City Council - Regular Meeting

recording in progress. I think so. I don't know why I don't have no good afternoon. Today is Tuesday, March 17, 2026, St. Patrick's Day. This is a regular meeting of the city of Marina Council. And Anita, can we please get a roll call?

Council member McAdams here. Council member McCarthy. Council member Viala here. Mayor Pratemiser here. Mayor Delgado. Thank you. Um, city attorney, do we have any changes to the closed session agenda? Thank you, Mayor Brom. Uh, we have no changes to the closed session agenda. Thank you. Then we'll open it up to the public for public comments. Seeing nobody in the room or on Zoom, we'll close public comments and we'll go into close session and we'll reconvene here in the council chambers at 6:30. Thank you.

Luke, would you like to lead us in the pledge of allegiance? Uh, Isizuku. Yeah. Woulduku, would you like to lead us? No. All right. Please stand for pledge of allegiance after a moment of silence. United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Liz, for being a good sport. Okay. Um, our first presentation, I don't have it in front of me. Who has it in front of them? Jen. Jenny has it. Will be presented by uh Council Member McAdams uh regarding transgender day resolution. Thank you, Jenny.

Thank you, Mayor. Um we have several guests uh this evening with us. Thank you for being here. Um a couple of um residents had inquired um regarding um celebrating and recognizing um transgender day of visibility. And so I'm going to read this resolution and um present it. Whereas the city of Marina is a diverse and welcoming community that values dignity, equity, inclusion, and respect for all residents. Transgender Day of Visibility observed annually on March 31 celebrates the resilience, contribution, and achievements of transgender and gender diverse people while raising awareness of the discrimination and barriers they continue to face. Whereas transgender individuals experience disproportionate disproportionately high rates of discrimination in employment, housing, health care, and public accommodations, as well as an increased risk of violence and harassment. The city of Marina recognizes the transgender residents, employees, students, business owners, and visitors, our valued members of our community who contribute meaningfully to the civic culture and economic vitality of our city. Whereas the city affirms that all people, regardless of gender identity or gender expression, deserve to live openly, safely, and authentically without fear of discrimination, harassment, or violence. Whereas the city of Marina is committed to uphold and enforce all applicable local, state, and federal civil rights protections, including those that prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression. Whereas the city council seeks to foster a safe and inclusive environment where

transgender and gender diverse individuals are supported, respected, and protected within the bounds of the applicable laws. Now therefore, it be it resolved by the city council of the city of Marina. The city council hereby recognizes March 31 as transgender day of visibility in the city of Marina and encourages residents to observe this day with education, reflection, and support for the transgender community. The city of Marina affirms its commitment to being a safe, welcoming, and inclusive city for transgender and gender diverse individuals. And the city declares Marina to be a sanctuary city for the transgender community, meaning that the city will continue to uphold all civil right protections under state and federal law, will not discriminate on the basis of gender identity or gender expression in the provision of city services, and will ensure that city policies and practices reflect respect and inclusion for transgender residents and employees. Um and it says passed and adopted on this day. Um with all of our signatures. So um Athena and yes,

thank you so much. You want to do a picture with everybody? Maybe they can say a few words and when you're done with Hi everyone. Uh my name is Athena Bersiaga, pronoun she, hera, and I am a I am the co one of the co-chairs for the transgender and bodily autonomy working group alongside Liz. Um just wanted to say thank you to Councilwoman McAdams for bringing this resolution forward. And yeah, this goes to uh trans people being visible in Marina.

Thank you, Athena. Yes, I'd like to thank the Marina City Council for having us today. Uh council member McAdams for proposing this resolution, the mayor Bruce Delgado for having us here today as well. Uh and thank you to the city of Marina for affirming the fact that we love this place. We love this community. We are librarians. We are healthcare workers. We are retail workers, students, and knowing that in the future, Marina is still going to be a community and a place where we can thrive and continue to call home as the city moves forward. So, thank you very much.

Yeah. Yeah, we're very lucky to have a few words may that was great Jenny and through the mayor I just want to say a couple of things on the topic um first growing up in the 90s as a LGBTQ person my trans friends suffered immeasurably and trying to seek health care and trying to normalize their gender identity um and trying just to find a sense of place. And so I'm just so proud of how far we've come and yet I know that there's a lot of work to do. And so I'm grateful that um that our friends are here to to champion that cause and you certainly have an ally in me to to move towards that end. Um two other notes. I don't know if folks

in the room know Karen, Pastor Karen um is a member of our trans community, kind of a fixture in Marina um has come to there's a weekly LGBTQ event at the Spring Hill Suites if if you're not aware. Um and Pastor Karen passed away two weeks ago and um so just in her memory, I just also want to kind of honor her. I mean, she was always at our pride flag um raising ceremony that we have. It'll be our fifth year uh this year and we invite all of you to attend that as well. Um so yeah, I just wanted to kind of say those things and thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you, Brian. Mayor, Mayor Proam Viser,

thank you Mr. Mayor. And I would also like to thank everybody who's here and um just so you know, Marina is a very welcoming city to everybody. And I've said it before, even although we only fly the rainbow flag in June, the pride flag, it the support is year round. So, thank you for being here.

For me, the bottom line is uh many people are killed every year in this country just for being transgender due to violence. A lot of them uh die by suicide, too. Um probably because of all the pressure they're put under. Uh a few years ago, some folks were standing out on uh Delmani Boulevard in Monterey on weekends, I think on Sundays, to to stand in uh stand in um honor of transgender. And that year there had already been 44 transgender murders. 44 transgender people in this country were murdered, you know, for being transgender. and uh you know it's just not acceptable whoever you are to be uh subject to that kind of violence and uh discrimination. So uh thank you everyone for representing the transgender community. All right. Uh we're going to move now to the community workshop uh comments by our city manager. And those of you that were part of this presentation, you can stay as long as you want. You can leave whenever you want. It won't be something we think of as rude or anything like that. Thank you for being here.

Great. Blinda, can you put the slide and show on then?

This is a reminder. Uh, next Tuesday, the 24th, we're having our um big community workshop meeting on going from vision to action. We've been talking about our downtown vitalization plan. Um, Grace Antel is back here for 20 plus years. We have an adopted plan. Now, we're trying to move forward with really some action elements. And so, what you're going to see at the meeting is a lot of different um people coming in. We're going to talk about traffic. We're going to talk about streets. We're going to talk about visioning. We're going to talk about economic viability. We're going to talk about different visions, what downtown could look like. And it's going to be a fun meeting. Next slide. This is our downtown zone as it's laid out in our downtown specific plan. In the red is the core part of our uh downtown zone. and then out in the pink areas. And we call that's the transition part of the zone, but we're really going to be focusing on the core part of our of our downtown area. Next slide. Uh over a year ago, we worked on Delmani Boulevard. That was a priority for the city council. started off as a little landscaping project, but as we dove into it, we said, you know, we really need to identify what we want Delmon Delmani to look like as it enters into the city. And so we worked with our community, had a lot of meetings, and and this is the design that we ended up with. It's fully funded. We have 4 million set aside. Um, and it's going to be gorgeous. Um uh we're still once we get some decisions on this part of our downtown, we're going to be coming back to the council um um with some final decisions and direction and then this part of the plan

will move forward and will be under construction this year. Next slide. Uh this is kind of an idea of what it will look like. Um we talked about there's going to be some key roundabouts. um areas will be able to reduce down to one lane. What we're trying to do is increase the walkability, bikeability, and the ability to uh people to gather and to cluster. And that is what starts to create the downtown area. And this gives the vision. And this potentially is what the vision could be on reservation corridor. And that's what we're going to be talking about at the Tuesday meeting. Next slide. Uh our this is kind of in if you're looking at the center of Marina, I just say it's this Delmani um reservation intersection here. This started off as a traffic signal to be remodeled and restriped to improve the pedestrian access. But as we um developed this down the Delmani design, we said we should really look at a roundabout for uh this center part. And so this is uh realistically what this roundabout would look like. We have 1.7 million in funding uh in grant funding for this. And depending on some of the outcomes of the workshop and as it come back comes back to council um we hopefully will get final direction to move forward uh with this roundabout potentially. Next slide. This is kind of the vision on the reservation road corridor. It'd be turning traffic signals to roundabouts. And so, uh, next Tuesday going to, um, the traffic consultants that put this

together are going to be there. They're going to have their modeling that's going to show the traffic flow, the peak traffic in the AM and PM and how it looks like, and uh, potentially what we could do to slow the traffic down, what the streetscape would look like to increase the pedestrian and bikeability of the downtown. Next slide. This is kind of a closeup of potentially what it could look like. Uh because again, right now we just have a corridor that cars are just trying to go from point A to point B as fast as possible. And we're trying to see if we can create this downtown um village and trying to figure out the action steps that we can move forward with the plan. Next slide. Um uh you can go to our website and you can scan on that QR code. You can get more information. Um we'll be downloading our traffic studies, all these plans in detail, the downtown vitalization plan. Um so you can be prepared for the workshop at the workshop itself from 5 to 6. It's going to be kind of like an open house. um different consultants will be there. They'll talk about the roads. They'll talk about uh possible uh market and real estate and economics that you can look at. We'll have consultants that will have different visions for different types of downtowns potentially what what it will look like. And then we'll be talking more about our downtown vitalization plan in detail. So that'll be an open house from 5 to 6. Then from 6:00 to 8 o'clock um our consultant team will be uh led by a facilitator. We'll be having presentations and then be breaking off into different groups and tables and getting feedback and input from the community and then that results of that will be bringing back to the council and

we'll probably have some surveys and other public input after that. But this will be our big kickoff push to bring information back to the council for final decisions to start moving Delmani, the roundabout Delmanian reservation and the corridor reservation corridor moving forward. And that is it. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much, Lane. Let's go to council and staff announcements. Starting with staff.

Good evening, council. We just wanted to introduce two new community development staff members. We have Tim, our new planning services manager, first and then Bill, our new chief building official. So, just wanted them both to come up and introduce themselves. So, Tim, if you want to come up first. Good evening, Mayor Delgado, members of the city council. Um, I'm pleased to introduce myself as the new planning services manager for the city. My name is Tim Mayor. I truly appreciate the opportunity the city has provided to me. I'm very passionate about public service and I'm really excited to embark work with the city during such an exciting and dynamic time. It's an honor to join the outstanding and talented staff of the city and I look forward to serving the community for years to come. Thank you.

Welcome aboard, Tim. Wow, Tim, I'm impressed. I feel like a Oscar awards winner without a speech now. Uh, that was that was very good. Uh, my name is Bill Morates, uh, chief building official. Really excited to be here. Uh, thank you very much for the opportunity. I am excited about the things that are going on in Marina. Uh, I come from Monterey. I'm a local guy, born and raised on the peninsula, and I look forward to uh, the future with you guys. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you, Bill. Welcome aboard.

And Guido, introduce them. Guido is our director of our community development department. Hi, I'm Amanda. I'm filling in for our recreation manager, Drea, to talk about our springtime family fun event coming up on April 4th from 9 to 11:00. We are partnering with the Kowanas Club of Marina, and they're providing a panc free pancake breakfast for the community. There'll be an egg hunt crafts. It'll be a fun way to ring in the spring season. So great. Yeah, that sounds like fun. I hope I can get my mom to it. Yeah, bring her out. Be a lot of fun.

City Manager Lane. I have one more introduction. We have uh our assistant city manager, Courtney Lindberg, has started work. This is her second week now. So, Courtney, you can go ahead and introduce yourself and tell the council a little bit about Good evening, Mayor Council. Uh I've been to a council meeting before and I've met some of you at the uh 50th birthday celebration, but yeah, just mid second week and really happy to be here and can't wait to meet you all oneonone and work for the city of Marina. Thank you for having me. Welcome aboard, Courtney. Let's give Bill and Tim and Courtney a round of applause. Thank you for being here.

That's great. Thank you, Lane. Thank you, Guido. Okay. Uh let's go to Council Member McAdams and then McCarthy.

Thank you, Mayor. Um I attended the Civic Well Policies makers conference. Um and I had a great experience connecting with leaders from across California. Um one of the most impactful conversations and panels that we had was about um wildfire preparedness and it was really interesting to hear, you know, how the rural communities, you know, versus cities um are trying to manage that. and they too are experiencing um you know home insurance being cancelled or increased etc. Um and so for me it was um really eyeopening. Um one of the workshops was about identifying which cities would need to evacuate and which cities would be the refuge and take on the evacuees. And so in that scenario, Marina is really that for the peninsula um when and if there would be uh a fire or some sort of disaster. So um it just sort of highlighted the importance of planning, coordination, um and investment to ensure that we're prepared, you know, to support both our residents and then also, you know, potentially um other residents of of nearby communities. Um, and then yesterday marked six years since the COVID 19 shutdown. Um, I did a lot of reflection and just thought about, you know, remembering what that was like and how scary and uneasy and, you know, we thought as a mom, we thought it would just be through spring break for the kids and, you know, really ended up being a um quite a long time. So, I just I wanted to take a moment um to honor those that we lost um thank our frontline workers um and recognize the strength of of the community um and the lessons that we learned continue to shape, you know, how we lead and and care and and show up for one another.

So, thank you. Thank you much, Jenny. And thank you for pulling together having the idea and pulling together the transgender day proclamation. That was really great. Okay, Council Member McCarthy. Thank you, Mayor. I just actually had a brief comment on the um the workshop presentation. Um I'm wondering if the thing that I hear most about is a misunderstanding of the the traffic simulations. Can we work with Treepe Smith maybe to put some of those simulations online with some of that data so that we're more transparent about the information that we have? Uh yes. Okay. There there's going to be a separate link on the website that'll have all that information.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. Uh let's move on. Uh we have a consent agenda and that is good for public comment right now as well as anything that's on your mind that's not on the rest of tonight's agenda. So let's open up public comment for items that are not on the agenda except for the consent agenda. Please step forward first in person. Those of you that have something you'd like us to hear first. Do I have green? I don't think I have any green on. Um, Nancy Amado, I wanted to remind those of you that don't tell those of you that don't know and remind those of you that do, this Saturday we're going to be having a celebration of life for Patty Bradshaw, who made numerous contributions to the city, spent over 20 years on the planning commission, was involved in various uh celebrations of anniversaries, the 15th, the 20th, the 25th, She might have even done the 10th. She was president of the Chamber of Commerce. She was Rotary um the Marina Foundation's um history committee. She cared a great deal about this community and I'm sure that there are community members who may not be on Facebook and hadn't heard, maybe staff members who would want to attend. Um, so it's going to be at the American Legion Post 694 here in Marina from 2 to 4 pm. It's very informal. Please come join us. Thank you.

Thank you, Nancy.

Uh, good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Grace Silva Santella. You're honored tonight to have my husband, Ray, with me. We are here. Uh yesterday we sent you an email expressing our opposition to the city council considering Vince Toaggio Park as a location for a future city hall government center. We hope that you all had a chance to read it. We know that the citizens facilities advisory committee recommended Vince Deaggio Park as a second option for a future city hall site. Council member Biala has argued that had the committee been provided with a schematic for a government center at the park, the committee may have chosen Vince Deaggio Park as their first selection instead of the committee's unanimous recommendation for the MST lot on Reservation Road in our core downtown. I served on the citizens facilities advisory committee. Had I seen the schematic that you council members were provided that has city hall and government buildings on the upper lawn level and the fire station on the lower level, I would never have supported Vince Deaggio Park as an option. Our home is close to Vince Deaggio Park. We know how much this park is enjoyed by residents and visitors to Central Marina and how busy it is for special city events and private parties. Twice we have rented the building for pic for um birthday parties for my 40th and for my mother's 70th and at this park is where we attended the celebration of life for our former recreation director Terry Seagrist. What you may not know is that Vince Deaggio Park is a popular site for field trips from nearby Olsen Elementary School. Yesterday Rey introduced himself to Olsen School Principal Lindseay Laren.

He shared with Ms. Larson that he often sees large groups of children from Olsen school walking down Susan Avenue to the park. Ms. Larson told Rey that the teachers use the park for field trips. She also told Ry that some of the kids go to the park after school to enjoy the lawn areas and the playground. When Rey told Miss Larson that the city council is considering building over Vince Deaggio Park for city hall, she said this was the first she heard of this proposal. In the past few council meetings, there has been mention that mil that Marina is building many parks. This may be true in New Marina to the north and south, but this is not true in Central Marina. Central Marina has a finite area for parks and open space and Vince Deaggio Park is one of the few green spaces in Central Marina with large areas of lawn. I personally regret my vote to support Vince Debagio Park as a second option for a 20,000 square foot city government center on the upper lawn area. I join my husband tonight, Rey, in asking that you say no to Vince Deagio. Pardon me for a future government.

Sorry to interrupt, but maybe Rey can finish. I'm good here. Thank you. He's good. Thank you. Thank you very much. I thought you might have more to say. That's why. Thank you. Thank you both.

Okay. Anyone else in person would like to speak? Come on up. Good evening uh mayor and uh council members. My name is Ashram and I have owned and operated a small local business in Marina since 2001. For more than 20 years, my businesses have proudly saved the residents of this community, created local jobs and contributed to local economy. Over the years, however, the cost of running a small business in Marina has continued to increase. We pay business licenses based on our revenue along with other city fees, taxes, payments, insurance, and rising operating cost. Every year, the burden becomes heavier for small familyowned businesses like mine. Despite these challenges, we continue to work hard because we believe in saving our community. What concerns me today is that small businesses are being asked to remove window signage, which is one of the most basic and affordable ways for us to let customers know we exist and what we offer. These window signs are not offensive or harmful. They simply help customers driving by see what products or services are available inside. Without them, customers might not even know that our businesses are there. I was also given a deadline to remove these signs by March 19 or face a fine up to $10,000 for small businesses that has been part of this community for every for over two decades. That kind of penalty feels extremely harsh at the time. At the same time, we are competing with large online companies that sells to our customers every day. Many of these companies do not operate physical stores in Marina, do not employ local workers here, and often do not pay local business license taxes the city of Marina the way local

storefront business do. And I want to make it clear that this issue is not only about my businesses, but long-standing businesses in Marina are facing the same problems. I respect I respectfully ask city of city council to review the window signness policy and consider reasonable facility to for small businesses. I also I would also respectfully ask the council to consider housing enforcements and heavy fines while the issue is reviewed because the goal should be to help small businesses succeed not to make it harder for them to survive. Small business like mine have been saving Marina for more than 20 years and we are not asking for special treatments but we are simply asking the city to work with us not against us. Thank you.

Thank you very much Asham.

