2011 decision of the Monterey County

Planning Commission;

2. Approve a Combined Development Permit consisting of. a) Standard Subdivision

Phased Vesting Tentative Map dividing two parcels of 30.3 acres and 85.2 acres

Assessor's Parcel Numbers 031-101-041-000 and 031-101-056-000) into 16

buildable lots including a 24.4 acre lot and 15 smaller lots ranging in size from 1 acre

to 3 acres, a roadway parcel approximately 7.4 acres), a drainage detention and

percolation parcel approximately 1.7 acres), and two Open Space parcels

approximately 49 acres and 8.7 acres); b) General Development Plan establishing

Allowed Uses, Conditional Uses allowed, and site development standards and design

criteria for the proposed Whispering Oaks Business Park; c) General Development

Plan and Use Permit to allow development of the Monterey- Salinas Transit MST)

administrative and maintenance facility containing the following: 1) a 36,000 square

foot three-story administrative building; 2) a 96,450 square foot two-story bus

maintenance building; 3) an 18,620 square foot fuel/brake/tire building with

underground tanks attached by a canopy to an 8,373 square foot bus wash/steam

cleaning building; and 4) approximately 15 acres of paved parking to accommodate

up to 281 busses and 388 automobiles; d) Use Permit to allow the removal of

approximately 2,400 Coast Live Oak trees on Lot 1 MST parcel); and e) Use Permit

to allow the removal of approximately 1,000 Coast Live Oaks on Lots 2 through 16,

and for infrastructure improvements, in general conformance with the attached sketch

Attachment 2) and subject to the conditions Attachment 1), both exhibits being

attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and

3. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Attachment 1)

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of June, 2011 upon motion of

seconded by  by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Exhibit D Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231) Page 15

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

D-2-U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTON-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104328-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

EXHIBIT D-2 DRAFT RESOLUTONE7�I, Gail T. Borkowski, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey, State of California, hereby

certify that the foregoing is a true copy of an original order of said Board of Supervisors duly made and entered in

the minutes thereof of Minute Book for the meeting on

Dated: Gail T. Borkowski, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

County of Monterey, State of California

By

Deputy

Exhibit D Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park PLN110231) Page 16

BIB]

40743-U01

EXHIBIT-U02

D-2-U02

DRAFT-U02

RESOLUTON-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104328-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

PROOF OF PUBLICATION"�|EI

�Proof of Publication

2015.5 C.C.P.)

Salinas Newspapers, Inc.

123 W. Alisal St.

Salinas, CA 93901

831-754-4138/Fax: 831-754-7156

State Of California ss:

County of Monterey

211JU20Fi3t3

DEPt1T`f

Advertiser: MONTEREY CO BOARD SUPERVISORS

PO BOX 1728

SALINAS  CA 93902

Our Order # 0000183259

Net Order Cost $ 462.00

RE: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BOARD OF SUPE

183259/462.00

I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the

County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years,

and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled

matter. I hereby certify that the attached advertisement

appeared in said newspaper on the following dates:

Newspaper: Salinas Californian

5/31/2011

I acknowledge that I am a principal clerk of the printer of

said paper, which is published in the City of Salinas,

County of Monterey, State of California. The Salinas

Californian is printed and published daily, except Sunday

and has been adjudged a newspaper of general

circulation by the Superior Court of the County of

Monterey, State of California. Et Sol is printed and

published weekly on Saturday and has been adjudged a

newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court

of Monterey, State of California.

I certify or declare) under penalty of perjury that the

foregoing,is true and correct. Executed on this  /

day ofy6 Y  2011 at Salinas, California.

  C  IL 

Declarant

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

COUNTY OF MONTEREY

Public Hearing to consider an appeal by Monterey Salinas Transit MST)/ Redo-.

velopment Agency of the County of Monterey from the Monterey County Plan-

ning Commission's denial of an application for a Combined Development Per-

mit and to consider the request by MST/Redevelopment Agency of the County

of Monterey to adopt an ordinance to rezone the subject property.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey

will hold a public hearing to consider an appeal by Monterey Salinas Transit MST)/

Redevelopment Agency of the County of Monterey from the April 13, 2011 decision of

the Monterey County Planning Commission denying an application Monterey-Salinas

Transit Facikty/Whispering Oaks Business Park/ PL N090071) for a Combined Develop-

ment Permit consisting of a) Phased Vesting Tentative Map dividing two parcels of

30.3 acres and 85.2 acres Assessor's Parcel Numbers 031-101-041-000 and 031-

101-056-000) into 16 buildable lots including a 24.4 acre lot and 15 smaller lots rang-

ing in size from 1 acre to 3 acres, a roadway parcel approximately 7.4 acres), a drain-

age detention and percolation parcel approximately 1.7 acres), and two Open Space

parcels approximately 49 acres and 8.7 acres); b) General Development Plan estab-

lishing Allowed Uses, Conditional Uses allowed, and si;e development standards and

design criteria for the pprroposed Whispering Oaks Business Perk; c) General Develop-

ment Plan and Use Permit to allow development of the Monterey Salinas Transit

MST) administrative and maintenance facility containing the following: 1) a 36,000

square foot three story administrative building; 2) a 96,450 square foot two-story bus

maintenance building; 3) an 18,620 square foot fuel/brake/tire building with under-

ground tanks attached by a canopy to an 8,373 square foot bus wash steam cleaning

building; and 4)approximately 15 acres of paved parking to accommodate up to 281

busses and 388 automobiles; d) Use Permit to allow the removal of approximately

2,400 Coast Live Oak trees on Lot 1 MST parcel); e) Use Permit to allow the removal

of approximately 2,000 Coast Live Oaks on Lots 2 through 16, and for infrastructure

improvements; and t) Administrative Permit and. Design Approval for development

within the Site Plan Review S) zoning district.

The Board of Supervisors will concurrently hold a public hearing on Monterey Salinas

Transit MST)/ Redevelopment Agency of the County of Monterey's request to adopt

an ordinance to rezone a 58 acre portion of the former landfill site from Public Quasi

Public with Design Review and Site Plan Overlays PQP-D-S) to Heavy Commercial

HC-D-S) and to rezone open space parcels totaling approximately 58 acres from

PQP-D-S to Open Space O-D-S). The Planning Commission recommended denial of

the proposed rezoning.

The property is located at 10601 Inter-Garrison Road, Marina Assessor's Parcel Num-

bers 031-101-041-000 AND 031-101-056-000), Fort Ord Master Plan.

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the public hearing on the appeal and proposed

rezoning has been set for Tuesday, J n 14, 2011 at 1:30m. in the Monterey

County Government Center, Board of Supervisors Chambers, First Floor, 168 West

Alisal Street, Salinas, California, at which time and place any and all interested per-

sons may appear and be heard on said matter.

If you challenge this matter in court, you may be limited to nosing only those issues

raised in testimony at the public hearing described in this notice or raised in written cor-

respondence delivered to the Board of Supervisors at or prior to the public hearing.

DATED: May 26, 2011

Gail T. Borkowski

Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

May 31, 2011 183259/462.0)

BIB]

40743-U01

PROOF-U02

OF-U02

PUBLICATION-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104330-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/18/2011-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

SUMMARY PRESENTATION BY JIM C]
�SUMMARY OF PRESENTATION BY

JIM COOK, DIRECTOR,

REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING OFFICE

The Redevelopment Agency of the County of Monterey Agency") and the

Monterey-Salinas Transit Agency MST") are here to appeal the decision of the

Planning Commission to deny the proposed subdivision, General Development Plan and

rezoning of approximately 58 acres of land adjacent to the Fort Ord Landfill, which is

the Monterey-Salinas Transit/Whispering Oaks Business Park the Project").

BASE REUSE ISSUES

The Project is consistent with the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan, the County's Fort

Ord Redevelopment Plan, the County's 2010 General Plan and the County's Ordinance

with respect to Oak Woodlands.

The Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan was adopted in 1997 after undergoing

comprehensive environmental review. Under State Law Government Code  67675.2),

city and county general plans must be consistent with adopted Base Reuse Plan. The

Base Reuse Plan was developed, in part, to replace jobs lost to the various communities

and County from the closure of the military installation. It was also designed to be self-

sustaining" so that development allowed on the Base would pay for the costs involved in

bringing required infrastructure, and maintenance of sizeable habitat areas.

The Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan also calls for a jobs/housing balance. It is

estimated that an additional 10,989 jobs will be required to be created to achieve this

balance. The Project represents an important step in the right direction. In addition to

promoting more mass transit to assist in job development, the MST portion of the Project

will allow for the MST to grow new jobs by expanding its facilities. The Whispering

Oaks portion of the Project is not designed to compete with other job-creating

developments. Rather, it is envisioned as tapping into a niche" market for employers

who want the ambiance presented by the design of individually tailored sites nestled

within oaks, as well as the close connection to CSUMB.

A Habitat Management Plan has been adopted for the entire Base Reuse Area,

which protects the most sensitive species by setting aside approximately two-thirds of the

entire former base for habitat. Under the Base Reuse Plan, the Property on which the

Project is located is designated for Planned Development Mixed Use." Pursuant to the

Base Reuse Plan and Habitat Management Plan, development is allowed on 20% of the

Property.

THE PROPERTY. THE PROJECT AND THE PROCESS

The Property is approximately 300 acres, of which 58 acres are proposed to be

developed under the Project. Another 58 acres is proposed to be set aside as permanent

conservation areas, to protect the endangered sand gilia plant. The Property is also the

BIB]

40746-U01

SUMMARY-U02

PRESENTATION-U02

BY-U02

JIM-U02

COOK-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104427-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

SUMMARY PRESENTATION BY JIM C]�location of a landfill, which restricts the nature of the development that may occur on the

property. When other jurisdictions declined to take the Property because of the Landfill,

the County stepped to the plate. Development of the Property  as called for in the Base

Reuse Plan  is necessary to avoid tapping into the County's General Fund to cover

expenses and liabilities associated with the Property, as well as the County's obligations

to manage habitat areas.