Good evening Mayor C manager council. Uh, I'm Marian Level and I'm currently serving as vice chair of the Monterey Regional Airport Board. And I just want all of you to know that on May 23rd, we will have our first return of a mainline flight United to Chicago. So, it's pretty exciting for our community. We have so many people who go through the Midwest or to the Midwest. In particularly this kind of weather, it gives people the opportunity if they're going east, which about 70% of our population does go further. Um they can go either through Phoenix, Dallas, or now they'll have an upper Midwest way to go. So anyway, I hope you all will um use it because if we don't, we'll lose it. So thank you.

Thank you, Maryanne. I'm back. Welcome back.

Hi, council. Um, most of you I don't even know your faces. It's been a while since I've been here, but I wanted to come and speak about uh first of all, Crescent Avenue since they've been building up at the top of Crescent North of us. We're having back to 50 60 mph speeds again. We can't even pull out of our driveways. There's going to be another accident. We've had two accidents at the lower end of Crescent right by my house almost back to back. Um I'm sure you're aware of them. So, you know, that needs to be patrolled more. something needs to be done um to slow this speed down, you know. And then I've been sitting back thinking about once all these homes open up that how much traffic is going to be up and down that street and us living on that street are going to be miserable. You know, I don't know if it should be cut off at some point so that they have to go through a main artery, not through a residential cuz it's just a, you know, almost a straight shot up. You just And then up by the park that is getting so congested it's hard to maneuver through there. Um, I don't know about that roundabout that I'll call it a traffic circle. It's not really a roundabout, you know, it's odd shaped. It's weird to maneuver. Um, so I just wanted to address that. And then about things to do for the kids in Marina. I mean, they're opening up all

these parks, but we need more. I know ever since my children were playing baseball, there still hasn't been any new fields. You know, we need fields. Right now, my son's playing down in Nomo, a small little town, and they have four baseball fields just, you know, and it's like Marina can't we're growing, you know, we can't do that for our kids here, you know, and what else is there to do in Marina? I took my grandson up to go ride horses and they said sorry. So I don't know what's going on there. Now there's not even that to do. You know, he was starting to really enjoy that. So, you know, we're taking away instead of adding to they're talking about what to do with the um field down there by Walmart, but there's a sign up there that they're accepting leases for mixed use. So, it sounds to me like there's going to be housing already. Was that voted on already? Because according to that sign, it's been voted on.

Becca, sorry to interrupt you, but your time's up. Thank you. But we are hearing similar concerns on Deorest Avenue that you mentioned on Crescent. Thank you for letting us know your concerns.

Hello to Kevin for us. Anybody else in person? Okay, let's go online. MC trying to have you come on MC. Okay, MC might be having tech difficulties trying to unmute you. We will come back to you, MC, I promise. Let's go to Margaret Davis. Welcome, Margaret.

Good evening. I want to uh second what Grace I think we can hear you Margaret if you speak I'm sorry you can't hear me. Uh I promote you to panelist maybe that will help. Margaret if you can hear us please begin. Do you hear me? Hello. Uh, we're not hearing you. I'm sorry if you're talking and we can't hear you.

I'm not sure what to do cuz uh, do you hear me now? Come back to you, Margaret. See if you and MC are having the same kind of difficulty. Let's go to Daniel. Uh, yes. Hi, Daniel Dan here. Are we speaking about the Marina landing site right now? Show is being ready to go. Yeah. Can you hear me? We haven't had this problem before, but that's three in a row.

Hi. Can you hear me? Hello? Hello? All right, Daniel, I'll move you to a panelist as well. See if that helps.

Hi, can you hear me now? You're a panelist. Can you hear me? Hello? And we see that you are talking, but we can't hear you talking.

Hello. Hello. Hello. Uh hello Daniel asked if we can see your message. Yes, Daniel, we can see your message. on the call say they can hear you. So apparently you're audible except in our room where we are. You're not audible.

You still can't hear me. Correct. Keep trying Daniel to talk. We're trying to hear you. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Can you hear me? Hello. I'll keep trying. Well, I guess we can be left out of the conversation. They talk amongst themselves. Okay, Daniel's talking now. Courtney. Hello.

Hello. Can you hear me? We can hear you up front at the staff table, but we can't hear you over the speaker of the room. Um, okay. I mean, it's up to you. You'd like me to proceed or do you want to figure out? The whole room can now hear your cell phone, but not our speaker systems. Uh, so you can hear me. Do you wish for me to proceed? We can hear you on the HR director's laptop on the city laptop, but we can't hear you on the sound system. Um, okay. Would you like me to wait? Back.

We're still trying to work it out. Daniel, please be patient about this.

Okay. Okay. Sorry. Yeah. Okay. Take your time. I didn't know if you wanted me to speak or not. All right, let's take a five minute break. Hopefully, we can make some progress. Okay, I'll hang tight. We'll meet back here at 7:20.

We're going to close public comment and then open up a subsequent comment section at 8:00 p.m. to give people home a chance to come here and speak who can't speak online because of our technical difficulty. So, we'll have another public comment at 8:00 p.m. Uh, we'll interrupt whatever we're doing to see if anyone has arrived who wants to speak. And we're very sorry. I'm going to turn it over to our city attorney unless in case he has more input. Uh, no, I don't have any additional input. Okay. So, if you can try to keep track and tell us, hey, it's 8 o'clock or it's going to be 8 o'clock in five minutes, something like that.

Okay. We're very sorry. This has not happened before. Mayor, may I make a suggestion that we also allow people to email within the next two hours and we'll read any any um written comment? Is that I mean I'm just worried if they can't make it to which email? City Marina marina citymarina.org. Do do you have access to that? All right. So that would mean a third public comment period after 2 hours. No, I was suggesting we do that at 8 as well.

Okay. So a city attorney is saying that's okay. So let's do that too. Great suggestion. So if you want to email in your public comments and they can't be more than 3 minutes for us to read them, but we will read them for three minutes and email to marina city ofina.org. Great suggestion. Okay. So, come on down to be here in person at 8 o'clock or email before 8 o'clock and we'll have our uh deputy city clerk monitor that so that we can read it out. Very sorry. Okay. Uh one moment. We have a consent agenda and people online haven't had a chance to comment on it. So, I'm asking.

Okay. So, to give everyone a chance to comment on our consent agenda, um we'll take that up after the 8:00 p.m. comment period. So, we'll have a major interruption at 8:00 p.m. for a public comment period and for our consent agenda, which might be quick depending on the public comment. Okay. So, we're going to skip the consent agenda and come back to that in a bit and we're going to go right to a public hearing on our short-term rentals. And I think Guido will probably be framing this and mayor, I'll be recusing myself from this item as I have a disqualifying interest. Okay. Will we

this will be a tag team effort with code enforcement, CDD and also city attorney providing input as well. So will will we have any online consultants on this issue? You mean speakers? Yeah. I see some triggers on the I'm not Oh, that's okay.

Thank you for your patience. Marissa,

we ready? Oh, we'll wait. Good good evening, council. Uh, my name is Marisa Huntley. I'm here to present on Marina Municipal Code ordinance amendments for our short-term rental ordinance 17.42.170. Next slide, please. Oh, thank you. On November 5th of 2019, city council adopted Ordinance 2019-02 amending the Zord the zoning ordinance to include 17.42.170 42.170 entitled short-term rentals, which established a permitting process and appropriate standards for whole dwelling units or portions of the same for a period of 29 consecutive days or less along with associated regulations to mitigate negative impacts. Oh, thank you. On August 6, 2025, city council initiated a discussion on strengthening the city's short-term rental program to better protect neighborhood integrity. City council directed staff to identify ordinance amendments that would improve the effectiveness of the program. Here's a brief history of short-term rentals. The most prominent platform began in 2008. Its purpose was to provide a bedroom rental for guests when hotels were completely booked. This was in the North Bay area. Soon after, property owners began using their properties as short-term rentals without

any regulations. Next slide, please. Short-term rental issues. Uh, initially they were unregulated. The owners began renting out the entire house, and some short-term rentals were used for large parties and gatherings. Some short-term rental activities resulted in stabbings and shootings. Not in Marina. Uh short-term rental platforms have since banned parties. Next slide. Short-term rental ordinances. Uh jurisdictions began enacting short-term rental ordinances in the mid2010s. Uh some cities banned short-term rentals while others provided different options. They provided hosted short-term rentals. Santa Monica is one of those cities. Some only allow them in commercial zones only like Los Angeles and San Diego. Some only allow them on primary residences and only 90 nights per year. That is a city of San Francisco. And some only allow them in the coastal zone only. One of those being Oceanside, Pacific Grove, and right now it's it's in they're disputing it with the county, but right now they're allowed in the coastal zone in Monterey County in unincorporated areas and some cities chose to ban them altogether. There's a long list there. Short-term rentals in the Monterey Peninsula, in the city of Monterey, they are prohibited. and Carmemell by the Sea prohibited. Pacific Grove, they only allow 250 permits. Delray Oaks has a cap of 25 permits. Seaside has 90 permits allowed, and they have two options, hosted and non-hosted. Sand City has 15 permits allowed. Uh Marina short-term rentals are permitted, and there's currently no no limit, and that's a correction. There's 35 right now since this presentation was first

created. There's 35 issued permits. Excuse me. Versa, is there is there any there's no limit? But we currently we have 32. 35. There's a correction. Yeah. But there is no limit. Correct. Okay. Thank you.

There's no cap right now. Uh in Monterey County unincorporated areas, um they're they're fighting it with the legal team and the county are going back and forth with the commission to complet completely ban them altogether. in Pacific Grove. U like I said before, short-term rental licenses are per are limited to 250 citywide and they allow them in the coastal zone. The applicant for the subject property must be the owner of record and they also have a zone of exclusion of 55 ft and they require that a site manager uh is be is required and unless the owner is required unless the owner chooses to manage their own property and if an owner decides to manage their own property they must reside no no further than 30 minutes by vehicle of the short-term rental. Delray Oaks. They have a 25 uh permit limit. Once again, the applicant for the property must be the owner of record. They require a nuisance response plan filed with the city. And each host must either act as or appoint a short-term rental site manager who shall be on call 24/7. Each host or site manager shall respond within 30 minutes from the time of notification of any issue to address concerns or complaints. and they must have a local contact information placard posted on the building. It also requires the host to preserve 3 years of records for city inspection. Seaside seaside has a limit of 90 uh citywide and like I said they have hosted and non-hosted uh permits or licenses. The applicant must be the owner of record and if a permit is revoked they cannot reapply for two years. They also have a 55 zone of exclusion at the time of application.

The property must be safe to uh to inhabit. They uh properties under construction or vacant land will not be considered for the waiting list. And each host or site manager shall respond within 60 minutes of receiving a notification regarding issues or concerns. And they also require local contact information to be posted on a placard. And they have a maximum number of vehicles for both on and off streetet parking. It cannot exceed the total number of bedrooms included in the rental. and staff is required to complete a property inspection initially and with each renewal. Sand City Sand City has a cap of 15 permits. The applicant for the subject property must be the owner and each host must either act or appoint a site manager who shall be on call 24/7. Uh each host or manager shall respond within 30 minutes of notification and they also require the local placard and staff is required to complete a property inspection. Next slide please. The next slide has a uh permit map listing or showing 30 the 35 permits which will depict they're in central marina. So currently the 35 permits are in central marina and this is because the HOAs and the Jones and Sea Haven and a a condo complex in Central Marina have banned uh short-term rentals. So you won't see them in Se Haven development or the dunes and in the the condo complex that have they they don't allow them. So we cannot we don't issue them permits there. Next slide please. Short-term rental issues. Properties began or properties were being purchased um are being purchased in some cases specifically to obtain a

short-term rental permit. At least 12 of the 35 properties were previously long-term rentals. Uh we had an issue with the LLC with two members um obtaining a short-term rental permit because they have, you know, two or more members on the LLC and they bought different properties and obtained a permit. Uh we also have a case where the owner purchased four properties and once they realized they could not have more than one permit, they transferred the property to family members. And then we also had an issue with uh an owner obtaining a short-term rental permit while holding a state facility license. in essence running a business out of the house and also obtaining a permit to short-term rental part of the property and ADUs and or accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units being used as short-term rentals. Next slide. The here's the outline of the targeted changes. Uh we wanted to improve the definition of uh or expand on the primary residence forms of identification, advertising, parking requirements, permit application procedures, specific prohibitions, and hosting platform requirements and liability and enforcement. Next slide, please. Thank you for primary residents. Uh the background uh LLC's, couples, and immediate family members were purchasing multiple properties for investment purposes. Uh the issues, the short-term rental ordinance was enacted as a way to support owners living on the property, not for investment purposes. The city has a difficult time ascertaining the primary residency requirement. The solution to to require homeowner

exemption on the county property record and require a minimum residency by owner of at least six months requiring the rental ledger as proof and limit the short-term rental use to maximum of 180 days. The city of San Francisco has a 90-day maximum. Um, in this CA, if if this was something that we enacted, the applicant would be required to provide a proposed rental calendar for the fiscal year and submit short-term rental platform transaction ledgers during the permit renewal process. Forms of identification, uh, two forms of ID are required for the initial short-term rental application. Currently, a driver's license and a utility bill suffices. Uh the issues we had was that new applicants were initially submitting their driver's license with their actual residence address and not the property address and once advised of the short-term rental requirement they would submit a change of address to the DMV and we were in the current ordinance in the process we were not requiring that they submit a copy of their driver's license upon renewal. Uh a change of address is easily submitted online through the DMV. a solution to require submitt of two forms of identification upon renewal to include DMV vehicle registration, driver's license, state and federal tax returns, a bank account statement, voter registration, or a utility bill data within 60 days. Next slide. Advertising. Uh property owners and or their agents were listing properties as short-term rentals and advertising without having a permit and a business license. Uh the short-term rental ordinance as it stands is currently lacking an enforcement tool to address advertisement of unpermitted rentals. The solution we created a subsection 8 uh to the ordinance. Uh we clearly defined what advertising meant and how we would enforcement enforce it. Uh with

the new addition, we can issue citations to or hold the owner and the person advertising and the agents or any platforms that are uh any other associates that are listing the property on their behalf, not just the property owner. Parking requirements. The city has received a couple of complaints regarding the large number of vehicles brought in by short-term rental guests. The issue is that that short-term rentals may host up to 12 adults with equal number of vehicles reducing street parking. So we created subsection 12 to section C where we stated that the number of vehicles cannot exceed the number of bedrooms and the STR owner will be required to provide their platform to provide their platform listing and staff will ensure that the parking requirements are listed in the listing itself as to the maximum number of vehicles allowed on that property. permit application procedures. The short-term rental listings did not match property records. Um, the applicants were not submitting proper documentation or supporting documentation. We clarified and added procedures to section D. We articulated that the application fee is non-refundable because it was enlisted. So, if someone was denied, they would ask for a refund. So, we clearly stated that it's not refundable. Uh we added section five to require site plans which do not need to be drawn up by a professional but drawn to scale including the a plot plan showing the property lines, the location of the existing buildings and location of uh the parking spaces and a floor plan showing all rooms with each room labeled as to room type. Um I had a couple at least one case that the property listing had three bedrooms but it was rented out as a fourbedroom. So they had made or created a fourth

bedroom without permits. So they had to legalize that fourth bedroom with permits. Um and we section six to require a rental lease agreement to be used or or have house rules and requirements which shall include uh not but not limited to the number of guests allowed. Some of the listings had exceeded the max amount of people. They just didn't pay attention to the chart of the max number of people. So once I compared the listing to the actual property record, then I would advise them via email letting them know that they had to update the listing to reflect the max number of people allowed. And section seven, once the permit is issued, the permit number must be listed on all platform listings uh headlines and the platform web links must be provided to city staff. Specific prohibitions. The ordinance was enacted as a way to support owners living on the property. However, new permit applicants are recent buyers owning more than one property, reducing the housing supply. The current ordinance lacks a prohibition se section listing specific prohibitions. So, we created subsection 14 to uh section C. The activities prohibited for the rentals are examples that include but are not limited to senior housing units and below market rentals may not be used for short-term rental purposes. An owner cannot have a short-term rental on more than one parcel in the city of Marina and the parcel listed on the permit must be the owner's primary residence and more than one short-term rental booking uh may not occur concurrently per parcel. That's how what we initially recommended. And we prohibited commercial or assembly uses such as weddings, corporate events, and parties.

And short-term rentals to unaccompanied minors is prohibited. Hosting platform requirements. The platform providers were not compelled to share host information. Uh it was extremely difficult to obtain any information from the platforms. Uh at the time the city is unable to obtain short-term rental host information. However, we created subsection C uh to to section E to include the newly enacted Senate Bill 346, which makes it easier for jurisdictions to obtain that information from the platforms since it's a state law. Next, liability and enforcement. Uh the property owner is currently the only person held responsible for the violations. Uh property owners use property management companies and agents as host. We added section F to the ordinance uh to articulate that we can basically hold other people accountable to include the owner, the representatives, uh a person acting as an agent, the tenants or real estate broker, etc. and added that the violations of this chapter may be prosecuted under our current ordinance uh 1.12.080 080 and issued a civil penalty not exceeding the amount set forth in the government code 36900 little D. Planning Commission. The initial short-term rental ordinance updates were presented to planning commission on October 23rd of 2025. Uh it was a lot of information and a lot of changes. So the commission requested a study session be held on December 18th. Staff updated the ordinance and presented it to planning commission on February 12th, 2026. Planning Commission recommendations.

They requested the removal of the language prohibiting short-term rental permits on properties that have ADUs and JADUs on site. They requested the removal of the language limiting short-term rental permits to single family properties only and removing the language restricting a short-term rental permit to properties with only one kitchen and removal of the 180day requirement from the primary residence definition. They also wanted us to add a requirement that the newly adopted ordinance be reviewed by planning commission and city council 3 years after adoption. So we added section G1. Planning commission recommendations continued. They requested additional information regarding issued short-term rental permits and potential revenue. Uh this slide shows the permits throughout the last 5 years and the short-term rental toot transit occupancy tax revenue over from fiscal year 2021 through today. Um back in 2021 when the ordinance was brand new uh we had a record of one permit and then in 22 it increased to three and then in 23 increased to nine. In 24, you see the big jump because I was asked to assist with the permits. And so I started doing my research and we realized there was a lot more permits or a lot more short-term rentals that we had record of. And so as we got everyone legalized and ensured that they had their not only their permit, that they also had their business license and were paying or remitting toot taxes, the number jumped. And also we had houses that were recently purchased and solely to obtain a short-term rental permit. So we had 25

and then the last or this last current year we are at 35 permits. And you can see the progression of the or increase of tot revenue um as we get more permits. Recommendations continued. uh they proposed requiring a 55 foot zone of exclusion and requested a map. So we added a subsection C14 for density limits. It's pretty long, but basically um there's a transition period where if we have existing properties that are within 55 ft of each other, they will be allowed to continue once they renew their permits through June 30th, 2027. Here's a it's pretty small, but it's the map of Central Marina with all the permits. Uh it's a zoomed out. And then the next slide is a little bit uh zoomed in, but that shows the property, some of the properties, most of them in Central Marina and a 55 ft buffer zone of the properties it would affect. Right? So if you have a property and you have a couple neighbors, uh it would affect them to the side and to the rear. Next slide. Recommended motion. Uh this is where we're asking the council adopt resolution recommending the city council adopt the proposed amendments to title 17 article 4 uh by amending the section for short-term rentals and the proposed ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to section uh 15061B3 of the SQL guidelines and to work with the finance department to update our hosting agreements for Senate Bill 346.