As noted, the Property includes the Fort Ord Landfill. Additionally, it is adjacent

to and surrounded by urban uses, including the CSUMB Campus and both existing and

entitled residential uses. It is not either isolated or pristine habitat," but does contain

some endangered species notably sand gilia) and the existence of that species and the

landfill made the Property suitable for both habitat conservation and development.

Just like the Base Reuse Plan, the Agency and MST have sited and designed the

Project in a manner which targets the least environmentally sensitive areas of the

developable portions of the Property.

The basics of the Project are described in detail in the Board Report and

underlying documentation. The essential elements of the Project are:

 Development of a LEED certified bus maintenance facility by MST on

approximately 24 acres

 Adoption of a General Development Plan for the ultimate development of up to

an additional 15 commercially-zoned lots of between 1 and 3 acres, as the market

allows

 Adoption of permanent conservation and habitat areas, as well as open space

preservation areas

 Development of Engineers Equipment Road, an important segment of Base-wide

infrastructure, as well as other infrastructure that assists CSUMB

 Adoption of oak tree mitigation plans and program designed to preserve as many

trees as feasible under the circumstances and will end up providing at least 1,000

additional oak trees in the Fort Ord ecosystem

 There will be no mass grading" or clear cutting" on the site. While a significant

number of trees will need to be removed for the MST transit facility, trees will be

retained to the extent feasible, as determined by a qualified forester. For the

Whispering Oaks portion, development on individual lots will only occur when

they are sold to actual developers and will be driven by the topography and efforts

to retain trees.

The journey to the development of this particular Project has been open and

transparent:

 It began in September, 2009, when the full Board of Directors of the Agency

entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with MST to work together to

develop what would evolve to be the Project. A copy of the MOU is attached to

this Summary.

2

BIB]

40746-U01

SUMMARY-U02

PRESENTATION-U02

BY-U02

JIM-U02

COOK-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104427-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

SUMMARY PRESENTATION BY JIM C]� A Notice of Preparation for the Project's EIR was issued in December, 2009 and a

scoping meeting was held in January, 2010. Participants in these initial

proceedings included Land Watch and the City of Marina

 The Draft EIR was issued in July, 2010, and the comment period lasted until

August 23, 2010. During this time of environmental review, the Agency and

MST actively consulted with its neighbors, including CSUMB and the City of

Marina, and listened and responded to comments on the EIR, incorporating most

of the suggestions.

 The matter came before the County's Standard Subdivision Committee in

February, 2011, at which time it was recommended for approval.

 The Project was presented to the Planning Commission in March, 2011. At the

Commission hearing, for the first and only time, objections to the Project were

raised, based upon the claimed interference with so-called equestrian trails" and

the assumption that the bus facility could and should be located elsewhere so as to

avoid oak tree removal. These issues were not raised at any time during the prior

18 months of analysis and discussion.

OAK TREES

The Project acknowledges that a significant number of oak trees will be removed

as part of the development. To that end, it has incorporated into the Project's

entitlements, a process entirely consistent with the County's Oak Tree Preservation

Ordinance:

 A duly qualified Forester was retained from the County's list

 The MST site has an actual Forest Management Plan, which requires that the least

number of trees be removed, that trees be transplanted where feasible, and that

replacement of trees occur both on-site and off-site at a ratio that is at least 1:1

 The Whispering Oaks site had a Forest Evaluation Plan prepared and the

recommendations of the Forester are incorporated into the General Development

Plan, making compliance with those recommendations conditions of further

development

 There will be no clear-cutting of trees at either site: the MST site will retain tree

buffer areas, including Landmark Trees, and the Whispering Oaks development

parcels will be required to minimize tree loss and also replace any trees lost at a

better than 1: 1 ratio

 The Whispering Oaks site is also designed to attract those uses which are looking

for the natural setting allowed under the GDP  the oaks are part of the marketing

plan for the attraction of users for the site. The site includes the use of Parcel 9 to

further enhance the amenities of the business park by preserving a park-like

setting for employees and visitors to the park.

The original permit request to remove up to 4,400 trees was based on a worst-case

analysis, as required under CEQA. However, the Agency is confident that application of

the proposed GDP for Whispering Oaks, together with preservation of Parcel 9 as a

design amenity" rather than actual development parcel, will allow the development of

the Project to proceed to ultimate completion with no more than 3,400 trees being

3

BIB]

40746-U01

SUMMARY-U02

PRESENTATION-U02

BY-U02

JIM-U02

COOK-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104427-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

SUMMARY PRESENTATION BY JIM C]�removed over time. Accordingly, the Agency and MST have agreed to seek a change in

the Tree Removal Permit from a maximum of 4,400 trees to no more than 3,400 upon

ultimate completion.

Additionally, the Agency and MST are committing to replacing and planting

4,400 additional trees, regardless of the number of oak trees ultimately removed. These

trees will be located both on-site, where feasible, and off-site at the County's Youth

Camp area. The Youth Camp Parcel is part of the proposed Habitat Corridor and Oak

Woodland Corridor; the Property is not.

EQUESTRIAN TRAILS"

The Fort Ord Reuse Plan did not adopt a system of trails equestrian or

otherwise). It did adopt certain recreation policies, encouraging the underlying

jurisdictions to create a comprehensive trail plan, including possible equestrian trails

linking Marina's Community Park located immediately adjacent to the Landfill on the

north) to BLM Lands. An illustrative map of possible trails was included in the Base

Reuse Plan, and is included in the PowerPoint presentation. It shows a possible

equestrian trail located along the northern and eastern edges of the Landfill, not through

the Project site at all.

The people asserting rights to a trail through the Property and Project Site are

technically trespassers. There is no permitted trail through the Property, and the current

users cannot obtain a prescriptive right based upon their use, under California law Civil

Code section 1007; Reclamation District v. American Farms 1930) 209 Cal. 74.

There are many possible equestrian trails that can be studied and ultimately

approved that would use parts of the Property without affecting the Project. In order to

comply with the Base Reuse Plan, this small portion of a theoretical 82-mile trail system

should be part of a comprehensive effort, that includes major stakeholders including the

County, the City of Marina, CSUMB, the BLM and various user groups such as the

Canine Institute, Fort Ord Recreation and Trails Friends, as well as legitimate equestrian

interests, hiker and bicycle groups.

Proposed trails through the Property, as well as elsewhere on the Base, will need

to be reviewed for impacts to habitat, as well as other considerations. The Board has

started a process to allow for a comprehensive review of the use and management of

habitat lands to be conveyed to the County. This process could be expanded to include

an effort to develop the kind of comprehensive trail system envisioned by the Base Reuse

Plan, with the cooperation and participation of other jurisdictions and major stakeholders.

BENEFITS AND CONCLUSION

Approval of the Project should be granted because is it entirely consistent with the

Base Reuse Plan, the County's General Plan, the Fort Ord Redevelopment Plan and

County ordinances. Additionally, however, the Project should be approved because:

4

BIB]

40746-U01

SUMMARY-U02

PRESENTATION-U02

BY-U02

JIM-U02

COOK-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104427-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

SUMMARY PRESENTATION BY JIM C]� It will bring approximately $100 million into the local economy, including $45

million in State and Federal funding

 It is estimated to generate approximately 250 construction jobs for the MST

portion alone, and up to 746 construction jobs as the Whispering Oaks portion of

the Project is ultimately developed

 Almost 1,000 local and permanent jobs are also expected through build out

 It will implement the FORA Infrastructure and Habitat Program

The appeal of the Agency and MST should be granted and the Board of

Supervisors should make the necessary findings to approve the Project.

5

BIB]

40746-U01

SUMMARY-U02

PRESENTATION-U02

BY-U02

JIM-U02

COOK-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104427-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

SUMMARY PRESENTATION BY JIM C]�43

Before the Board of Directors of the

Redevelopment Agency of the County of Monterey

in and for the County of Monterey, State of California

Agreement No: A-11544; Budget No: 09/10-026

Acting as the Board of Directors of the

Redevelopment Agency of the County of Monterey:

a. Approve a Memorandum of Understanding

between the Redevelopment Agency of the

County of Monterey and Monterey Salinas

Transit for the MST Operations and Maintenance

Facility within the proposed Fort Ord Whispering

Oaks Business Park; and

b. Direct the Auditor-Controller to amend the Fiscal

Year 2009-10 Budget to increase revenues and

appropriations by $575,000 in Fund 173, Unit

8213  Fort Ord Capital. 4/5th vote required)

Upon motion of Director Parker, seconded by Director Salinas, and carried by those members

present, the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of the County of Monterey

hereby:

a. Approved a Memorandum of Understanding between the Redevelopment Agency of the

County of Monterey and Monterey Salinas Transit for the MST Operations and Maintenance

Facility within the proposed Fort Ord Whispering Oaks Business Park; and

b. Directed the Auditor-Controller to amend the Fiscal Year 2009-10 Budget to increase

revenues and appropriations by $575,000 in Fund 173, Unit 8213  Fort Ord Capital. 4/5th

vote required)

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22"d day of September, 2009, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Supervisors Armenta, Salinas, Calcagno, Parker, Potter

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

I, Gail T. Borkowski, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey, State of California, hereby

certify that the foregoing is a true copy of an original order of said Board of Supervisors duly made and entered in

the minutes thereof of Minute Book 75 for the meeting on September 22, 2009.