That's it.

All right, Marissa, I'm always blown away by your presentations. I can't imagine being more thorough. I would not want to go up against you. Um, okay. So, we're going to go to public comment. We'll start with the people who here are public. And this is a public hearing. So, we'll open the public hearing to hear from the public. I don't know what the plan is. Maybe we're up and running for audio when we get to the remote. So, we think we're good to go on the audio. Um, in 10 minutes, we'll take a we'll have an interruption for our public comment period. But, let's get started here with people in the room. If you have comment on this issue, please come on up. Thank you. Uh my name is Sean McDonald. Uh I'll be a Marina resident as of next year for a decade. Um and between my wife and I, uh we've either taught or been a special educator uh in Marina schools for up to 15 years now. Um, you know, I'm I'm speaking in support of what the work that that Marisa, Brian, and Guo have done along with the planning commission. It's they've put in a ton of hours um and been really thoughtful uh between the commission and the city staff. Um, you know, I was part of this process seven, eight years ago when we got started. Um, yeah, with the the current ordinance, uh, it was put in place. Now I would say that it's one of the most restrictive in the peninsula uh requiring us to be primary residents. I think sometimes it can be yes while there's no limit which I um you know I see that there's no limit but you have to be a primary resident and so you have to do something really uncomfortable to be able to to to have a short-term rental. We have a short-term rental uh

permit. Um and we've been operating successfully and under the law for a number of years. Obviously, this process with potential changes is always stressful in our family. Uh it's an important part of our income. Um I want to say, you know, I I really love a few of the things that especially the homeowner homeowner exemption that's required uh of of applicants. It's currently not in the current ordinance. And with with the amendment to include the homeowners exemption, it really puts onus on them to show that they actually live there. um where it can be a little bit easier to get around that uh without that. Um also a couple of things including a nuisance plan and requiring a decibel monitor which we already have on our property because we think it's really important that we take care of our neighborhood. It's our neighborhood where we live and and we want to make sure that though that we have the things in place to make sure that we're doing this responsibly. Um, so I want I want to thank the um city council and the mayor for hearing my presentation and and again for the planning commission and the city staff for all the work they put in. Um, I think this adds a little bit more teeth to the ordinance um and allows allows but allows those of us who are primary residents to continue operating as we have. Thank you.

Thank you Sean for keeping input coming for many years. You should be on the planning commission. You'd only have a conflict of interest once every year.

Hi, um, Grace Solantella, that was a fantastic presentation. Thank you very much. We have a short-term rental down the street from us and I don't believe it's in compliance because I don't believe it's a primary residence any longer and I will be contacting Marissa about it. years ago when this was discussed I remember I believe Gail Morton was on the city of the DAS there was a lot of concerns about LLC's coming in and buying up properties and turning them into short-term uh rentals I prefer a very strict short-term rental ordinance in place and I actually disagree with the planning commission's uh to remove ADUs and and Jadus use from to allow them to be used for short-term vacation rentals. I remember sitting in this audience when you all first got your presentation regarding ADUs in this for the state of California and that this was going to suddenly become one of our big solutions to providing housing for the growing population of California. And if you're taking these ADUs and JADUs and you're turning them into short-term vacation rentals, you've removed that um opportunity that those uh units, those small those affordable uni units by design have been taken off the market. We had a very large uh addition uh built next to our home and we became quite concerned it was going to be turned into a short-term vacation rental. Fortunately, that has not happened. But I personally say you keep as much strict verbiage in there as you possibly can to protect our single family residents given that the dunes Sea Haven are not going to have any of these. It's all going to be the burden on Central

Marina. But I think you need to understand what might happen at Marina Station because if Marina Station isn't going to be allowing any short-term rentals, it's going to become an even greater burden on Central Marina. Thank you very much. And Marissa, thank you. Thank you very much, Grace.

One day I stay home is the one day you break. Okay. I also do not support city office buildings at Vince Deaggio Park. Like my letter to council member Biala stated, that is a highly used park. Am I speaking out of space again? Of course I am. Just go to bed. What? I know.

Lisa, you can be the first at 8:00. Anyone else wishing to comment on this matter in public? All right, let's give it a try. Uh Denise Turley, I don't know if you wanted to talk on this issue, but you are top of the line here.

Trying to ask you to unmute. Okay, so it is 8:00. So why isn't she allowed to speak? She's in the room. We're not hearing. Everybody can hear except in this room.

Hello. Hello. Can we move that your laptop? Hi again, Denise. Hello.

There's an echo, but we can hear you. I'll speak slower.

The lady that was in the room, it was already 8:00. Why wasn't she allowed to speak? Number one. Number two, the flyer had the rhyme wrong time on it. It said 4:00. Lane confirmed with me that it should be 5:00. That announcement should be made to the audience. The flyer should be corrected. I'm saving the rest of my time for later. Thanks, Thank you, Denise. Daniel,

hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Hello. Okay. Are we talking about the Marina landing site right now? No, we're saving the vest for last. Okay. Okay, then. Uh, sorry to bother. I'll I'll wait my turn. Thank you. Anybody else online?

Okay, we'll close public comment. to move to. We're opening public comment for anything on your mind that's not on the agenda, including the consent agenda. Okay, I'm actually calm.

Okay, so I do not support having city buildings built at Vince Deaggio Park. Um I'm sorry this is very distracting. Okay. Um I do I don't also agree that you should go forward with the UTT tax unless you have a clear defined plan and be um open and clear and transparent with that plan because I got the impression when you were talking at previous meetings that you were just kind of vaguely saying you wanted to do this UT tax. But isn't that why we lost the opportunity to fund those buildings during the last election is because there wasn't a clear defined plan. And that's all I had to say. Thank you.

Thank you for your patience, Lisa. Anyone else in the room with public comment? Okay, let's go online. Denise, you're up next. Can you hear me? Not yet. We're trying. Okay,

let's try it again, Denise. How about now?

Hear her. Try again, Denise. And again. Okay, go ahead, please.

Great. Okay, so first comment was that the flyer that Lane held up earlier had the wrong time on it. It said 4:00 and he confirmed with me it was 5:00. So, um, that connection should be announced to everybody. Uh secondly, um I'd like um Courtney and or Lane to get back to me as to how we get an appointment with Courtney being one of her subjects. That's it for that's it for now. Talk to you more later. Thanks.

Thank you, Denise. Okay, Daniel, your hand is up for public comment, but not Marine Landing. Yeah, sorry, I forgot to put it down. I'll do that now. Sorry. Okay, we'll give everyone a moment to raise your hand remotely. Margaret Davis Welcome.

Thank you. Um, oh gosh. I concur with Grace and Ray Silva Santella concerning Vince Deaggio Park. Deaggio Park is not in the downtown zone. It would require extensive grading and mature tree loss. It would route undue traffic onto Little Susan Avenue and require major traffic engineering and modifications to Delmani for high velocity fire and emergency vehicles. Moreover, this proposal is profoundly inequitable. It deprivives ordinary middle and lower income residents in central Marina of a restful, lovely open space and a valued neighborhood race resource for health and recreation. Destruction of this park would inflict a profound blow to the neighborhood and a loss for school children, marina old-timers, and prospective new residents and families celebrating special events. My understanding is that council member Biala is driving this idea while Miss Biala may prefer to use parks in her own district. I assure all the council that Deaggio is an irreplaceable and felicitous land use in Marina and deserves protection and preservation by this council. I also uh is this a place to comment on um uh consent agenda items?

Yes.

Um could you clarify the uh the transgender resolution? Does the language have any implied legal aid, financial commitments, safety guarantees, housing, um, or other guarantees for transgender individuals in Marina? And how does that play out with um, Marina's Marina's financial resources and financial and legal resources? Uh would the the state of California is a uh transgender sanctuary. Would this item have stronger legal and practical guarantees than the state has? And what would that mean for Marina in practical terms? So those are my two comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Margaret. Anyone else? Please raise your hand. Welcome Tommy Blea.

Can you hear me? Yes. Uh, I guess you have quite a bit of uh things going on with these ordinances for these um rental units. Wow. Who's going to police all this? I'm wondering, is it the planning department? I mean, you need a person on the computer looking at advertising of these rental units. Then you need Tommy. We're done with that item. We had public comment on that item. Okay.

This is for consent agenda or other issues on your mind. Okay. Well, let's see here. Well, we'll just talk later then, I guess. Thank you. Thank you, Tommy. We hope you're enjoying your new street. Yeah, a little bit.

Thank you. Okay, Margaret, I had a question and I think the answer is the whereas of the resolution that we will uphold and enforce all applicable laws, protections. Lane or city attorney, do you have anything more to add? Yeah, I don't have anything more to add than what's in the resolution. Do we expect it to uh require any additional resources financial or staff than already? Uh not to my knowledge.

Okay. What any other questions asked that I have not addressed? Okay, thank you everyone for your comment and your patience with our audio tonight. Now, we'll see if there's any email. Yes, Belinda. Let's take another five minute break because reading a lot will strain your patience more. So 5 minute break back here at 8:15.

testing. Two, three. Sounds good. Okay, we're going to resume

public comment. And remember, we offered for email to come in. We only got one email. It's from Peter Lei. And I'm going to start reading it. And I have a three minute uh time limit. Dear Mayor Dato and council members, I'd like to submit the following comments. Item 6B, the community workshop for March 24th. Marina city manager and director of the community development department and city cons consultants need to present the city implementation plan at the start of the workshop before breaking up residents into smaller groups. The city did not provide links to the traffic analysis comparisons and recommendations from the different consultants. The city only provides links to the downtown specific plan documents, guidelines, and development codes. That's number one. Number two, Marina Station subdivision project and potential odor. We smelled odor last month at our home. The city previously approved an ad hoc committee on odor study and mitigation. The committee was Mayor Delgado and council member Ryan McCarthy. Can Mayor Delgado and Council Member McCarthy report to the council and the residents what this committee has accomplished for the last 12 months? Many people will buy new homes in the Marine Station subdivision and they may experience odor as described in the city odor study. To prevent surprises and potential complaints to the city from the new homeowners on smelling the odor, it's wise for the city to inform the developers that the city has performed an odor study and let the developers know how they can obtain a copy of the study from the city. The developers may want to inform in potential buyers of new homes at marine station subdivision that they may smell odor from adjacent facilities as described in the odor study if the city does not inform the developers of the potential odor and the developers may say that they are not aware of this problem. Number three is about the u marina land the marina landing land use plan which we'll hear

later tonight so I'm not going to read that here. Number four, unressed issues in the user utility tax utility users tax proposal. The city consultant informed the city council that most Marina residents did not not want to give the council a blank check. Therefore, the council needs to provide detailed information of what the council will do if voters pass a new measured tax. The city council has decided to pursue a user util utility users tax to be voted on at the November 26th general election. So far, the council has decided to establish a rate of 7% on the utility tax. Since the utility tax is a general tax and the money collected will be put into the general fund and will be under the control of the council, voters do not have a deciding voice on the use of the collected utility tax. But the consultants inform the council that the council place on the ballot an advisory that indicates what the council will do with the collected utility tax. This will get more support from marina voters. Therefore, the council needs to inform voters through the advisory ballot that the sites the council will construct new Pacific public facilities which facilities will be be built, the priorities of the public facilities to be built and which facilities will be built first and the construction schedule for each public facility. The question is when the council will discuss and approve approve an advisory ballot that includes the above information. At the last council meeting, the council acknowledged that it faced a short time frame to adopt the new utility tax measure. Okay. Um, that's it. So, we'll close public comment. And, um, did we already address the questions that other folks raised? Like Margaret Davis had a question. Okay.

All right. So, Peter, Brian, and I will get back to you on your question about what progress, if any, the committee on odors has made in the last 12 months. And staff will get back to you on these other questions that you you have included. And the same is true for Margaret. We didn't answer her question. We forgot we're not supposed to answer questions, but we didn't. Okay. All right. Were there other questions, staff, that you're going to uh reach out and we'll make sure that we have a means to reach them. Okay. All right. Thank you everyone again for your patience. Hopefully, we're back to normal. Thank you to Belinda and anyone else that helped us get back to normal. We're going to go back to the short-term rentals. We had public comment. Uh did we answer questions that were raised in public comment? I don't think we did. So, let's go to uh

We don't we don't answer public comment. We had a public hearing on STRs, right? STR. And so, now we're we're going back to the STR. We've had staff and we've had public comment on the STRs. So, now we'll answer any questions that came up during the public hearing on STRs. Um, Sean spoke, didn't have any questions. Did anyone else speak with questions? And thank you, Sean, if you're still here for that. And Grace spoke, didn't have questions.

I wanted to clarify something for Grace brought up. Initially the on the ordinance to planning commission, we proposed to ban or to not allow properties that had an ADU or a JDU obtain a permit for the main house. Uh but they did not like that. So, right now, I wanted to clarify for Grace that short-term rentals are still prohibited on inside ADUs and JADUs, but a property that has either or either of them can still have a permit for the main house. Okay. So, I could move to the ADU in my backyard and STR the main house. Correct.

Thank you. Okay. Now, let's go to uh council comment starting with Council Member McCarthy. McAdams. He's he's always very brief. Let's go to Council Member McAdams.

Um, thank you so much um to the planning commission um and staff for bringing this back in a very thoughtful manner and doing um all of this work um to really make our jobs easier. Um, you know, later in the meeting, we're continuing down the path of our pro-ousing designation. And to me, vacation rentals in our neighborhoods owned by LLC's and out of town investors are the opposite of being proousing. Um, and so I have a few questions for staff. So staffwise, who is managing the STR program and how is staff currently identifying unlicensed and illegal short-term rentals? So currently planning division, which is Brian and Phil, and now our new planning services manager is uh is in charge of the permit process. They review the applications, ensure that the documents provided are sufficient and issue the permit or deny it. I when I have time will go through the website and find the unpermitted ones. We now require that they list the permit number on top of the main headline. And so that's how we quickly identify them because they don't have a permit number. And sometimes they have the permit number for the main house but are using it for the ADU or the Jedu on the property. So then we issue them a citation.

So we're not using software. We're using manual looking up when you have time. Okay. We are working on that as we speak. Okay. And so how many unlicensed short-term rentals do you estimate are currently in the city?

I don't have a specific number. Um, but it it could be it could be several like 10, 30. No, I I think it's less than 10. Okay. Um, so I do have um concerns that, you know, included in this policy and the amendment, which is something that I had advocated for was was the banning of advertising of of illegal short-term rentals. And that makes it like we can be charging a daily fee or whatever we want to charge. Um, but the reaction to that is that all of these unlicensed short-term rentals that are in the city of Marina are going to influx to you guys to get permitted. Um, and so without clear limits in place because we don't have a cap on permits, um, it's going to expand the number of short-term rentals. And so, I mean, when we start building a motion, I'm we need a cap period. Um, uh, oh, that's Oh, uh, okay. Sorry. Thanks. Um, so we do need a cap. And also, you know, when I think about it, you know, to be consistent, so the dunes, Sea Haven, the new housing developments don't allow short-term rentals, and it really creates an inequity. Um, I think when residents in those areas that are affluent, you have to have a lot of money to purchase those homes or rent the homes for 6,000 a month or whatever they go for. Um, so they're protected from these uses, right, for a reason. Um, and so other neighborhoods, Central Marina, um, where I live, usually has more renters, um, or lower income households or, um,

homeowners that are houserich and have been in their home for decades. You know, we bear the impacts of living next to a short-term rental on um, Vista Del Camino. Um, we had a duplex that became a triplex and had cars all over the place and was a turn and burn short-term rental and still is, I think. I don't know. I know you've been working with them for a while. Um, so my neighbors feel those impacts, but the affluent areas of our city don't have to deal with that because it's not an allowed use. And so I really want us to think about why that is. Um so however if the council chooses to continue this program um it is essential that we have a clear cap. Um and I really appreciate you having the number of licenses in the adjacent cities. Um, so I think for me, I'm I'd like to ask the city attorney, what can the city do if there are 10 illegal short-term rentals or more or less, and they figure out, oh, we can't advertise anymore. We have to get a license. And now they want to become licensed. What like between this time of we haven't enacted this policy beside I mean like a moratorum or how how do this how does the city protect?

Yes, we can look into a moratorum. We can bring that back on April 7th if that is the direction um of this council. We can certainly consider that and bring that back on April 7th.

Okay. Okay. Um thank you for that. And so for me, when we start building a motion, I'd like to include um a a number of of short-term rental licenses, I'm good with 40. I think that's fair. It's a little more of what we currently have. It's kind of in the middle with Seaside, you know, Sam City. It it I'm okay with that. um require a placard with the phone number of the property manager um to be posted on the short-term rental with the license number and also that information the short-term rental location, the address, and the properties manager property manager's contact information available online. because if it's 11:30 at night and you're a neighbor and they're having a party or whatever, you're not going to go walk up to the door to like shine a flashlight on the placard. Um, and then to offer an online um, short-term rental complaint form because right now I don't even know how our residents have that ability. Um, it's not really on the website. it's confusing who you email. Um, so just a very clear form um that you know residents so at least they feel like they're being addressed, you know, cuz a lot of the time if there's a party or a lot of calls or loud noise or whatever, you know, our residents don't want to burden the police department, right? So they just sort of like deal with it. And so I I think by having an online complaint for complaint form that's clearly, you know, easy to access on the web on our website, it gives our residents that opportunity where they feel like this will be addressed. You know, we are listening to them. So, thank you so

much.