Dated: September 28, 2009

Gail T. Borkowski, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

County of jvI ntercy, Statc of California

Dep y

BIB]

40746-U01

SUMMARY-U02

PRESENTATION-U02

BY-U02

JIM-U02

COOK-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104427-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

SUMMARY PRESENTATION BY JIM C]�e   4d

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN

MONTEREY- SALINAS TRANSIT

AND THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF COUNTY OF MONTEREY

THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of&ph 15, 2009, by and between the

Monterey-Salinas Transit Agency MST"), a joint powers agency, and the Redevelopment

Agency of the County of Monterey Agency"), is made with reference to the following facts

and circumstances:

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the Agency adopted the Redevelopment Plan for the Fort Ord

Redevelopment Project the Project") in February, 2002, in order to eliminate blighting

influences and foster the redevelopment of the Fort Ord Redevelopment Project Area; and

WHEREAS, among the land conveyed to the Agency for the redevelopment of the

Project are properties located along Intergarrison Road, as shown on the map attached hereto as

Exhibit I the Property"); and

WHEREAS, the Agency has adopted a Land Redevelopment Strategy for the Property

that calls for the development of light industrial uses; and

WHEREAS, MST desires to develop an Operations and Maintenance Facility

Facility") to service existing and expected operations in the general area of the former Fort

Ord; and

WHEREAS, the Agency desires to convey to MST a portion of the Property and, in

exchange, MST desires to convey to the Agency real property currently owned by MST, with

both parcels of real property being of comparable size and value; and

WHEREAS, the Agency and MST acknowledge the potentially significant benefits to

the Agency, MST and the Fort Ord community in general if the MST Facility could be

developed on a portion of the Property; and

BIB]

40746-U01

SUMMARY-U02

PRESENTATION-U02

BY-U02

JIM-U02

COOK-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104427-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

SUMMARY PRESENTATION BY JIM C]�WHEREAS, the County of Monterey is a member of MST; and

WHEREAS, the Agency and MST agree to work together expeditiously to undertake the

planning, environmental and other work necessary to develop a Disposition and Development

Agreement DDA"), upon the terms and conditions as set forth in this Agreement,

NOW, THEREFORE, MST and the Redevelopment Agency of the County of

Monterey, collectively the Parties", hereby agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. RECITALS. The Recitals set forth above are incorporated herein and

constitute an integral part of this Agreement.

2. DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. The Agency and MST

shall use their best efforts to negotiate and approve a Disposition and Development Agreement

DDA") no later than April 30, 2010. The basic terms and conditions of the DDA shall include

the following:

a. MST will acquire approximately 21 acres of land, located in the western portion

of the Property the MST Site"). The price for the conveyance of the MST Site

shall be in an amount agreed upon by the Parties and may reflect adjustments to

the price based upon past costs incurred by each Party with respect to the

proposed development of the Property and/or the MST Facility. Payment for the

acquisition shall be either in the form of an exchange of land currently owned by

MST as an Economic Development Conveyance L.2.4.1 and L.2.3), cash,

reimbursement from future developers of other portions of the Property, other

items of value or some combination thereof, as the Parties may agree.

b. The Agency will attempt to configure the northern boundaries of the MST Site in

a manner which allows optimal internal circulation consistent with MST's

preliminary designs.

c. FIST will participate in the Agency's pending application for a 2081 Incidental

Take Permit with the California Department of Fish and Game for the entire

BIB]

40746-U01

SUMMARY-U02

PRESENTATION-U02

BY-U02

JIM-U02

COOK-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104427-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

SUMMARY PRESENTATION BY JIM C]                     �Whispering Oaks Industrial Development Project.

d. MST shall contribute to and participate in the preparation of environmental

documentation consistent with the development of the entire Property for Heavy

Commercial purposes, with a particular focus on the expeditious development of

the Facility on the MST Site.

e. Both parties shall negotiate in good faith for the allocation of water rights

specifically for the Facility, and MST shall provide a refundable Good Faith

Water Deposit, as set forth in Paragraph 3, below. Ultimate payment for the

water allocation shall be either in the form of an extension of utilities and road

infrastructure necessary to serve the Whispering Oaks Business Park, cash, or

some combination thereof, as the Parties may agree. Nothing in this Agreement

will obviate or avoid MST's obligation to pay FORA and/or County impact fees.

f. Both Parties shall use their best efforts to work with third parties to eliminate

possible obstacles to the development of the Facility. The Agency agrees to

promote the expeditious processing of MST's development application by the

County in accordance with the Schedule of Performance attached hereto as

Exhibit A.

The intent of this MOU, and the subsequent DDA, is to allow for the timely development of the

Facility and the remainder of the Property in a manner which promotes the interests of both the

Agency and MST.

3. WATER RIGHT; DEPOSIT & PAYMENT. The Parties shall use their

best efforts to assign, allocate, grant, permit or deliver water, water rights, water allocations and

any other right or entitlement collectively referred to as Water Right) necessary to allow

delivery, access to and right to use water by MST in quantities it deems necessary or convenient

for the full implementation and use of the Facility. MST currently estimates the need for

approximately 14 acre feet of potable and 2 acre feet of non-potable water. The Parties

acknowledge that they do not yet have sufficient data to calculate the payment obligation that

may relate to the Water Right. Accordingly, the Parties have agreed that MST shall make a

deposit in the sum of three hundred-fifty thousand dollars $350,000.00) with the Agency as a

sign of good faith earnest money for this payment obligation, which payment shall be made

BIB]

40746-U01

SUMMARY-U02

PRESENTATION-U02

BY-U02

JIM-U02

COOK-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104427-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

SUMMARY PRESENTATION BY JIM C]

�within ten 10) days from the Effective Date of this Agreement. Unless otherwise agreed by the

Parties, the Water Right Deposit herein shall be credited towards the total amount of

compensation for the MST Water Right.

The Parties acknowledge that Agency may expend funds from this deposit for the benefit

of the Parties in the planning, environmental and other work related to the proposed DDA and

other actions related to the entitling and development of the Property, defined in Paragraph 4 as

Planning Costs." In the event that the DDA is not, approved by the Agency within the time set

forth in Paragraph 2 or such other time as the Parties may mutually agree), and MST declines or

refuses any claim to water related to the proposed Facility, the Agency shall refund the Good

Faith Water Deposit in a manner as agreed by the Parties.

4. ALLOCATION OF PLANNING COSTS. The Parties acknowledge that,

pursuant to this Agreement, the Agency will be undertaking certain tasks and incurring certain

costs related to efforts to' facilitate MST's proposed Facility, including but not limited to the

preparation of studies and other documents necessary to obtain permits from the County of

Monterey for the subdivision of the Property, the approval of rezoning, and the processing of the

2081 Incidental Take Permit, all of which are necessary to allow MST to develop the Facility

Planning Costs"). The Parties agree that MST's fair share allocation of such costs, based upon

the. amount of acreage in the Property anticipated to be conveyed to MST is. Forty-one Percent

41%) of the Planning Costs. The Parties further agree that a good faith estimate of such

Planning Costs is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

The Parties agree that MST shall pay its fair share allocation of Planning Costs in a

timely manner and that such allocation shall be paid in addition to the Water Right Deposit

described in Paragraph 3. As a means of ensuring timely payment, MST shall provide a

Planning Costs Deposit" in the amount'of One Hundred Twenty-five Thousand Dollars

$125,000) within ten 10) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement. The Agency shall

charge this Planning Costs'Deposit for MST's fair share allocation of Planning Costs. At such

time as the amount in the Planning Costs Deposit shall fall to the amount of Twenty Five

Thousand Dollars $25,000), MST shall increase the Planning Costs Deposit by an additional.

One Hundred Five Thousand Dollars $105,000). As part.of the.monthly meetings required by

Paragraph 7, the Parties shall review current and anticipated costs. If additional funds are

required to complete the Planning Costs identified in Exhibit B, the Parties shall meet and confer

as to additional funds required and MST shall make an additional deposit within ten 10) days of

4-

BIB]

40746-U01

SUMMARY-U02

PRESENTATION-U02

BY-U02

JIM-U02

COOK-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104427-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

SUMMARY PRESENTATION BY JIM C]
�agreement on such additional funds. The Agency, however, shall not be obligated to take any

action or incur any cost in furtherance of this MOU if additional funds are needed and not

provided. Any funds remaining in the Planning Costs Deposit shall be returned to MST at such

time as the DDA is approved and the entitlements to the MST Facility secured.

Once such Planning Costs have been incurred by the Agency, they shall not be

refundable. MST may avoid its fair share allocation of Planning Costs only in the event that

MST provides written notice to the Agency of its intent not to proceed or not to proceed further)

with the actions and entitlements contemplated by this MOU. MST shall pay its fair share of any

Planning Costs that have been incurred prior to such notice.

5. BEST EFFORTS. Each Party shall use its best efforts to cooperate with each

other, and to work with third parties, to eliminate obstacles to the timely development and use of

the Property. The Agency shall promote the expeditious review by the County of MST's

proposed development as described herein.

6. MONTHLY MEETINGS.  The Parties agree that designated representatives

from their respective staffs shall meet no less than once a month to review the status of the

actions and proceedings contemplated by this MOU, and to review costs, with the intent to

maintain the schedule of entitlement contemplated by this MOU and described in the Schedule of

Performance: At these monthly meetings the Agency shall provide to MST documentation of

costs incurred to date, and anticipated costs.