Thank you, Jenny. And we'll definitely build that motion with your components to it. Let's go to Council Member Viala. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, so, um, I in general I I thank you so much for the detail that you put in because I am astounded at how many ways people are trying to bypass what our our ordinance is meant to do. It It's just shocking to me really. And you've built in so many safeguards for us in a very detailed manner and I really thank you for that. Um I think I am of the opinion that um we do try to do as you are are are proposing to us any ways that we can strengthen our ordinance and and not leave too many loopholes because they're going to be creative ways. I think that if we give an inch we're going to find again that people have figured out another way to bypass it. So, for example, one of the recommendations for the planning commission is um that we remove the language prohibiting STR permits or properties that have ADUs or J AUDs. Now, I understand that that uh this was made to accommodate an owner moving into an ADR and allowing the um STR in the main house. To me that is enabling STRs when our whole our whole purpose to doing ADUs was to create more affordable units for our city and now we have created a loophole in which that goal is diminished. So I I don't particularly agree with that recommendation. I would like to keep it that we prohibit ADUs. Um uh I mean we prohibit STRs in ADUs. So that that's my comment about it. And I think um it's so

interesting that um council member um um McAdams says that the wealthier areas are protected against the effects of HOAs. Now, here's the flip side to this because this is why when we worked on this a long time ago, initially my conception of of of STRs in owner occupied, meaning that they are marina people who have been well, however long they've been with us, but they have residences, houses here, and we were offering them an opportunity to stay in their home and use a bedroom or whatever space to get additional income. So, I almost felt like it's it's for the benefit of our residents who need the extra income as opposed to, you know, we're creating a problem and the wealthy get protected from it. But, so is it kind of a flip side of what you're saying? So, I think we can look at it both in that way. Um, if you the 40 40 permits per year, is that what you're you're about 40? Okay. So, so that is one way to restrict it and I'm fine with that too. But there's also uh the the the planning commission recommended removal of 10 day uh is that 100 180 days per year.

Correct. Okay. So, so there's two ways right we can look at it. We can either restrict um an an um an SDR by how many days in a year they rent out um or we can say 40 permits that we're cutting off at 40. There's problems I suppose for both. the 40 permits means that what if I mean I don't know do does everybody get at the the renewal time does everybody get a fair shake at at getting an an 80 um an STR or is it random again and so everybody gets a chance to get one

so they would have to submit their renewal around May or June their paperwork right now we have new requirements so they're going to have to submit the homeowner's exemption sure and their driver's license their current driver's license etc and planning will review it, right? But those 40, let's say 40 of them are impeccable and they're all in compliance and now they renew. You you have 40. So that's the limit. So they get to have the SDR permit and anyone new it doesn't get to have any. Is that correct?

Correct. Like Seaside, they put them on a wait list. So there's a wait list and then the next year if that permit holder does not renew in time, they lose their permit and the person on the wait list comes in. Okay.

And if they violate the code, they get it revoked and they cannot apply for two more years. And I like all those restrictions, but I also can imagine people who have um own homes here and and they they as as I know one SDR owner in my neighborhood, there was a medical condition of one of the um people in the home and they they needed to generate more income and so they responsibly are doing an SDR as prescribed in our ordinance. So, but if 40 are compliant and there's a waiting list, they may never be able to get to do that. So, that's that's kind of a concern. I'm not sure how to resolve that. And if the um the 18 without and we currently don't have any cap, right?

Currently no cap. Okay. That that may be a problem um also. But I think the 180day also discourages people out there who really say this is a gold mine and I can do it 365 um days a year and so therefore let me get into Marina because we can we can do this all day you know every single day of the year. So that discourages in itself somebody using our neighborhoods as businesses really um for for revenue generation. So, we do get phone calls asking if a certain property that's on the market can have a short-term rental permit.

Mhm. Okay. So, but anyway, I'm not I'm not quite sure, but maybe other people on the council would have some ideas about which way to go to restrict more or to not at least disadvantage those Marina residences from being able to to take the opportunity to have that STR to augment their income. And I do want to add that planning commission did ask us to come back in three years to see how the program is working or how the new updates are working and if this is an item that needs to be brought up possibly increasing it would be an option.

Okay. and um the 50-foot um exclusionary zone um for me I don't know what 55 ft look like and so you know I had to ask what is it trying to do and what was explained to me by our city manager is that if you have an STR you can't have another one across the street nor um next to that across the street or you can't have another one next to you like I understand that but if you tell me 55 foot I I don't know how how many feet is is in a typical you know street and some of them may be large longer. So, is there a way that we can make it so that somebody doesn't have to guess what?

No, we have a map. We do have a map with the the existing permit holders and the buffer zone surrounding it. So, we can quickly tell um whether the the property but that designation is in the ordinance itself. Correct. It don't you refer to it in your the 55 boat zone? Yes. Yes. So, is there a way to just in put in parentheses what that actually means rather than referring to a map? Because that's specific that's but but in a principle in an in a you know generalized way a reader of our ordinance should be able to say, "Oh, that's what they're talking." Oh, you mean like this typically means the house next door to the rear adjacent to? Okay.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Across the street. I think that would be really helpful. Okay. I'll stop from there and let other folks um speak. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Kathy. Mayor Bertan Bisher. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you also for me, Marissa, and also for having answered my questions that I already emailed to you. Um to start with what council member Biana said about people being put on a waiting list and maybe never getting an um a permit. If I remember correctly, this was before I was on the council. The whole discussion was people were not guaranteed a renewal. Do I is my memory wrong?

That's still the case. Just because you had a permit doesn't mean you're going going to get it renewed if you're not following the rules.

No, but even if they were following the rules, it was like if there is more No. Okay. My memor is wrong. Okay. because I thought it might be nice to might be more fair to have a a lottery because u the one one of the questions I asked you was about if there's a there's like three sets of two short-term rentals at the moment that are within the 55 foot which is about 20 mters by the way. So, so um so um I was so they are they will be out of compliance next summer not this summer but the following summer and I asked how will this be handled you know which one of the two will get the new the renewal and Marissa answered depends on the date they apply I thought that's not fair that's that's that should be I think a lottery if both apply before the deadline so I don't know what others think But it shouldn't be that one. If they know, they might already send it in now for 2027.

Yeah. I mean, if if the council adopts that text amendment, we would work, you know, to create some administrative policy to make it fair and equitable in terms of, you know, if you come in at July 1st at 8:00, right? They that would be priority, you know, July 5th, July, right? We we would come up with some everybody and and we would have it written down in an administrative policy that I would sign. Um and so it would we would we always strive to be fair and equitable to our customer. We get people camping right. Exactly. Offic Yes. Which is probably also not allowed. Unfortunately, they're not as popular as Taylor Swift concert. They won't they won't be camping out. So

So thank you for that. And I had the same remark about, you know, affluent uh areas being not having to deal with it, but it offers extra income for people who who are allowed to have this. And um oh and the the cap I agree we should have a cap but the it would be nice to include the population of the neighboring cities because we we know seaside has about 32,000 but Delway Oaks has about 1570 and S city 325 people. So that makes a big difference. So a percentage might be good to look at or the number already was mentioned might be totally fine. Uh, does anybody know if Marina Station will allow short-term rentals? Nobody has seen.

I don't believe so. They won't. I don't think so, but Nope. Okay. Um, oh, a utility bill doesn't prove that somebody lives there. Even short-term rentals need a need utilities. So, people can have more than one PG& account, just so you know. Yes, that's one of the options. It's only one. Okay. provide and all the other ones do because that's not the right thing to ask as proof that people live there because yeah um okay we already spoke about the adus and

JD use whatever the junior ones because I agree that those should be for housing that was the whole goal of having them so thank you for explaining that they cannot rent out the adus and Elizabeth what do you think of them being able to temporarily move to the ADU out the main house.

That's a I agree with council member that that's like a loophole because they still will not the ADU will not be available for permanent housing and that's why the law agreed you know to make it very easy to get an ADU and like um Grace is still here also said these were meant to be to help with housing. So, I don't I'm not in favor of renting out the the main house if there is an ADU. Yeah. So, um I think this is Yes. Yeah. This is it for me. Thank you. Thank you again. Yeah.

Thanks, Elizabeth. Um I think 40 uh permits per year in Marina are too few given that I think you have 35 now. So, I'd be in favor of 50. That's 15 more on your workload than you're already handling. And then come back every year and say, "Hey, we're maxed out at 50. We got a waiting list of 50. Any problems? How we doing? Maybe we can increase it on a regular basis. Consider that." But I do think that 45 is too few. Uh given that Seaside allows 90 and they're not that much bigger than us anymore. They're around 33,000. We're at 24,000 or Yeah. 24,000. So, they have they'd have twice as many as us, but they'll only be, you know, 20% higher than us. So, um I think 40 might be too low, but we'll see where this goes tonight. Um I just have a couple other comments. Um limiting removing uh I think the planning commission said remove the 180day restriction. Does that mean that if I want to rent out for 365 days a year, I could? Now, there's still an owner occupied restrict like I have to own the house before I can rent it to STR. Right.

Right. Correct. But I can own it. I thought there was a primary I thought there was a minimum I could have to live in it at least six months. Well, that that that's that's the issue. That was the original recommendation from staff, but the recommendation from planning commission was to take that out. Okay. So if STRs are no longer limited to owner occupied housing and we took away 180day, then I could own a house, move away and rent that for 365 days a year. Theoretically, theoretically, yes, because we're not going to require you provide proof that you only rented it for six months out of the year with by requesting the ledger.

Okay. So, what's the logic to not requiring me to be owner occupied if I have a STR in my residence? Have to be owner occupied. Well, how can I be owner occupied if I'm renting it out 365 days a year? Exactly. Which is why we were trying to push for the 180day requirement so that we could have stricter language in the ordinance. So, I'm in favor

and and the the draft ordinance has stricter proof of residency requirements, the utility bill, which I guess is there's a little bit of a nuance there, and other documented proof of the county home homeowner exemption requirement. So, that that's exactly the point that we were trying to make to the commission.

All right. So, I'm in favor of maintaining the requirement to be owner occupied for all STRs and I'm in favor of keeping a maximum of 180 days to rent it out. So, that ensures that the homeowner will be there six months, which is the minimum that I that I'm hearing is standard and we're as being asked to remove that that that uh minimum 180day minimum. We're being asked by planning commission to remove that. Right. But it's totally within your right as the council to add that back to the ordinance. Make sure I got that right. Okay.

Um only one more comment I believe. When we talk about three-year review, it's easy to forget that in three years. So is there a calendar way to make sure that we remember to do the things timely? Yes. And what is that way? It's on our work plan. It'll be on the work plan for the department. Okay. So, you have a work plan that goes out three years. I mean, it's it's on it's on the you know, it would be within the city adopted budget. I mean, it would be there as part of the adopted work plan.

Yeah. So, in three years, we have to remember to put it on the in the adopted budget for the work plan for that year's budget. Yeah. I mean, it if it's in the ordinance and Okay. Yeah. I mean, we have to do it. So,

all right. Um, if if the neighbor behind me has an STR and I have an STR, is the problem noise in my vicinity? Because usually I don't know what's going on on the culdesac across, you know, behind me. I can see next side by side. I can see across the street. But once you talk about what's going on behind me, it seems like the STR issue isn't as an isn't as much of a nuisance. But you do have backyards adjoining each other. So I So what's the purpose of including rear uh proximity in the 55 ft exclusion zone?

I understood the direction from council when we met in August was to find ways to support the neighborhood. So I think the commission recommending the 55 foot exclusion is a way to not have extreme density of all of the you know you wouldn't want on a culde-sac to have five STRs right culde-sac had an STR and the culdeac behind me I don't know if it has the same impact as nextdoor neighbors right but there had to be some way to write it where it was easy to enforce and then also limit the density of the neighborhood. So,

small point, I'll I'll leave it to the three-year review as far as mapping it. Someone pointed out that it's hard to know what 55 ft means. So, when you have the map showing the dots where STRs are located, can you put a 5 um 27.5 foot radius on a circle around everyone? Yeah, that's in the GIS map that you guys have a copy of. Oh, duh. It's a small Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Let's go back to Council Member Viala.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, yeah. And I'm just suggesting that we put into words so if somebody doesn't have access to the dots on on a map and those change because th those are the actual properties. So, you know, I think that it's I would still like the language of of what we're talking about. So, um, when the planning commission says to remove the language that the STR permits to single family homes to take that out to remove that, what what why is that? Like our apartments?

Yes. The original the original recommendation in October to the commission was to not allow STRs in multifamily and other type uses. And there was a discussion that that might not be in that might be inequitable. So they they took that out.

Okay. Well, I would like to stay say the previous one to stay that we it's only single family homes because Musi, you're you're kind of looking like what you you you've been through this. Well, this is this is from before. Okay. Well, the original said that it was for residential units only, right? Because I can't imagine if you're in a multifamily and now you're even closer to each other and now you've got people coming in at your next door, you know, the same floor. I mean, I I think that that has a bigger impact on the residents, other residents. We're already talking about the impact on on single family homes, right? And now you're going to have STRs in a multif family apartment complex. I mean, I just so I like the language of the old and I'm sorry about the planning commission having debated it ad nauseium probably.

No, no, it's like this is all part of the process.

But so so that's just my my take on it and all and also um I just want to make sure that everybody understands the the owner occupied status of our ordinance was never questioned right by the planning commission. I mean it it's owner occupied. That was the beauty when we created this is that that it it created um sort of the stability of not having people who don't have anything to do with Marina, don't have any interest in our our our neighborhoods from coming in as long as it was owned by a Marina resident and they lived there. That was the shest way of an of of us creating benefits for our residents and and and stabilizing still our neighborhoods. I live right next door to an SDR and you know it's fine. They live there. They're my neighbors and I can call them if there's any problems whatsoever. And the 180day um allotments mean six months they they can be gone. And I remember and maybe it was the man who was the school teacher if he's still here. I remember him. Yeah. That you talked about this like you know you go away for the summer uh because then that's the prime time when somebody might want to rent you your your place, right? So it seemed like we were talking about like 3 months in which somebody who lives there could not be there and rent it out. And that seemed like a reasonable thing. You see, I remember it from how many years ago. So, I don't know about um maybe we need to shorten that to accommodate which seems reasonable. This is a tourist area and so that would make sense. Um and remember that it doesn't conflict with owner occupied. My neighbor, for example, they have a

bedroom set up on the second floor, too. Actually, they're still living there. They have a bedroom estate one.

Yeah. So it it doesn't mean that just because we say three months, you know, uh a a year they the owner can leave, that doesn't mean that they're not there as owners. I'm sure they they don't, you know, they're back home and living with their kids and what whatever and doing their normal activities. So I don't see a conflict in that. But the owner occupied is to me sacred. That's what made our policy so unique at that time. At that time there were a lot of peninsula uh cities um that were banning because they had so many problems and it was getting out of hand and we came up with I think an excellent way to handle our city's ordinance. And so I'm just saying that that I I I would actually think that maybe three months would be good instead of 6 months or 180 days. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. Before we go on, I want to let folks know it's 9:00. We have two hefty issues. We don't think we're going to have time to get to the second of those issues. And so I'd like our city manager to address the U Monterey Gileia project incidental take issue and tell us what you're thinking. Yeah. What I'd like to propose is just continue that item to our April 7th city council meeting. And the only other option would have a mop-up meeting before then and Lane advises me that we have a lot of other conflicts.

Okay. So, do we lose anything by waiting until April for this issue to be the first action item on our agenda? I checked with our consultant with DDNA and and that works out fine. So, can anyone raise your hand if you wanted to speak on that matter? Okay. We apologize to those of you that were going to speak on that matter. Um, so let's continue with this item and then we'll take up the uh the only other item tonight which is the uh coastal local coastal program. Okay, please continue. We were going to go to council member McAdams. Oh, yeah. We'll do the consent agenda also as soon as we're done with ESTR.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'm curious if we need to add language that prohibits short-term rentals in RVs, yurts, like non-housing. Sometimes people put tents in their backyard. Like, is that covered in this policy? Uh, that's a I don't know. We haven't addressed that. That's a good question. So, we haven't had that issue yet, but well, not yet, but it could be coming. Okay. So, I would um encourage that we include that um in in this. So, that would be anything that's not a home. I don't know how you would word that.

That's some type of language about any structure. Is that the language you're trying to aim for? I mean to cover RVs that are parked in front of people's houses or sometimes people will rent out like you can park your RV in front of our house. So we can certain if the council we can add language that says RV tent and other incidental structures. Great. Perfect. So I would like to see that um included and then um I agree to put back the 180day requirement. Um how is that enforced?

Well, good question. So we are working with Decard Technology to get them on board. All this is being done by our amazing code enforcement officer manually. But if we can sign that contract with Decker, they're going to be doing this um they have a software software that looks at all this stuff all day every day in terms of who's renting and how long and how many days and uh in the initial sales pitch to us they would give monthly and weekly reports to Marissa for each of them in terms of how many days and all of that would be reported to us and then when they renew the permit we would be asking for But perfect. This is all being done manually by Marissa right now.

Right. So that's ridiculous. So do you want that in the motion to you want like some funding support for software? We we have I have contract authority for that with the city manager. So perfect. Um I just think for me like as policy makers like sometimes it's silly that we put stuff in the policy and then staff has no way to enforce it, you know? So, I mean, I get I get it having the protection in the language, but also like if we're not going to enforce stuff, then what is the purpose? So, I want to make sure that staff is aware that you have, you know, my support. I'm sure all of our support for whatever tools, you know, you need. So, thank you.

Um, and then I also agree to cap at 50 short-term rental licenses. I think that that's a good um, you know, that's a good medium. Um, I wouldn't want to see more because I think we're going to see an influx anyways when the unlicensed ones that are renting right now are going to go, "Oh, no, we need to get our license now." So, that's probably going to bring it easily to 50. Would you be okay with looking at that once a year to see how the 50 is doing?

I mean, I think that staff should bring it back, you know? I mean, we don't have a housing programs manager, and we have one amazingly capable woman code enforcing the whole city of Marina for every single issue. So, like, how many how many short-term rentals can we add to your plate? So, um I mean, I think to the mayor and the council, um if we can get this adopted, if it becomes an issue and we start to see, then we can certainly come back to the council and report out. Yeah, they were at 55 and we're getting compl, you know, however we can work that into the work plan.

Sure. I mean, I would just rather see like baby steps and just let you know, I mean, it might take more than a year to get acclimated to the program, right? So, I mean, I just don't necessarily want to be stringent about when it's coming back. I think three years is fair, gives time. Um, so I'm happy to start building emotion. You can do that anytime. We do have one more speaker, but Okay. But well, no, go ahead then. Let's go to Mayor Roan Vish and then we'll go back to council member Adams.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Because I forgot to mention one thing that due to a new law, HOAs are severely restricted in how they can um charge fines uh for compliance that got adopted as part of the housing package in the summer. So, um, will the city not allow any licenses because you know that the HOAs don't allow? So, if anybody from the Sea Haven Dunes or Marina Station applies or that one complex you said, will the city not allow any permits because you are aware? I mean, it's in their CCNRs and we're aware of it.

So, you will not allow Okay. Because the fine now is limited. I might be waking up people, but the fine is limit to to $100, which is nothing for if you can rent out your house for short-term rental. Okay. So, thank you. Right. Okay. Thank you. Let's return to Council Member McAdams for a motion.