7. NO PROMISE OR REPRESENTATION OF APPROVAL. The Parties hereby

agree to negotiate in good faith and to use their respective best efforts to achieve the mutual

goals of the Parties in the redevelopment of Property, including the development of the MST

Facility. It is expressly agreed and understood, however, that each Party retains their full

discretion to agree or disagree to terms and conditions and that by entering into this Agreement

neither the Agency nor the MST is making any promise, representation or commitment to give

special treatment to, or exercise its discretion favorably with respect to the final consideration

and possible approval of the DDA or any entitlement to develop the Property or the MST Site.

8. INTERPRETATION OF THIS NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT. This Agreement

has been arrived at through good faith negotiation between the Parties; both Parties waive the

provisions of Civil Code Section 1654 concerning the interpretation of this Agreement.

5-

BIB]

40746-U01

SUMMARY-U02

PRESENTATION-U02

BY-U02

JIM-U02

COOK-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104427-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

SUMMARY PRESENTATION BY JIM C]

�9. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. Each

party hereto shall act in good faith to expeditiously carry out each party's respective obligations

under this Agreement.

10. AMENDMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS. No amendment to, or modification

of, this Agreement shall be valid or enforceable unless set forth in writing and signed by the

Agency and MST.

11. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in one or more

counterparts, each of which is deemed to be an original hereof, and all of which shall together

constitute one and the same instrument.

12. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the

Parties and supersedes all prior agreements, negotiations or representations with respect to the

Property which are not expressly set forth herein. This Agreement may be modified only by a

writing signed and dated by both Parties.

13. ARBITRATION. In case any disagreement, difference, or controversy shall arise

between the Agency or MST with respect to any matter in relation to or arising out of or under

Paragraphs 3 or 4 of this Agreement, and the Parties cannot mutually agree as to the resolution

thereof, then such disagreement, difference, or controversy shall be determined by arbitration

under the commercial arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association or upon such

other rules as the Parties may agree, provided that the arbitrator shall be a former judge of the

Superior Court or the Court of Appeal. Any arbitration hearing shall be noticed and open to the

public. The submission to arbitration in accordance with the requirements of this section of any

and all agreements, differences, or controversies that may arise hereunder is made a condition

precedent to the institution of any action or appeal at law or in equity with respect to the

controversy involved. The award by the arbitrators, provided it shall not exceed the sum of fifty

thousand dollars $50,000), shall have the same force and effect and may be filed and entered, as

a judgment of the Superior Court of the State of California and shall be subject to appellate

review upon the same terms and conditions as the law permits for judgments of Superior Courts.

A Prevailing Party" shall be determined in the Arbitration, and that party shall be entitled to

reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred, and accrued interest on any unpaid balance that

may be due. Costs shall include the cost of any expert employed in the preparation or

6-

BIB]

40746-U01

SUMMARY-U02

PRESENTATION-U02

BY-U02

JIM-U02

COOK-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104427-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

SUMMARY PRESENTATION BY JIM C]

�presentation of any evidence. All costs incurred and reasonable attorney fees shall be considered

costs recoverable in that proceeding, and be included in any award.

14. LITIGATION. In the event a dispute arises relating to performance under

Paragraphs 3 or 4 of this Agreement where the amount or value relating to the controversy

exceeds fifty thousand dollars $50,000), or for any arbitration award that exceeds fifty thousand

dollars $50,000), then and in that event the Parties may skip any arbitration requirement, and if

already completed, that arbitration shall be deemed advisory. The dispute shall instead be

resolved in a court of law competent to hear the matter. Venue for the matter shall be in the

County of Monterey. The prevailing party shall be awarded costs of suit, and reasonable

attorneys' fees and accrued interest on any unpaid balance that may be due. Costs shall include

the cost of any expert employed in the preparation or presentation of any evidence. All costs and

attorney fees shall be considered costs recoverable in that proceeding, and be included in any

award.

15. GOVERNING LAW & VENUE. This Agreement shall be governed by and

construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

16. EXHIBITS. All exhibits and addenda referred to in this Agreement are attached

hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

17. BINDING AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties

hereto, any successors in interest thereto, and any assigns thereof.

18. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This document represents the entire Agreement

between the Parties, and supersedes any prior written or oral negotiations and representations

between the Parties.

19. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. If any provision, or any portion thereof, contained

in the Contract is held unconstitutional, invalid, unenforceable, or contrary to public policy, the

remainder of this Contract, or portion thereof, shall be deemed severable, shall not be affected

and shall remain in full force and effect.

2009.

20. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Agreement shall take effect on September 15,

7-

BIB]

40746-U01

SUMMARY-U02

PRESENTATION-U02

BY-U02

JIM-U02

COOK-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104427-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

SUMMARY PRESENTATION BY JIM C]�IN WITNESS WHEREOF, both Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date

set forth beneath their respective signatures. Each person signing represents that he or she holds

full authority to enter this Agreement, and by signing intends to bind their principal to the terms

hereof.