Okay. So, I move that we um accept the planning commission's recommendations. except we put back the 180day requirement. We prohibit short-term rentals in ADUs, JADUs, and staff will add language to protect from RVs, tents, and other incidental

incidental structures. We require the short-term rentals to be owner occupied. cap at 50. Short-term rental licenses require a placard with the phone number of the property manager posted on the short-term rental in a visible place. And post all short-term rental addresses with the property manager's contact information and an online complaint form on the city's website. I'll second. Uh, is there a a legal problem posting locations of STR STRs?

I mean, they're on Airbnb and BBO. We have We have GIS map. No. All right. Okay. So, we have a motion to second. J, do you have any further comment? Uh, no, I do not. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Mayor, can I ask a clarifying question to council member? Um Tori and Ishmail got us the really great Cclick fix software. So instead of creating a separate is that appropriate that we can use that as opposed to Yes, absolutely. Because people can go to that website and Marissa's been working it. It's been fabulous to just have that access be readily available on on the city's website. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. R.

All right. Uh let's go to Council Member Biala and then Mayor Prom. Yes. Um, and can I make a friendly amendment? Um, not a amendment, I guess. Um, to retain the language limiting STR permits to single family properties. Yes. Yeah. And what does that accomplish? I I didn't follow up. It means that STRs can't be in multif family units.

Okay. It means that we are looking at what we've always usually traditionally looked at is STRs in residential homes as opposed to saying that they could have one in a multif family because now you're abuing another person in your apartment with an STR. And I think that that is going to create more issues with disturbance of neighbors. So not to reinvent the wheel, is that industry standard not allowed in multifamily? It's currently not in the draft ordinance, but if the council wants to add it just to further emphasize that, that certainly helps in terms of enforcement. How do other cities handle it?

So, in the initial ordinance I proposed to planning commission, we had that where you could not have a short-term rental in apartment complexes because someone would get a lease and rent out the apartment as a short-term rental. So, now a family can't have an apartment, right? Thank you. Sorry for interrupting, K. Is that okay? Thanks.

Okay. Mayor Pro 10 Fisher. And the second holds on that. Also a friendly amendment to also prohibit short-term rentals in the main house if there is an ADU or a Junior ADU. Yes. Yeah. That's okay. Second. And just a remark that many um short-term rentals do not post their correct their address in their postings which makes it very hard to enforce. Right. But they had a they told us a lot of Yeah. So I think it's good if it's legal. I I am all in favor of that. Yes. Yes. Because Yeah. Thank you.

All right. Any final uh comment? We'll have the motion reread and then we'll vote and we'll take a roll call because it's an ordinance change. So, so this will not be an ordinance adoption. It'll be direction to staff to come back because unless it's what you're what is proposed as an ordinance, this staff will need to come back with a revised ordinance to include all these changes. Gotcha. Oh, so the issue of the moratorum. Yeah. Raised. Did you want to include that? Yes, I'd like to include a moratorum then for would that be would 45 days be a Sorry, the moratorum would be for for new STRs

until this is adopted till the policy is adopted. But I do want to give a time frame. So in the past when the council has made edits to ordinances, we've traditionally just adopted the ordinance on the night which would be tonight. So I'm not clear about why we would have to Yeah, because the first substantial changes we we've substantially taken in the edits and we will bring back pretty substantial edits as I understand. I I haven't reviewed to see whether all of these changes that are proposed here are included in the ordinance. Okay. I in the past we've done we've done

moderate amount of edits and they've just adopted it on the night which would be tonight. So, so we've made some clarifications and then we've provided a second reading, right? Or we've, for example, put language up, right, that was proposed that clarified certain amendments. So, is it possible if the council would be willing to take a three to five minute recess and we can put that stuff up so we don't have to bring this? I would recommend that we work on that language to make sure that we get it right. Okay.

Okay. So, having so passing it tonight and then having a first reading when they're ready and then having a second reading when they're ready. Is there a problem with that process? Not to my knowledge. Okay. So, what we whatever we pass tonight, they will incorporate bring it back as a first reading April 7th. on April 7. And if we wanted to, we can also at that time bring a moratorum that would be effective on that date until the new ordinance is effective, which would be 30 days after the second reading.

Right. So the moratorum given your schedule April 7th for the first reading would go from tonight through the second reading and then 30 days after that. Yes. So what date would we put in the motion for that moratorum? Yeah, I I'm unclear about the mortorium because I understood the comment but the permits all get renewed July 1st anyways. So uh

it's a moratorum on new STR applications cuz right now all the ones that are illegal that are advertising illegally are going to freak out and come and get a license. And so a moratorum is going to stop that influx and make it more fair. So they would all have to apply after this whole policy is adopted because because the timeline works out that the second reading would happen April 21st. It takes effect May 21st and then six weeks later they all have to reapply anyways. So it I I don't we could potentially see an influx but I don't I personally don't see it. But

great I would like the moratorum. Okay. That's so a moratorum from tonight until May 21st. We could just do it the effective date of the ordinance. Okay, that's second holds. Now, let's go through the motion one final time so everyone's clear. Does anyone have it written down? I do want me to Let's go to our city attorney. Unless you want to do it, Jenny. Okay.

So, uh, require 180day limit, prohibit, uh, short-term rentals in ADUs and J8US, uh, prohibit, uh, STRs in RVs, tents, and other structures, or require the owner occupancy, uh, put a cap of STRs uh, 50. um require placard at the STR that is visible and post the address and property manager contact as well as an online complaint form. And then there were two friendly amendments to limit it to single families and then prohibit sing STRs in main sorry in in the main home where there are JD JDUs and JADUs.

Okay, sound right Jenny? Perfect. Okay, second holds to that. Any final comment before we go to a vote? We do a roll call. No roll call needed. All in favor, please say I. I. All oppose, please say no. Thank you. That motion passes four to zero with those of us present. Thank you so much, Marissa and Guido and anyone else that had a hand in that. Sorry, just to to clarify, I didn't mention the moratorum. Okay. So, uh, I'll motion that we, uh, reconsider that last vote or we could just split the question.

Uh, what do you suggest, uh, city attorney? Sure, you can do that. What? Split the question. Okay. Okay. So, now we're going to have another motion on the floor to uh a motion that we uh add that there'll be a moratorium on STRs until the effective date of the ordinance. Is there a second? A second. Okay. Any question before I go to the vote? All in favor, please say I. I.

That motion pass unanimously. Thank you again, Guido. Okay. Let's move on to the local coastal program update. And somebody has to channel somebody has to channel Allison's spirit when we consent. Oh, we're going to consent, right? Okay. Would someone like to Does anyone have any Oh, let's bring Brian back in. Brief questions, comments, or want to pull something for a deeper dive? Um, council member Biala, I'd like to pull um item 10 G2 on the sister city issue.

Council member McAdams. Um, I'd like to pull 10F2. However, there's a time constraint on that of March 30th. So, I don't know. I think if you can just make some comments because I think your comments are in line with what we intend to do. Do you want to try brief comments, Jenny, or do you want a deeper dive? I mean, it's up to you. Yeah, I'm just not comfortable with So, we'll pull that. Yeah. Anything else?

Um, and then I just wanted to make a comment on 10J I, which is the Abrams and Preston update. Um, I'm pleased to see the renters's insurance requirement has been implemented. Um, and it really is unfortunate that it took a fire um to implement the requirement. However, renters's insurance will protect the residents in the future. Um, I also wanted to thank um, Mr. for Harvey Dadwall for providing temporary shelter um for the displaced residents as well as All-In and the Salvation Army who really showed up and um and even our are our helping provide um finding permanent housing for those residents. So, thank you.

Thank you, Jenny. I'll motion approval of the consent minus those two items 10 F2 and 10 G2 second. All in favor please say I motion Mr. Mayor just because um what I understand is that 10 F2 um has to be approved tonight or we risk losing threequarters of a million dollars. Is there any I just want to make sure we're going to get to it tonight. Should we move it up before the next public hearing or we confident that? Why don't we just agree that we'll do the consent after the uh LCP, those two items that were pulled? Okay. And we won't go home.

Okay. All in favor of the motion that subtracts those two items from the consent agenda, please say I. I. I. All opposed. Thanks. And passes. And now we go to the LCP amendment or update. council. Uh, see attorney has some input here. Did you want to?

Yes. Um, actually I have a statement that I'd like to read. Um, so before discussion begins on this item, I want to disclose that I own real property located within 500 ft of the general commercial zone that is subject of a portion of tonight's agenda item. Under FPPC regulation 18702.2, there's a presumption that a governmental decision involving property within 500 ft of my real property interest have a material financial effect on that interest. Accordingly, I have disqualifying conflict of interest with respect to the portion of that item. And for clarity, um the 500 foot buffer just barely grazes part of the Walmart property and the 7-Eleven property, but not the properties that have been suggested for reszoning by Mr. Talon. Um, I understand that staff is intending to structure the discussion of this agenda item into segments consisting consistent with FPPPC regulation 18706 to allow me to participate in those portions of the discussions that do not affect my financial interest. I'll recuse myself from the first segment of this item for which I'm conflicted. I'll leave the dis um during deliberations. Once that segment has concluded, I'll return to participate in the remaining segments which do not affect my financial interests. Thank you, Brian. Okay, please proceed. Uh, thank you, council members. Um, my name is Phil Angelo. I'm a senior planner. I'm joined by, uh, Esme Wall of EMC Planning Group for our consultant for this project. Apologies, this is my first time. Oh no. Next slide please. Uh before

there we go. Um and I um I apologize. So for McCarthy's recusal, we were actually going to propose to go through the whole um presentation and then have the segmented discussion. So would it be appropriate for him to come back and listen to the presentation or

good catch? Return of the Das. Okay. Uh so we're here to provide a report on the city's comprehensive local coastal program or LCP update. Uh this includes a summary of the major policy areas in the LCP as well as uh next steps for the comprehensive update project. Uh we're also going to be seeking policy direction on uh various items in the land use plan portion of the LCP. Uh and the two primary ones are the allowable uses in the general commercial uh designation which includes the Marina Landing Shopping Center uh and the allowable uses within the open space designation. Um and I have some more details on the recusal matter. This is going to be a little bit um of a repeated from council member McCarthy's comments. Um but consistent with um FPPPC regulation 18706, staff has recommended the introduction of the mixed use into the general commercial designation into two parts. Um there are two reasons for this. Uh the first is to address council member McCarthy's contracts of interest uh while allowing the council to deliberate on the full scope of the planning commission's recommendation. And that included um allowing mixed use throughout the general commercial uh land use designation. And the second is that um the owners of the two properties that have requested uh to be redesated mixed use um are um outside of that area. uh so they

wouldn't present a conflict of of interest. Um so given that uh staff uh proposes that we go through the whole presentation uh we open public comment and then once public comment is complete uh we go through and deliberate on the two different segments. Uh the first being the one regarding whether mixed use should be allowed in the entire general commercial designation and the second being the other policy considerations including should we allow mixed use specifically on the two properties that have requested it that are in the east of the shopping center that don't present a conflict of interest as well as should um the open space land use designation be changed. And so taking a step back, the California Coastal Act requires that jurisdictions in the coastal zone prepare a local coastal program or LCP. This is a comprehensive land use planning document. It includes a land use plan or LUP portion uh which is similar to a general plan. It provides the broad policy direction. Um each LCP also has an implementation plan or an IP that has the regulations that implement that LUP. So, zoning standards, um, allowable uses and, uh, permitting procedures. Uh, the city has an existing LCP that was certified in 1982. However, existing conditions, the development needs of the city, uh, state laws, and coastal commission planning guidance um, regarding um, land use in the coastal zone have all changed significantly since, uh, the early 1980s. So, in 2023, the city secured a local assistance grant from the coastal commission uh to do a comprehensive update to our LECP that incorporates coastal commission guidance on issues such as environmental justice, biological resources, and climate change. Uh staff worked together with our consultant to restructure the

LCP and create a new format that's easier to read. Uh and using this approach, the new land use plan portion of the LCP uh was released for public review and recently considered by our planning commission on November of 2025 and they recommended it be approved with some alterations. Um and so now I'm going to hand it off to Esme who's going to talk a little bit about the update process.

Uh good evening mayor and council members. Excited to be presenting this tonight. So next slide, please. So on the screen is a timeline of where we've been and what's next. So in early 2024, the city and consultant team began outreach on the LCP update and um as well as stakeholder meetings. These culminated into policy ideas that were presented through a questionnaire and a community workshop in July 2025. The feedback received on the policy ideas then fed into the public review draft land use plan that was released in October. And as Phil said, we presented it to planning commission in November, received feedback from planning commission and the public um and have revised that draft and that is what is before council tonight for discussion and feedback. So the next steps from here are for city staff to update the land use plan based on the feedback received from council and then to um complete and release the public review draft implementation plan. Um and then those will be brought back to planning commission together for recommendation to council for approval and ultimately they'll be um submitted to the coastal commission for certification. Next slide. So, a little bit more detail about all of the outreach and engagement that has taken place to get us this draft that we have um in front of you tonight. Uh April 27th, 2024, we were part of the general plan workshop. Um and then from April to July 2024, there was a beach and coastal

access questionnaire. Um, April 21st, 2025, there was a community field trip focused on biological resources at Lock Pattern Park in Marina State Beach. From July to August 2025, the LUP policy framework questionnaire was live. And July 30th, 2025, there was another community workshop. And then that all culminated in the release of the public review draft in October. And all throughout this time, we've also been doing stakeholder outreach. So, we've been meeting with the coastal commission staff um regularly and they have reviewed the draft and are on board with it. Um we've also met with state parks, marina or Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District and Marina Water District. Next slide. So let's discuss what area of Marina is in the coastal zone because that is where these policies actually apply. So Marina's coastal zone is relatively small compared to the area of its city and it is mostly west of Highway 1. You might be familiar with this from the coastal hazards update. Um there is also a portion of the coastal zone east of Highway 1. It is uh generally the lockpad and park area, the marina library and the marina landing shopping center. Um and then there's also very small residential area. It's approximately 32 parcels. So on this slide you'll also see this dashed red line. Up until now the area south of that dash dashed red line has been in the coastal commission's retained jurisdiction. Um, you might remember for the surf busway permit that

that area had to be permitted by the coastal commission. So, as part of this LCP update, we're cleaning this up and putting that area that's in the city of Marina into the city's local coastal program jurisdiction. So, moving forward, any new projects in that area would get their coastal development permit from the city. um for the surf busway permit since the coastal commission already permitted that any amendments going forward on that project would still be under the coastal commission but for anything new moving forward marina would have permit jurisdiction there. Uh next slide. So this I'll just go through this briefly. These are the general chapters of the new land use plan. Um, and we'll go through these in more detail. And I just want to note the coastal hazards. There's a placeholder for it in this comprehensive update. We won't be touching it or changing it. It was certified by the coastal commission, which is very exciting. So once the comprehensive land use plan um is certified by the coastal commission, then that coastal hazards chapter will be inserted. Next slide. Okay, so let's get into the policy areas. Um, public access and recreation is one of the primary goals of the Coastal Act, and it's actually one of the reasons why the Coastal Act exists. Uh, just some fun history, back in the 70s, public access to the coast was being reduced by private developments. And so it was a voter initiative um to put in place the coastal act which protects the public's right to access the coast. So an example of this in Marina is the sanctuary beach resort. That's a private development. However,

there's a public access easement through it. So the public can still access the coast through that private development. Um generally in Marina there is not a bunch of private development lining the coast. However, there are its own unique challenges to access in Marina and these include the sand dunes which are beautiful and unique but have a lot of topography and make access more challenging to get from where you can park to the beach. Um there's also a lot of sensitive habitat in Marina which can uh pose regulatory challenges for permits and then land ownership. Um most of Marina's coastline is not city-owned. So the policies and the goals of these policies in this land use plan are to set it up that um existing access ways can be maintained, encourage additional access points where feasible, um trails are listed as a coastal dependent use. So that would allow them to be approved even in biological habitats. Um it's kind of one of the parts of the coastal act where it's like protection of biological resources but also providing public access. So there's policies to help balance those two sometimes competing um things. Next slide. So the land use map is also a important component of this document. It is what identifies what is allowed where. Um so the figure on the left is the existing land use map and the figure on the right is the proposed land use map. So there's three changes. Um one of them is more major and two of them are minor. So I'll go over the first one which is the more

major one. And this is the former CMEX site. So in 2020 um sand mining was required to seize on that site and is no longer allowed uh into the future. So the current land use designation is coastal conservation and development and it allows sand mining. So, as part of this update, we're proposing that that is changed to open space, and that would be in line with most of the land, as you can see, uh, west of Highway 1. The other small adjustment is to the visitoriented commercial designation over Sanctuary Beach Resort. So, currently the visitoriented commercial designation doesn't cover the full property. So some of the existing development is in open space which causes like you know nonconformity. So uh we propose to just align the visitor oriented commercial designation with the existing development footprint of sanctuary beach resort.

Excuse me. Can you use a pointer or anything? Do we have any pointers or can you when you're using maps I just some people stand up there with a mic. Okay. Yeah, I can do that. Yeah.

Okay. So the first change I discussed was the former CMC site which is this area here in hatching. So it's proposed to go from coastal conservation and development which allowed sand mining to open space which is in line with uh the rest of the dune area west of Highway 1. The second change I just discussed is um the visitoriented commercial. So that is right here over Sanctuary Beach Resort. It's a very small change, but it's just getting expanded a tiny bit to cover the actual development footprint of that property. And then the third change that I haven't discussed yes yet um is this area south where on the last slide I discussed that it's becoming within the city's LCP jurisdiction. Um that little strip of land would be zoned or designated open space. Uh next slide. So biological resources um another one of the kind of major policy areas of the coastal act. Um so the coastal act has this specific term environmentally sensitive habitat areas or esha. So the city of marina does have quite a bit of esha. It is um defined as any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human

activities and development. So generally speaking dune habitat and wetlands are considered esha. They do support many special status species. Um so there's policies in the land use plan which dictate uh development in ESHA. It's limited to uses dependent on the resource. Um if that if if it can't be avoided then a biological assessment, a restoration and monitoring plan is required. And there's um specific mitigation ratios required for impacts. And there's also setback requirements around wetlands. So the overall goal is to protect the city's uh significant biological resources. Next slide. So, I did want to just highlight a few changes that have occurred between the draft that the planning commission saw and the draft in front of council um as it relates to biological resources. Previously, the um honorary cypress were mapped as ESHA that has been removed from the map. This is because the cypress and marina were planted as landscaping trees. they're not native to marina and they don't um play a particularly special role in the ecosystem or support special status species. So it was incorrect to have them in that ESHA map. Um that being said, they are large and important trees within the city and so they have been added to the major vegetation definition and removal of them would be subject to a coastal development permit. And I'll also note that the city received

comments from California Native Plant Society related to this chapter and the city is reviewing them and is amendable to their recommendations. Next slide. Okay, passing it back to Phil.