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

OF THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY

MONTEREY SALINAS TRANSIT

Date: C~ 2 Zu' y

U:\General NEW)\MST  Main Files\09 Gen\MST MOU Final Draft 6-11-09 5).doc

BIB]

40746-U01

SUMMARY-U02

PRESENTATION-U02

BY-U02

JIM-U02

COOK-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104427-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

SUMMARY PRESENTATION BY JIM C]�EXHIBIT B

 Whispering Oaks Development Program 

 KIST/RDA C OST SUM MARY 

     7/9/2009

 Activity TOTAL MST(R) RDA  W)

  COST Shared Cost Sole Cost Shared Cost

   41%  iv Y.

 Both Developments Together   

 Zone Change   

 Fees $ 59,300 $ 24,300 $ 35,000

 RDA Consultant support RBF) $ 12,700 $ 5,200 $ 7,500

 Tentative Subdivison Map   

 Fees $ 28,000 $ 11,500 $ 16,500

 Consultants Whitson) $ 53,400 $ 21,900 $ 31,500

EIR 1)   

Planning Dept costs staff, consultant, etc) $ 298,000 $ 122,000 $ 176,000

RDA Consultant support Whitson) $ 12,000 $ 5,000 $ 7,000

RDA Consultant support RBF) $ 5,100 $ 2,100 $ 3,000

FORA Consistency Determination   

Consultant support RBF) $ 1,500 $ 500 $ 1,000

DFG 2081 Take Permit   

Consultant RBF) $ 1,500 $ 500 $ 1,000

Consultant Zander) $ 24,500 $ 10,000 $ 14,500

DFG Processing Fee $ 2,500 $ 1,000 $ 1,500

Subtotal Combined Devel $ 498,500 $ 204,000 $ 294,500

Whispering Oaks Subdivision   

General Development Plan   

Fees $ 7,000 $ 7,000

Consultant RBF) $ 6,000 $ 6,000

Consultant Whitson) $ 10,000 $ 10,000

Use Permit  Tree Removal   

Fees $ 3,000 $ 3,000

Subtotal RDA $ 26,000 $ 26,000

RDA Costs of DDA Negotiation $ 30,500 $ 13,000 $ 17,500

RDA Staff Costs  Gen'l Protect Admin $ 20,000 $ 8,000 $ 12,000

TOTAL COST $ 575,000 $ 225,000 $ 26,000 $ 324,000

I 1 1�.slimales for EIR may vary   

BIB]

40746-U01

SUMMARY-U02

PRESENTATION-U02

BY-U02

JIM-U02

COOK-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104427-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012

SUMMARY PRESENTATION BY JIM C]� NOTEXTPAGE

BIB]

40746-U01

SUMMARY-U02

PRESENTATION-U02

BY-U02

JIM-U02

COOK-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO96184-U03

FO99828-U03

MG99866-U03

AS99885-U03

AS99891-U03

AI102710-U03

DO104427-U03

C1-U03

GENERAL-U03

DOCUMENTS-U03

7/21/2011-U04

HANCOCKD-U04

16624-U05

4-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

CERTIFYING-U07

THE-U07

ENVIRONMENTAL-U07

IMPACT-U07

REPORT-U07

PREPARED-U07

THE-U07

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

6/2/2011-U011

TRANSIT/WHISPERING-U012

OAKS-U012

BUSINESS-U012

PARK-U012

PROJECT;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPTION-U012

OF-U012

AN-U012

ORDINANCE-U012

AMENDING-U012

SECTION-U012

21-11-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

ZONING-U012

MAPS-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT-U012

SITE-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

HEAVY-U012

COMMERCIAL-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

HC-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

REZONE-U012

THE-U012

REMAINING-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

58-U012

ACRES-U012

PUBLIC-U012

QUASI-U012

PUBLIC-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

PQP-D-S)-U012

TO-U012

OPEN-U012

SPACE-U012

DESIGN-U012

REVIEW-U012

SITE-U012

PLAN-U012

REVIEW-U012

OVERLAYS-U012

O-D-S);-U012

C.-U012

GRANTING-U012

THE-U012

APPEAL-U012

BY-U012

MONTEREY-SALINAS-U012

TRANSIT-U012

MST)/REDEVELOPMENT-U012

AGENCY-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

COUNTY-U012

OF-U012

MONTEREY-U012

THE-U012

APRIL-U012

13,-U012

2011-U012

DECISION-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

MONTEREY-U012

COUNTY-U012

PLANNING-U012

COMMISSION;-U012

D.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

COMBINED-U012

DEVELOPMENT-U012

PERMIT-U012

CONSISTING-U012

OF:-U012

1)-U012

A-U012

STANDARD-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

PHASED-U012

VESTING-U012

TENTATIVE-U012

MAP-U012

DIVIDING-U012

TWO-U012

PARCELS-U012

OF-U012

30.3-U012

ACRES-U012

85.2-U012

ACRES-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBERS-U012

031-101-041-000-U012

031-101-056-000)-U012

INTO-U012

16-U012

BUILDABLE-U012

LOTS-U012

INCLUDING-U012

A-U012