Thank you. Um, one other thing I wanted to note on the ESHA map is that the locations of environmentally sensitive habitat are illustrative. Um, when somebody actually goes to develop an individual site, they would be required to get a biological report that would determine the exact extent and location of ESHA. So, just because it's colored, yes, on the map doesn't definitively mean it is ESHA. And just because it's not colored in on the map doesn't mean that it's it's not. Um, moving on to scenic resources. Um, Marina's primary coastal scenic resource are its large dune formations, uh, which rise west of Highway 1. Uh, the Coastal Act requires that scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas be protected as a public resource. Um, this kind of interrelates to visual access of the coast. Um and some examples in the draft LUP um are that we have policies that would min require that development minimize alterations to landforms uh prohibit ridgeeline development along the dunes um and prioritize reveation of disturbed areas. Um the LEUP also has a draft chapter on marine resources and water quality. Um everything that's below mean high tide is in the coastal commission's area of jurisdiction. Uh but these policies supplement those that um protect biological resources um and are like wetlands and waterway areas um wetlands including uh the wetland area in Lock Patent Park. Um and they have policies that would require that uh storm water runoff be controlled um and that drainage and erosion control plans be prepared as part of development applications. Next slide. Uh so coastal areas can be sensitive for the presence of archaeological and tribal cultural resources. Uh the LEUP

would include policies to ensure protection of these resources is considered during the development review process. Um and that if any uh archaeological or tribal resources are inadvertently identified uh during construction, uh the requirements of state law regarding halting work would be be adhered to. Um if you have a project and you identify um human remains or an archaeological resource while you're doing earth work, um there are some pretty strict restrictions on making sure that you stop work and that you contact um the Native her American Heritage Commission uh and most likely descendant of uh whoever it belongs to. Um the uh LUP would also include a new chapter on environmental justice. Um, the LUP defines environmental justice as the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Uh, the coastal commission adopted an environmental justice policy in 2019 uh, and incorporated incorporating environmental justice policies into our LUP uh, would harmonize our local plan with this new guidance. um within the LUP environmental justice concepts uh include reducing barriers to coastal access uh encouraging affordable housing uh and increasing community engagement. Next slide. Uh so one of the major topic areas that staff are seeking input on tonight is the allowable uses in the general commercial designation. Um, I don't know at what point to start pointing things out. Uh, so the general commercial designation is this dark red area here. Um,

and the existing general commercial designation allows a broad range of commercial uses such as retail, shops, motel, hotels, and other uses with similar characteristics. Um, can you go to the next slide? Uh, this is an aerial image of the Marina Landing Shopping Center and surrounding properties. Um, it has a 7-Eleven and convenience store which is in the corner here. um the Walmart Super Center that's here. Um and a quick quack gas station here. Um there are four vacant properties in the shopping center which are on the perimeters of Beach Road and Delmani. Uh and those are all starred. And then this fifth star is um mostly vacant and it's owned by the Walmart Super Center. Um, we've received multiple comment letters uh regarding the shopping center and the letters are generally supportive of allowing mixed uses um and allowing drive-throughs within the general commercial land use designation. Um, and perhaps I moved away too quickly, but the owners that uh have specifically requested that mixed use be considered for their properties are um the two far east ones, the large one up opposite side along Delmani. Um, so those two there. Uh next slide. And the proposed general commercial designation would allow very similar uses to the existing ones. Uh it would also allow transitional and supportive housing. Um kind of implementing the environmental justice policy encouraging lower income housing. And then also this brings us uh into consistency with the city's inland area which allows

supportive housing in all residential and commercial districts. Um, and so whether the general commercial designation should be amended uh to allow mixed use is a topic that's come up at multiple different public venues uh including the 2045 general plan LAN use alternatives discussion. Um, however, the ultimate governing document for land use in this area is going to be the LCP uh which is why the discussion is here today. Um, and next slide. These uh next two slides are just going to go over some of the different policy considerations and weighing whether to allow mixed use in the general commercial areas. Um the city is developing a large amount of housing with the construction of the Dune Sea Haven uh and Marina Station specific plans. Um these total over 3,500 housing units. Uh the most recent one um that's started to um gain momentum is Marina Station which has uh 1,360 units. Um these specific plans were all adopted in the mid 2000s and the land use needs of the city have continued to evolve since then with the quantity of new housing that's being built in Marina. commercial uses uh will be increasingly important to ensure that residents have access uh to local services and the city grows in an integrated manner with a balance of different land uses. Uh the city also um prepared a market analysis by uh HDL which concluded there was a strong demand in the city for retail growth. Uh with the Marina Landing site being ideal for fast casual dining, convenience retail uh and serviceoriented business. Um the preference from some of the previous venues that I've mentioned such as the general plan alternatives has been to retain the site for commercial use. Um

and commercial uses provide a tax base to support all of the residential development that I've mentioned. Um next slide. So, however, the original development pro approvals for the shopping center were adopted in 1992, and those undeveloped sites have remained vacant for the last 30 years. Um, at their November hearing, the planning commission considered the length of time they've been vacant uh and recommended that mixed use be allowed in the general commercial designation to try a new approach. Um the property owner for the 5 acre eastermost property um that's specifically requesting that they be redesated misuse has also submitted a pre-application for residential development under state law AB 2011 uh which allows residential development on commercial properties provided that uh certain criteria are met. Um and finally, allowing mixed use on all or some of the sites in Marina Landing um could be a way to facilitate commercial development of the shopping center overall, both because mixed use developments would have a commercial component and the residential use from mixed use would generate additional foot traffic uh for the shopping center. Oh, next slide. Um so this is where we're going to present the question um that would be segmented. Should mixed use be allowed through the general commercial land use designation uh which was the recommendation of the planning commission but for now we're going to go through the remaining slides. So next one please and this would be the motion for that rolling. Uh yeah uh and then this would be the second part of that segmented question. Uh should mixed use be allowed on the two vacant sites adjacent to Delman Boulevard uh and Seaside Circle? And

that's that little blue um I don't shape. Uh next slide. There are two other commercial related policies that we're seeking input on. Um the first of which is whether uh drive-through uses should be allowable in the general commercial designation. Uh the existing um certified LCP does allow them. Uh and the city approved a coastal development permit uh for the Quickquack car wash in 2021. Um the current draft land use plan before the council would not allow them in the general commercial designation. Uh the origin of this prohibition is that when the LUP was being drafted, uh the city was also working on the downtown vitalization plan uh which prohibits uh drive-throughs in the downtown core as part of creating a pedestrian-friendly downtown environment. Um and we were trying to coordinate the different um land use plans that the city was undertaking. However, the context of Marina Landing Shopping Center is a bit different from the downtown core. Um it's bounded on three sides by arterial roadways and most of the existing uses out there are autooriented. Um and so staff identified this policy for input as much of the discussion on these sites has been regarding whether to have them be commercial uses including quickserve restaurants. Uh and so for this policy staff are recommending uh that the drive-thru prohibition be removed and that drive-through uses be allowed in the general commercial land use designation. Next, um the second one is uh general commercial policy LUD20. Um LUD20 states that commercial uses are a low priority in the coastal zone and should be cited to have no impact on coastal resources. Um this is another one staff identified

for discussion because of the way that um it is written is uh so broad. we feel it may inadvertently impede um development of the center in a way that's kind of envisioned by the plan. If the vision of the plan is for it to be commercial use, um this policy could be interpreted as a way where like any individual tree removal or any uh impact whatsoever would mean that development would be prohibited on the site. And so to revise that, we have some suggested language that was on the screen that would ensure it's consistent with the other uh LUP policy areas related to protecting coastal resources.

Now I'm thank you.

Okay. So let's discuss what is proposed to be allowed in the open space land use designation. Um the open space land use designation again covers most of the land west of highway 1 as well as lock pad and park. So, permitted uses and these uses would require a coastal development permit are preserved open space, beach access, walking trails, and passive recreational facilities such as public parks. And that includes botanical gardens and community gardens, parking lots supporting these uses, restrooms, and coastal dependent recreational facilities. So these permitted uses are generally more passive and low impact type uses. Next slide. The draft that went to planning commission also um conditionally allowed a few more active type of recreational uses. So these conditional uses would require on top of the coastal development permit a conditional use permit which is just extra findings. Um, and these active recreational facilities could include, but are not limited to, bicycle trails, camping facilities, and other uses supporting public agencies like staff housing for state parks, for example. So, the planning commission recommended removal of these active conditional uses from the open space land use designation and also revised the passive recreation definition to be broader to include other uses that were not explicitly listed on that last slide. So, I'll show you what their uh changes look like.

Next slide. So these are the planning commission's recommended changes to the passive recreation definition. You can see at the end they added and other uses that will not result in impacts to wildlife and do not create noise impacts. And then they proposed or recommended that active recreational uses are not allowed in the open space designation within the coastal zone. Uh, next slide. So, the planning commission's intent was to protect the open space areas habitat values. Um, the city staff does note that removing active recreation entirely may overcorrect the issue and would preclude uses that would typically be considered along the coastline and support public access and recreation such as campgrounds. Therefore, staff is seeking input from city council on whether to carry forward the planning commission's recommendation regarding removal of active recreation entirely or draft an alternative, more limited definition of active recreation that addresses the planning commission's concerns about impacts. Next slide. So are we opening it to

next? Next slide. Okay. Steps and then

and Okay. Um and so believe us may mention this kind of general process at the beginning of the presentation, but um next steps for this is uh in spring of 2026, we're hoping to incorporate uh city council feedback into the final draft land use plan. Um and then use that to craft the coastal implementation plan uh development standards to implement that and release that in a public review draft. and then package up both the land use plan and implementation plan uh and bring them back to the planning commission in summer of 2026 um and then back to council in um fall summer of 2026 uh and then submit them to the California Coastal Commission for final certification and should the coastal commission certify them then they would go effect at that time in at that time. Um, and that concludes staff's presentation. Um,

all right. Thank you. I'd like to motion that we go tonight to the end of this item and the consent agenda. I'll second. Any comments from councel? Okay. All in favor, please say I. I. I.

All right. That way we don't have to stop at 10:00 and interrupt the flow. So now let's go to the public. Starting with the public that are in person here. Come on up if you'd like to speak for up to three minutes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council members. My name is Fred Watson. I'm in commenting on behalf of Nicole Needv, who is the conservation chair of the California Native Plant Society, Mterrey Bay chapter. Uh, she can't be here tonight. On March 2nd, you received a letter from the Monterey Bay CNS signed by chapter chapter president Pat Rean. That lit letter listed 10 recommendations to the city regarding the LCP update. Three of those recommendations agree with staff and planning commission rec recommendations regarding removing active recreation from coastal zone open space expanding the definition of passive use and removing closed cone cyprus from the definition of cher and that's been um addressed by staff a moment ago. uh the remaining recommendations were in addition to what had already been recommended by staff or the planning commission um and the consultant or when it was staff mentioned that um staff were amendable to these so that I guess my understanding is that we've sent the letter on March the 2nd staff's indicated now tonight that they're amendable to these suggestions but I'll read them now just for the record uh one is to add a CNDDB rare species or currents map to the main body of the LUP and not merely in an attached memo. Two is to add scientific names for

spineflower and plubber. Three, add scientific name for bull rush. Four, add two wetlands that were omitted from the wetlands map and they're actually in the 1994 vernal pools plan by the city. So, they're already on a map by the city, but they're just not in the coastal zone document. uh clarify that native plants should mean plants that are native to Marina and not just to California. And then finally correct the omission of central maritime chaparal from the description and the mapping of in multiple places in the document. Now the city's coastal zone land includes over two acres of central maritime chaparel which is a sensitive natural natural community. Um, and these acres are primarily near Highway One north of uh, Imun Boulevard and and this is not yet identified anywhere in the report. Thanks.

Thank you, Fred.

Oops. Good evening. U, my name is Daniel Alvarez. I'm a field rep for the partners union representing members on Santa Cruz Monteray and San County. Um we believe this this project has a strong potential. How however we would like to do better understanding the developers level uh commitment on supporting the workforce that lives on the area. Having responsible contractors who support apprentichip programs, provide healthcare and offer retirement benefits will bring significant advantage to the community and to the local economy. These kind of commitments help to ensure quality jobs, workforce development, and long-term economy stability. Uh we look forward to learning more about the developers approach on the workforce. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, sir. Good evening. It's long night. Thank you for your service. My name is Josea. I'm business representative. We represent over 60,000 members that live in this area. Work with the building trades. I'm a painter by trade. I got many people that live here. We're actually as a building trades, we're in negotiations with the developer to try to incorporate uh labor standards. I will encourage you guys to do the same. So that will not just protect the workers but eliminate the low road contractors to build these projects and take advantage of people wage theft and other many things that are happening. I would encourage you guys to just keep in mind to try to incorporate a skill and trade workforce that will it's a path for potential workers and build our future. We have apprentichip programs, pre-apprenticeship programs, and they can take advantage to those basically continue working close to home and instead of driving to the Bay Area and try to f you know find a better pay pay. So, thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, Jose. And Jose, we might ask you and your predecessor speaker some questions before we're done tonight. I want to speak specifically to the Marino Landing Shopping Center. I've lived here for 38 years. I live about three blocks away from that center. When I moved here, it was Brown Belt Branch. Brown Belt M Ranch disappeared. In exchange, we got Kmart. Marina Landing with a Kmart. The rest was never developed except for the 7-Eleven. Then Kmart went bankrupt and we had nothing. for several years. Nothing else got developed and it wasn't taken over. Then we got Walmart and we got lots of tax revenue from Walmart. It is always busy. People come from the surrounding region including Selenus. They like our Walmart, but we've never been able to develop the rest of that property. It is time that we reconsider commercial on that large lot. I'm going to tell you I think residential is excellent idea there. We have a library walking distance. People who are shopping aren't going to the library. People who are living there are going to the library. We have multiple parks, both passive and now with the improvements at Gloria Jean Tate, a wonderful active park for people who live within the area. We have an opportunity to create housing that isn't $1.5 million or $1.2 million or $1.8 million, but under a million. We have the ability to create housing for those who can't afford to buy. And I know I've heard about Reena numbers and I I was at the meeting when we were

going, "Wow, look at this. We're going to have 1350 in downtown Marina." But when will downtown Marina be built? In 20 years, in 30 years, in 40 years, and in the meantime, we have space available to build housing that is affordable to Marina residents, whether they're choosing to buy or to rent. And I think we need to take advantage of that. I'd also like to talk about the drive-thru. I agree. I don't want drive-throughs in my downtown. I think they're totally inappropriate. But in a visitor serving area with multiple hotels and a few restaurants, and maybe we can get more if we have more housing out there to support them, a drive-thru makes great sense. People see it off the freeway, they come off the freeway, they drive through the driveway, and I would hope they visit our beach and they they shop at Walmart um for all the things they forgot when they loaded up their car. um but that they they have that opportunity to pick up something quick and be on their way. I think we're kicking ourselves by expecting something different. It's been that way for over 30 years. It's time to change our frame of mind and say, "Let's look for something that will work." We do need housing. We may have lots of million-dollar homes going in.

I'm sorry to interrupt you. Thank you very much.

That's all right. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Hello council members and staff. Thank you for all your work that you do for us. Um my name is Christina Medina Dirkson and I'm a resident and former council member here in Marina. Before I go into my prepared what I was going to talk about, I just want to address our union brothers here um talking about the opportunities that are available when when you have a project um that brings union labor. And I want to point out that we are so grateful that we have that opportunity out in the former Ford or as you know um property out there is subject to prevailing wage and union opportunities. So, as a community, we have done a tremendous service to our union folks, putting them to work and providing apprentices opportunities out there. There's plenty of opportunity. So, with that said, I want to go back into what I was about what my prepared comments were. Um, I was going to tell you I'm Christina Medina Dirkson. I am not a developer. I am not a traffic count expert, but what I am is a resident who's lived here in Marina close to 30 years myself and has been working for the last at least eight years with the developer of the Walmart property, Mr. talent to get something on my side of town. No less than I asked him to write a list. 72 different outlets from Tractor Supply all the way to In-N-Out to um anytime I've asked and we were very close to bringing um a pizza place here to town. Every time I've worked with him closely to bring something that fits our neighborhood, even the Quack, I called it quack quack quack, I think, or something like that. Um, it's it's brought I use it. I'm a I'm a regular out there. But I think it is time to

start looking at something different. We've put um all of our retail eggs in the basket out at the dunes. Um, it's done wonderful for that side of town. Maybe the traffic isn't the best. There's a lot of development out there. However, what is happening on my side of town, on our side of town over here, we've really overlooked it. We've not allowed um I'm sorry, there's there's um there's a lot of opportunity and we have he has not had the traffic counts. Back in um last year, you had the HDL expert who was here and this expert said we should stick with retail. And do you know why he said we should stick with retail? Because Mr. talent sign is not big enough to attract retail. He said that um so I just want to dispute and um council member Bisher you were not here for that meeting. Two things that came out of that meeting was a put bigger signs up b um an economic opportunity commission which you did have which did dissolve during 2019 is not advising this committee or I'd like to know what the status of that is you who is advising you of what we need how can we be experts on retail or not thank you

thank you very much Christina Yeah.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and uh my name is Paul Manuel. Um I've lived in Rena all my life, 56 years now. And um I've got a few different emotions with this whole project, but as a longtime resident, I would rather see the the uh land stay as commercial zoned. Um I know that um we have a ton of housing being built and one project that nobody mentions that I've heard about is the Seintoint which is a 94 unit complex that's on Delmani as well and so I'm just seeing more and more traffic and it's like nobody ever addresses the issues of traffic here for what's going on with our residents. And for a person that's lived here all my life, worked at the same company all my life, I've watched a 10-minute commute to Monterey now take 40 to 45 minutes, and it's nothing's changed. I still drive the same amount of time or same amount of miles every day. It's just that that that commute's getting longer and longer. So, you've got thousands of houses being built already. So, I am worried about that. Um, with that being said, if if the council is going to re uh see to reszone that, uh, I'm not opposed to a drive-thru. I I think there should be like a Dutch Brothers there or something like that. But if you guys do go that route, um, as the president of of the Glazers union, I would hope that um, you guys would put some language in there like the other representatives said, with a skilled and trained workforce um, and prevailing wage to uh, support our members that live in the area. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Paul.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, and staff. I'm Doug Yant. Um, I'm speaking on behalf of myself, not representing anyone or any organization or development. and just having spent now I think it's close to 21 years on advancing Marina in a number of different ways as we know that has happened and it's there's lots of good things happening in Marina and I think just speaking specifically on the local coastal plan which I think the updates they were talking about and staff is is doing a good job of moving that forward in a number of ways it's very important but as you know that one thing that we've seen I think is successful in Marina is mixed use or multiple use zoning. You've seen it being very successful like in the Dunes project and other locations. And if you're able to allow really a more of a mix of uses, more of a much more general uses in there in various ways that that allows the market then to respond best. And if you sort of approach us with a bit of an open mind to think, okay, there's been struggles over the years, particularly in this sort of a gateway location and marina. And yes, it'd be nice to have something in there that really adds to the tax base. But the reality of that is is the acreage that's available, the acreage to develop, what else is coming or could be coming. I think you really need to keep an open mind about what would possibly be the best highest and best use there and leave it as open as possible. And so that's that's the would be my suggestion. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you very much, Doug.

Hi, good evening. Uh my name is Diane Talon and I would like to speak um a little bit about the drive-thru process and how important it is that once we do get some retail in there uh the fast food restaurants serve quick serve um that it is important to them as well that they have a drive-thru. Um studies have shown that their um sales will increase over 30% by having a drive-thru. just the importance for elderly people, uh people that may be physically challenged, uh a parent with a load full of kids in their car, it's much easier to use the drive-thru. Um, another uh point of reference was should we have another pandemic, these types of uh fast food, quicks serve restaurants are very important to the community. And so, um, to piggyback on the last gentleman's, uh, as far as tax base, it's very important for a restaurant to know that they can come in, have that option to have a drive-thru, and it increases their sales up to 50%. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Diane. Ray Dogado, Mayor Pro Tim Viser, city manager Long and City Council. My name is Terry Talon. I'm the long-standing owner of the uh Marina Landing Walmart or portions of it. I brought the Walmart to town 20 years ago and it was a great day and we're celebrating their 20 year anniversary this year. So, that's a that's a big deal which we're getting into as the year goes on. It's been widely attributed to Albert Einstein. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. And that's exactly what we've had here. I uh want to reference that we had an decisive and overwhelming 6 to1 vote by a very very good planning commission that we have here in Marina to move the project forward for mixeduse development. And that's what we're asking you tonight to please ratify their decisive vote to move this forward. It's practical. It's good common sense. It's what we should be doing. uh this project, the affordable component of it will allow for teacher housing, for workforce housing. And as you've seen, we have tremendous support from your leadership groups from Cal State University of Monterey Bay, 8,000 students, over a thousand teachers. Vana Quinones sent us a letter of recommendation as did Matt Huerta's group with the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership which is a housing advocate as well that has thoroughly vetted us and vetted the site for this opportunity. Mayor Delgado and I have known each other for a long time. Sometimes we see eye to eye, sometimes we don't. He has recently said that, you know, you've met

your housing numbers and so this would just be extra housing. The a lot of the housing numbers are paper housing. They're paper lots. They're not necessarily uh real lots and we can deliver something to this area that will be a great mixeduse project. This is considered one of the finer mixeduse coastal development sites. We have proximity to a library, a very big, a very good library. I don't see my time. a very we had a very big library. We're walking distance to two parks. We're walking distance to the beach. We're walking distance uh we have public transportation. This is an example conceptual site plan of what we can do. The yellow highlighted would be the commercial component. The entire rest of it, I'm sorry, would be the residential component. The entire rest of it would be the commercial component. So 28% of the site would be residential. Our site is mixed use. We put a restaurant pad in there as you can see red just below the yellow at the top. The um pricing of the units could be very favorable here as we do not have prevailing wage. Prevailing wage adds at least 35 and in some cases 70%. So that million3 home might be able to be sold for $650,000 but it could be a huge difference.

About 20 more seconds. Okay. So with that we're asking you kindly and respectfully. You know, we've all put a lot of work into this to please ratify the planning commission's good vote and allow us to move the project forward. Thank you. Thank you very much, Terry, for your patience with this decad's process.

Good evening again. I'm Maryann Le and I'll be here now as president of the Marina Chamber of Commerce. One of the things that drives retail, probably the most important is rooftops. And you could use some new rooftops in this portion of Marina. There's no doubt about it. If you look at Walmart, they have 74 different departments and they have thousands of items within there. Their rules are that they can say no to any other retail outlet that would sell something that they sell under their rooftop. That for a developer is a killer because trying to bring anything in, you can't bring automotive, you can't bring gardening, you can't bring beauty, you can't bring anything that would compete with what they have inside unless they give a a permission. That hasn't happened. So, I would ask you really to look at giving, I think, to the gentleman um who said there are too many cars on the road. This would give people the opportunity to live, to be able to shop, to get something to eat, and to stay right within their own community and not be in their cars and not be going other places. So to me, it's important. 1982 plan, that's a long time ago. Um, even a change a few years ago. Times have changed. COVID changed a lot of things. And CO changed how we shop and it changed how we eat. It changed everything that we do. So, I think if you want to keep Walmart, you need to give them some more rooftops. And I think that you'll see Walmart clean itself up a little bit and be more attractive to more people. And it will really solidify what you've got in this portion of Marina. So, I urge you to adopt drivethroughs and I urge you to

please allow housing there.

Thank you very much, Marian. Anyone else in person? All right. Um, I'll just mention that Peter Lei uh wrote an email. Took about 35 years to have a quick crack car wash. Uh, developers and its developers consultants have told us it's difficult to entice new businesses into Marina Landing Shopping Center. I Peter Lee recommend the city council approves the zoning of vacant land at Marino Landing as mixed use retail and commercial. Okay, let's go on online and please raise your hand anyone who wishes to speak and let's start with Adam Pinterus. Good evening, mayor and council members. First, I want to thank staff for their thorough report. Next, I want to commend the planning commission for their thoughtful deliberation on this matter. Uh, I would say I broadly concur with their recommendations. The Monterey County Association of Realtors does not specifically endorse any particular project or developer over another. U, but we do broadly want to speak to the fact that what other jurisdictions wish they had more of or are looking for ways to incentivize is mixed use. Uh this is something that just about everyone can agree upon. If you don't like sprawl, hey, this is the alternative. If you want fewer cars on the road, hey, transit centered uh housing development is your answer. So really this is something everyone can agree upon. Uh from the standpoint of the realtors we see not just in the city of Marina but statewide the biggest gap in terms of housing inventory but also in particular around here that gap uh is what we call the missing middle. It's uh right for the folks who make too much to qualify for any kind of assisted housing

u but uh make too little to afford to buy at the um at or near the median price uh right this creates more what we call affordable by design opportunities in the case of if it's uh sold as condos or if it's made as rental housing then hopefully it would be made um at affordable rental housing and and to that point I think it's also important to listen to what the proposed developer head about keeping the price down, keeping the price as affordable as possible because that has to be the goal if that's going to be the type of use that goes in there. Um, finally speaking, just as a private citizen, a resident of Marina who walks down to that part of town, uh, I I think these are all fine ideas. Uh, but just on a personal note, if it's going to be an in-n-out, don't do what Seaside did and not plan for enough um, uh, parking and drive-thru distance cuz the traffic impacts there have been awful. Uh, you know, Maria really got Trader Joe's right. It's the only Trader Joe's I actually like to visit because I don't have a problem finding parking and it's it's feels more spacious. So, I would apply the same logic to In-N-Out just as a matter of personal preference if that happens to be the applicant uh who wants to go for that drive-thru spot. But all in all, I I see a lot of win-win opportunity here. So, thank you all for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much for joining us tonight, Adam. Okay, let's go to Dan Doanian. Yes. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, welcome. Thank you. Can I share my screen? Uh, let me move you to panelist. So, you can do that. Okay. Just a point of order, Mr. Mayor. We don't usually let members of the public share their screen. uh on Zoom. Okay. One moment, please. If there's no objection, we'll let him share the screen.

Is there a clarification? It's not someone I recognize. Is this representing a particular interest or I think he's representing Terry's team. He's on Terry's team. Okay. Objection. Please proceed, Daniel. Thank you. Okay. Can you see my screen? Not yet. There you go. You see the chart? Yes. Yeah.

Okay, great. Um, okay. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Daniel Doan and I'm a co-owner along with Terry of the Beach Road property that is part of the discussion before you. Uh, I want to start by saying that I recognize the responsibility you carry in decisions like this. These decisions shape what your city becomes and who can afford to live here. And I want to be clear about our posture. We're not here to fight the city. We are here to work with you if there is a path to do so. But I also want to make sure the situation is fully understood because there is a gap between perception and reality that matters for this vote. We've submitted a pre-application under SB330 and AB 2011 for an 82 unit town home project on the site. AB201 is a state law that allows housing on commercially zoned land through a ministerial byright process. If a project meets the objective criteria, the city does not have the ability to deny it. So this is not theoretical. This is real and it is available now. We understand the desire for commercial activity on the site. In fact, we agree with that instinct. Mixeduse environments are often the best outcome. But I also need to be candid. A 100% commercial project on the site is simply not economically feasible. The market does not support it. So the question before you is not whether housing will be built here. Housing will happen here under state law. The real question is whether there will be some commercial or none at all. Now bringing it back to the decision in front of you. If the city approves the proposed mixeduse zoning, we will move forward with a project that includes both housing and commercial uses. That is our preferred path. If the city does not approve the zoning change, then under AB 2011, we will have no choice but to proceed with a residentialonly project with no commercial uses at all. Put simply, a commercial only project will

not occur on the site regardless of your vote. And paradoxically, attempting to preserve commercial only zoning would produce the opposite result. A residentialonly project with no commercial space. So again, the decision before you is simple. some commercial or none at all. We are here in good faith and would prefer to partner with the city, but either way, the site will move forward. We simply want to make sure that decision is made with full clarity about the consequences. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, Dan. Jeffrey Markham.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, city council persons. Um, I would like to encourage the city council to adopt the planning commission's recommendation to remove active recreation from the open space regions of the local local coastal program. I believe the expansion of the definition of passive recreation use mitigates the concern of staff over uh of overcompensating. In specific, we have a uh number of significant number of camping sites coming online south of Marina in the state parks project currently under construction. Um, active recreation by definition has higher impact. All of the envisioned usages of open space regions are encompassed in the passive recreation definition. And I encourage you to heir on the side of conservation by adopting the planning commission's recommendation. The entire purpose of the coastal act is to protect our unique and irreplaceable coastal habitat. Adopting the planning commission's recommendation is entirely consistent with that purpose. And thank you. Thank you very much, Jeff. Matt Horta.

Okay. Can you hear me? Yes. Good evening, Matt.

Go ahead, Matt. Sorry, can you hear me now? Yes, good evening.

Okay, sorry, something's going off the mute. So, sorry. Yeah, again, Matt Werta here, senior adviser with Monterey Bay Economic Partnership. After thorough consideration, we have endorsed the proposed reszone to mixeduse residential uh for the Marina landing site. As you may know, our endorsement process involves reviewing all available documentation of the project, including prior actions. We also seek input from a cross-section of the leading housing professionals from across our region and nonprofit, for-profit, and local government agencies. Our board of directors who represent some of the largest public and private employers in our region are also consulted. This reszone represents an important housing opportunity of potentially 260 rental apartments or 90 approximate sale for sale town homes with an within an established infill commercial site. This proposal is consistent with MBep's housing initiative recommendations as it can leverage existing infrastructure and bring residents closer to their jobs and services. Also, any future residential development would have to follow the city's inclusionary housing ordinance producing muchneeded opportunities for very low to moderate income households. Creating housing here will improve coastal access for more residents. Few other opportunity sites in the city offer this direct access. We commend the city for being a regional leader in meeting and potentially exceeding its housing goals. Approving this reszone to mixed use is in line with your leadership position. You have a committed partner and a strong site, two critical components the city should take full advantage of. Thank you for your leadership.

Thank you very much, Matt, for all the work you do with the economic partnership.

Rob, go ahead, Rob. Rob, if you're ready. Okay, we'll come back to Rob. Let's go to Casey. Good evening.

Good evening, city council Marina. My name is Casey Vanhuvil and I represent the building and construction trades of the Monterey Bay area representing over 18 affiliated trades and 60,000 construction members. We stand in solidarity and collaboration with this developer. It is very rare that you have an opportunity like this and it's very rare that you have an opport have a developer like Terry that makes a commitment to collaborate with its community. We are that community and we stand with reszoning this development. We stand with apprenticeship opportunities and we stand with skilled and trained. Moving forward with this commitment, not only from the community but the developer and the collaboration we have, it is important to understand not only the benefits that this project will bring, but also the benefits it'll bring to the community. I implore you to please approve the reasonzoning, stand with the community, and let's all collaborate together because this will benefit the community and this will benefit everyone involved. Thank you and have a great day.

Thank you, Casey, and thank you for your leadership.

Let's go to Mike Mohler. Hello, uh, mayor, council, and staff. But I want to start off by, um, mirroring Jeff Markham by saying I I would like the, um, active recreation removed, um, from the coastal plan. Um, with the exception, I don't know if that counts, the uh, future SEM site because I believe they want a campsite there. Um, but I I actually want to move on to the um the Walmart property here. I I've always supported a mixeduse plan there just because it makes sense. I don't know of anybody just building strip malls anymore um with nothing on top of it. If you look everywhere, there is, you know, mixeduse retail on the bottom, housing on top. And that's what I envisioned for that, at least for a portion of it. Now, I understand, you know, behind that stuff, you'd probably want some sort of, you know, town houses, condos, apartments. Um, looking at this um sketch that um was thrown up on the screen that I I I saved here, I I find this particular idea really unappealing in itself and and kind of vanilla. And it looks like, you know, looks like the dunes. Uh to be honest with you, I think we can do a little better um than that. Uh, but but I I do definitely think we we need a mixed use as far as drive-throughs go. You know, drive-throughs are fine, but if you're if you're talking an In-N-Out, um, which we have in Seaside, which is, you know, a pretty messy on any day, um, I really don't see how an In-N-Out would fit with the cars that come through that area in that little space. Um, so I would find, you know, you would think that an In-N-Out or a Chick-fil-A, which even a

bigger nightmare. I was living in Selenus when Chick-fil-A opened there in Selenus and it was an absolute nightmare for traffic and it's, you know, it's not much better. So, it's a pretty tight space where this uh drive-thru sketch is. Um, I don't see how that would work. Um, aside from how I found distasteful uh Daniel's uh public comment threat was about um AB 2011, um you know, he's right. Uh if you if you don't find a way to play ball with Mr. Talon, they're just going to ram housing down our throats and then we get nothing. So, I do encourage you to work with them and uh hope we can get something that works for that area of Marina. give us some much needed uh retail space and and get some movement going so that downtown Marina can start working on some some you know rehabilitation uh sooner than later. Um I think that's about all I got to say. Thanks. Good night.

Thank you very much, Mike. Let's go to Rob again. I appreciate it. Can you hear me now? Yes, Rob. Go ahead.

Perfect. Thanks. Thanks for your time. My name is Rob Ryell. I'm speaking on behalf of my in-laws who are owners of Pad C at the Marine Landing Shop Center on Beach Road. Our family has owned this vacant parcel directly across from Walmart for more than 15 years. And frankly, we're all surprised that any development on our site and other vacant parcels have here has taken so long. On top of various historic delays, we recently learned the city was considering a potential no drive policy, no drive-through policy for new developments of the site. We believe such a policy would be ill- advised, would significantly diminish the value of our land, and more importantly would be a deterrent to the marina community. A drive-thru is an absolute total alignment with the property's wellestablished zoning, and the zoning was what my family relied upon when we invested and became a stakeholder in the community. Drive-throughs are not a relic of outdated car- centric planning. They are modern, adaptive, responsive to how people live, work, and move. Today, cities that ban them undermine economic viability, ignore clear-cut consumer behavior trends, and miss opportunity to shape better and more efficient and more commuter friendly designs. Typically, community that bans drive-throughs in an area that enhances walk that enhances walkability of a community. I'd be surprised if any of the owners or community walked regularly to Walmart or Quick Crack to shop or utilize their services there. So, Marina's drive-thru policy should reflect the lived lived realities of its residents. Drive-throughs provide essential access to seniors, families, workers, and people with mobility challenges. When designed responsibly, they strengthen local businesses, reduce commercial vacancies, and support the community's daily needs. A pro community approach ensures the marina's land use decisions respond to these realities rather than adopting a one-size fit all. For these reasons, drive-through should be

permitted in existing commercial corridors, especially in areas anchored by the major retailers such as Walmart, where additional react retail activity is beneficial. Drive-through should be discouraged only in small parcel pedestrianoriented village centers. This targeted approach protects walkability where it matters while preserving access where residents actually need it. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Thank you, Rob. Tommy Bol.

Uh good team again. Um yeah, that the mixed use sounds like a pretty big project. I mean, the car density on the parking lot there at Walmart and the roadway coming into there, I don't know how you can make that work with additional traffic coming through there to to park in that new housing area, but I I just don't see it. But I guess you'll make it work. I mean, it'll be it'll be tough. And and those restaurants Yeah. You can't put a restaurant in there and have parking. There's not enough land. You would have to have drive-thru. That's the only way. All the other restaurants are drive-thru or walk in, take your food, and go. That's the way it is now. So, you would save the land on there. Uh, you know, I would think somebody should start thinking about a super Walmart and build it like north of the city and phase out that Walmart alto together and build all mixed use in there. build a hotel, really make that place stand out. That's what I would do. And I know you guys mentioned the cement plant, so I guess I'm able to rebuttle on that at least a little bit. I mean, I would build a harbor in there and a marina and an embaradero. I mean, you can make marina the new Monterey. If you go to the harbor over there in Monterey, it's full. They ain't got no more no more. You can't park any boats. Go to Moss Landing. Go to Santa Cruz. It's an opportunity of a lifetime. You can turn that into a harbor. I would extend Dunes Road. I would totally redo Marina Beach and make it a frontage with cypress trees and a loop coming back down Dunes and put more hotels in there. But if if you want to start, you got to

start now and start planning. Army Corps of Engineers built all those harbors. They can build a harbor right there in Marina. Marina is Marina. Build a marina in Marina. That's what I would do. And you have access all the way into there with the new housing coming in. I think it would be you would turn Marina and surpass Monterey cuz you have the land right there now. And as far as the del, I would extend those line, those wells, run underground pipes, bring them all the way to the Marina airport and lease that land back to the water company for a hundred years. And that diesel plan will be at the Marina airport. If you do it right, everything will work. But you got to start now. You got to start planning for it. That's the way I would do it. I would phase out the Walmart, build a new super Walmart. you'd be way ahead and that whole area right there would be prime for mixed use restaurants. Sorry I told told you too much, but that's my idea. Talk to you later. Good night.

Thank you, Tommy. Let's go to Kelly. Sorry, Kellen Clancy.

Hi. Can everyone hear me? Okay. Yes. Welcome.

Hello. Hello, city council, Mayor Delgado, and fellow audience members. This is Kellen Clancy from the Talon developer team for the Beach Road Marina Landing site. I am pleased to be here and I just want to reiterate what Mike uh Terry and Daniel Zanian said earlier. All very well said. We as the developer team don't necessarily want to have a 100% residential project on the Beach Road site, which is what we become forced to do if the planning and zoning forces us to do a 100% commercial project. If the zoning can't support the mixeduse plan, which is what we envision to be the best use to get the value out of that site, our only course of action is to use AB 2011 to do a 100% residential project with both market rate and affordable units. It is a fantastic site that the city the city and its residents should cherish in the future for the planning that was put in place to allow for both a retail a fantastic retail corridor with both workforce and market rate units that the site needs to make the retail feasible. Thank you very much, city council, and good night.

Good night, Kellen. And thank you. Let's go to Glenn.

Okay, Glenn, if you're there. Glenn, we'll give you a few more seconds. And anyone else that hasn't spoke wants to, please raise your hand. Can you hear me now, Bruce? Yes, Glenn. Go ahead.

I was worried. All right. Sorry about that. Um, I apologize for not being there tonight. I actually didn't plan on speaking at all and I had a a separate work meeting. Uh, I'm speaking as a resident of Marina tonight and I want to make one clarification to the to you and the city council on AB 2011. AB 2011 actually only has two pathways for project comparison. One is a mixeduse housing residential mixeduse pathway and the other pathway is a 100% affordable housing. The two big differences outside of financing complexity, developer type, everything else boil down to two things. If it is a 100% affordable housing pathway, the main criteria is that the project type is a 100% deed restricted affordable residential housing. And the affordability requirement is again 100% affordable units. to do that. That does apply a streamlined process and for approval, but it is not what was said before that they can use some type of mixeduse market rate and affordable. The mixeduse housing, residential development has a project type that allows residential or mixed youth with same market rate unit with some market rate units. The affordability requirement is that it must include a required percentage which can be done through the different bonus programs. A certain percentage of affordable units plus market rate mix. That is the difference that AB 2011 passes down. And the comments tonight that talked about AB 2011 did not specifically clarify that information. So I wanted to make sure that you on the council understood that going into your discussions this evening. Thank you very much. Thank you, Glenn. We'll go ahead and close public comment

and council, help me go through any questions that may have come up. I am actually not seeing any questions except Tommy Bala asked rhetorically, why can't we just build a marina? Did anyone else note any questions? Nancy Amado asks, "When will downtown be built?"

Okay, Nancy, can you answer that question? Are you still here? Can you answer that question, Nancy? Okay. She doesn't have the mic, but she says no to 20 or 30 years, she'd do it. I remember Fred, our previous uh community development director, said once you get the downtown plan done, the document then it takes 30 plus years to implement it. But if you don't get the document done, that 30 years doesn't start yet. So, we got the document. Okay. Um let's go to Council Member McAdams.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm just um curious and and I um appreciate um playing Commissioner Woodson for for speaking up. Can staff sort of explain like the spy project and how much affordability would it take if that were the direction? Um so if a AB 2011 project is filed um 20% of the units would have to be inclusionary uh potentially up to 25 units an acre and prevailing wage and apprenticeship programs would have to be provided. So

Okay. Thank you. And currently our just policy in the city of Marina for a multi-unit um project is 20% affordability. Is that correct? 20% inclusion area is the city's inclusion. So that's just the policy regardless. Okay. So it's not like any favors or we're a that's just how we do business. Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you. That that's just my question. Council member McCarthy.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'm going to rewind back to the first part of the presentation and talk a little bit about the LCP uh issues um outside of of the um the land use issues. Um see, where do I start? Uh the visitor serving commercial zone for the sanctuary resort. I was a little confused why we would expand that zone when we've talked so much about coastal retreat um and kind of moving back away from the coast and I'm wondering if you could speak to that sorry manage retreat

and that's an understandable question. The permitting history for that resort is quite complicated, but by their own conditions of approval with their CDP with the coastal commission, they're going to they've agreed to do manage retreat anyway. The reasoning for the change in the lenius designation would be if they wanted to do like an alteration to one of the existing structures, does that need to be considered legal non-conforming or would that be allowable until the property is threatened by sea level rise and manage retreat? So, it's really more about cleaning up the zoning to reflect what's in the existing developed area.

Okay. Um, I'll move on to the um, there was a comment about tribal resources um, somewhere in the presentation. I'm just curious, have tribal resources ever been found in Marina that you're aware of? There was a positive finding in the search results that our archaeologist did as part of this project.

Okay. Um, and then I'm appreciative of the comments um by Return of the Natives about um the wetlands that were uh admitted and are on previous wetlands maps. Um I know some of those wetlands are kind of by my house or some by Glory Jean Tate. Um and they're wetlands that I often recognize but we don't really talk about. So I'm supportive of of the discussion of putting those back in. Um, the last thing I want to mention for now is um, in the presentation, I don't think it's what you meant, but you mentioned that the closed cone um, cyprus don't provide habitat, I think was the words that were used. And I I would have to disagree with that. I think that they actually do provide significant um, habitat. And I I'm appreciative that you have created this major vegetation category. Um, but if the council would support it, I would like to maybe words smmith or expand that category a little bit to call it something more like um locally significant coastal tree habitat. Um, and I think this is important because the best thing that we can do is is educate folks about what different species of of plants um offer and don't. And we've tried to do that through this non-native um nomenclature that we've I know that I've often argued on this DAS about and I'm I I don't want to do that tonight. I I did speak to um the gentleoman from Return of the Natives that wrote a letter and had a really lengthy um conversation that was really enlightening and and one of the things that she shared with me and it's it kind of ties into this this tribal resources question that I had is that Cyprus are scientifically not considered native to Marina. Not because they possibly never were here, but because the fossil record doesn't support that they were here, right? And so it's kind of one of those things where because we can't prove that

they were here, we say that they're not native, if that makes sense. Um even though it's quite possible that they did live up and in fact the fossil record does indicate that they they um lived up and down the coast way beyond Point Lobos where they're are commonly now considered to be native. Um so yeah I would you know just recognizing that they they provide nesting roosting and foraging habitat that they are provide wind protection contribute to agriculture viability soil stabilization coastal bluff doing adjacent areas um that they have a visual resource value contributing to coastal scenic character I'd like some of those things maybe to be added to the LCP and if um council would support that I could come up with some language that when this comes back to us we can decide whether you know, we want to approve or or words smmith it further. But um we saw that at Gapata that someone took it upon themselves to cut all of the callillies in Calleilly Valley because there was this insinuation that they were non-native, right? Um or that they were invasive rather. And and even the word invasive has certain connotations, right? Um turns out those callillies generally didn't expand beyond that that valley area. Whether that means it's invasive or not, I'm not going to have that argument now. But what concerns me is that government entities didn't take the time to explain to the public that, hey, they actually do potentially provide some value. And there's a reason why government entities haven't come and cut all of those down. Um, and they created an environment where the public decided to take it upon themselves. And so I just think that we run that risk with Cyprus if we're not very clear and um, transparent about the value that they provide otherwise. Um, I know I've gone over five minutes, so I'll end there for now.

Thank you, Brian. Let's go to Council Member Biala. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We have so many different um, you know, issues that, so it's like you have to jump from one to the next, but I'm going to start with the development. Um, so I'm I'm curious. Um, uh, one second. Sorry, Kathy.

Questions. Your mic, please. So staff put up some questions and part of the reason for that was because council member McCarthy is conflicted from a portion of it. So before we start jumping around there is at least one portion that he's conflicted from. So we should go to that part and then once we take care of that question then we can begin jumping around as long as we address. Well jumping around meaning there's I think see there's three issues. So which which issue do we not talk about right now? What we didn't cover that actually as a matter of fact we have to cover that issue first under okay the FPPPC regulation and is that the Terry Talent?

No. So that would be whether to allow uh mixed use in the entire general commercial area. We can put up the presentation. It'll be the first question that staff asked and then they had a whole bunch of other sub questions. So okay. All right. So, um, uh, so, so the staff's going to put up the question we want to answer without Brian, and then when we answer that question, Brian can come back in and we can jump around all that we want. Okay. So, right now, he needs to leave. Yes. Okay.

Thank you, Renee. Thank you, Brian. So, so just as you recall, there was two parts to this uh question. There was one as to the entire general commercial and then there was one as to only a portion of the so my thought is uh council member McCarthy can participate in

okay so this is the he's gone so I'm going to say that um I would like mixed use not to be allowed throughout the general commercial land use designation um and but I'm sorry throughout the general to to not say it's the whole thing but only on specific parcels. So that is that correct then? So I'm saying what I what I desire is the no we should not be used but not be allowed throughout the general commercial use designation. What what I want to say is not the whole thing. I mean there's a Walmart there there's already all this stuff.

Correct. So yes, I think what you're saying is not through the whole general commercial but strictly for the Terry Talon. So that I answer no on that then. Correct. Is that the Yes. But you that second half strictly on two parcels. We need to do that with Brian present. So right now without Brian, we're asking what you answered with regard without regard to any specific parcels, but just this general throughout. We'll get to that next question. If you look

Yeah. No, I don't want to change the zoning of commercial on on on what's already there. So, okay. So you mean Walmart and 7-Eleven and Quack? Yes. That's already been zoned commercial. They are commercial. So I don't believe we should be changing the zoning on it. Okay. City attorney, can you or or Guido? Is that what you wish to decide?

So is it okay that we leave commercial zone on 7-Eleven, Walmart, and Quickquack? So, right now is sort of the broader question whether you want to allow mixed use in the entire area. That's just sort of the the broader the broader question. Okay. So, I'm hearing Kathy say, "No, I don't want mixed use on Walmart 71." The end of quick, right? That answers that question. But I do want it in other places. We'll get there and then we get there. Okay. So, so you as an individual council member recommend no mixed use. No, mixed use should not be allowed throughout the general commercial land use designation. Yes, that's what I Do you have any other input on?

No, because this is the only thing I'm supposed to answer. That's right. That's right. Okay. Uh, Mayor Pat Viser, you want to I agree. Jenny, you've already spoken, but you agree. Okay. Uh, I'll agree to that, too. Uh, good. So, do we make a motion now or do it do it later? I think you can make a motion. Okay. I'll motion that no mixed use should not be allowed throughout the general commercial land use designation because of the logic that Kathy mentioned earlier. But anyway, that's my motion. We But the answer is no. Not throughout the general commercial land use designation.

I second. Okay. Um, is there any objection if we ask Terry Talent if he has any heartburn about that or would you rather not? I would rather not. I think it's there might be some information we don't know. But but I think that that would be he if he the second question we it fits with So let's go with it then. Uh all in favor please say I. Do you mind? Okay. I was going to say, do you mind if we ask Weo,

I'm sorry, what is the question? I'm sorry. Do you see any fatal flaw in saying no, we don't want it throughout because of the three existing uh developments and that and we're not talking about the undeveloped Walmart parcel. We're talking about the Walmart developed parcel, the parking lot, 7-Eleven, and Quickquack. I believe how the council has the motion makes sense to me unless Lane wants to comment. Okay. So the motion is no, mixed use should not be allowed throughout the general commercial land use designation. Yes.

Okay. Last chance. Uh anyone object to Terry Talent saying what's burning? Not not not unless council changes our policy here real quick. Okay. Okay. I'm not seeing not seeing it. Okay. So, is everyone clear what the motion is? All right. Uh, all in favor, please say I. I. I. All oppose, please say no. Okay. Thank you. That motion passes. Can we have Brian back in the room? Okay. To bring Brian back. Yes.

Okay. Come on back, Brian. You can hear us. Okay. So, we can jump around now that Brian is back. Brian, we've made a vote regarding the general overall commercial and now we can take it the way that staff asked us to. We can also just comment on things and then start to go through some motions. So Kathy, you had the floor earlier. Can you continue?

Okay. So um the first thing is um I think um Mr. Talon said that on on his proposed um portion there he would do 28% residential and 72% commercial. Did I hear that correct correctly? Does staff know the answer to that question? Is that what you said? What is that? Terry Terry, please I I know Terry I know it's frustrating but we're just trying to follow policy

the the overall this whole thing. I see. Got it. Okay, thank you for that clarification. Okay, but um Glenn Woodson brought up the um the AB201 and the I need to know Guido is if if if he were if if if um Mr. Talon applied for an AB 2011 then there are two things that Glenn said. There's the residential which would be all affordable etc. 100% resident and mixed use option. So do they have to specifically apply for one or the other?

Um so I have a slightly different understanding of AB 2011. I don't think it has to be all affordable. It has to have 20% inclusionary. So there's only one option then and you can do so that that's my Okay. One question on that. What Glenn said was if you go AB 2011 mixed use, it's 20%. If you go AB 2011 100% affordable housing, it's 100% deed restricted.

Right. But I don't believe the applicant's required to do 100% affordable. But Renee can correct me if I'm wrong. So, so what I heard is uh that AB2 2011 can do either a mixeduse project or 100% affordable. But my understanding of AB 2011 is number one, it could be a 100% residential project and it only needs to be some percentage. I believe it's 20% affordable. So um but it but in terms of I I don't know what the the levels of affordability are and whether those are deeper or not compared to the inclusionary ordinance

the my understanding of the law is that whatever is the lower levels of affordability because would apply

because the state's trying to encourage the lower area immediate income that that's my understanding. So okay well that's about really not really clear but but the if there is an option for mixed use whatever percentage it is or whether how much affordable it's kind of like what we seem to be proposing from the dis you know mixed use right I mean I so I I don't see a difference between an AB 2011 mixeduse proposition versus what we're being asked to look at today is is is a mixed use except that there's a different processing one. You go through the the AB201 administrative process and here if we decide this tonight then it's mixed use however proportion we

um just to be just to be clear I I didn't say that the remarks from Glenn Woodson were correct. I said that AB 2011 I believe allows a 100% residential project. Oh, and not with anything suggesting about the Oh, I see. Wow. Yeah. Okay. And that's your understand? But it sounds like I didn't answer your first. So, so the the levels affordability, it's follow AB 2011 or follow the local ordinance. My understanding talking to the city attorney, whatever has the lower levels of affordability, that's what the applicant has to follow. Okay. So, hopefully that answered your question.

Okay. And we're ours is 20%. 20% but 6% have to be low. 6% have to be very low, you know, whatever. Okay. All right. Well, anyway. Okay. So, so I think I understand a little bit more about that. Okay. Um, and it sounds like under SB 2011 that there is union wages, prevailing wages have to be honored. But it also sounds from some of the union commenters tonight that that Mr. Talon would also be providing prevailing wages even if not part of AB 2011.

Um, I can't comment on a private developer making those promises because we wouldn't be party to that and we wouldn't be able to enforce that. We would only be able to enforce if the AB 2011 project is filed. If the private developer does that, I wouldn't have the ability to enforce that. Okay? And that would be a private agreement between those two responding. Yes, I understand that. Just responding to one of the speakers who seemed to suggest, maybe I'm wrong, but I read it wrong. But he seemed to suggest that the developer would go with prevailing wages. Did you hear that? Did I imagine that the developers has never said anything about that? Right. But the but the speaker has,

right? Okay. We're just relying on what the developer has told us for what he's proposing. Okay. just to clarify that. Okay. Um Okay. Now, switching hats and I can do this about the LCP other things other than this. Okay. So, I wanted to ask um one of the things that native plants suggest uh plant society suggested was to to substitute California natives to marina natives. And does that have any practical implications for anything that we need to be cautious about when we do that?

Um, we talked with the MC and their biologist. We think that restricting all landscaping to marina native specifically would be very like very restrictive and impractical in terms of local landscaping. Um my understanding of their concern is that sometimes California species can encroach onto uh other sensitive habitat areas. Um so we can try and work on something that would uh require that landscaping plans be reviewed to avoid that concern. Um

okay. Yeah, I think I my gut on that was that it would create some untoward issues in the future if we if we put it that way. Okay. And then on page three, it looks like the the planning commission added um low inensity recreational uses such as walking trails, blah blah blah, hiking trails, etc., and other uses that will not result in impacts to wildlife and do not create noise impacts. I have real concerns with saying that. I mean, that that opens it up. What are we talking about wildlife? Is it an insect? Is it? Is it endangered species? You know, I I I that that is so broad and a can of worms, I think. So, I I'm I'm really wanting us to not to not use that term or to figure out what exactly did we mean by this. That's not going to create all kinds of problems for us later.

We can refine that before we bring it back. Okay. Thank you. So the intent is to not leave the door open and to make sure passive recreation has minimal impacts on the environment. Is that what your intent? Yeah. Yes. Yes. That would be better than suggesting that it's not resulting in impacts to wildlife. Okay. Thank you. What? Yeah. Okay. Great. Um I'll I'll go ahead. Yes. Just on that and then I'll give it back. Um the the language that Kathy just referred to page three page

uses that will not result in impacts to wildlife. So first of all I think you mean adverse impacts not beneficial impacts right?

Okay. So it' be good to change it to adverse impacts. If I put in a decomposed granite walking path in an Asian garden, that might not be good for birds. So, it might have an adverse impact on birds of a certain species. And so, I wouldn't be able to put in a DG pathy walkway because it had an an adverse impact on a wildlife species. You got lizards and like Kathy said, insects, lizards, birds, whatever. So it'd be pretty ownorous to only allow uses that do not result in adverse impacts to any wildlife species, any animal species, let's say. And so what was the uh alternative language that just suggested by uh Ezning? I think I think the discussion was that we'll have to go back and further refine uh and then in terms of impact we could follow the SQL model which is you know um not creating a significant impact right because anything you do could have an impact but maybe further defining you know a significant or significant unavoidable impact

right and and probably all of these things would require some kind of secret review anyway right right so why are we repeating something that you know I mean it may be I'm not sure how to make to not make it redundant to something that's already required if we're going to do an interpretive center someplace we're going to need to have a biological review correct right right yeah so we can when we come back we can we can have a further uh discussion of wildlife and uh no significant or significant unavoid able impacts. So we can add that as a definition. Okay.

Do you have any more Kathy? Yeah, just one more. So um to the question of removing active recreation use um you know when you look at um the coastal uh zones they are really disparit. You you have Gloria Jean Tate Park which is really close to the ocean and that's not part of the LCP. And yet the Walmart and and the Walmart and and um Mr. Talon's property and the CAMAX are in in in the coastal zone. M

so you know to me if we take out active recreation use when there's so much disparity in terms of the kinds of properties that are within our LCP I just think I like it much better to keep it in and then to say um there would be it would be conditional use permits because you you can't I mean there's a Walmart sitting on an LCP property right

I mean you how do we know what else is going to come up that they might want to do in one of these commercially, you know, designated areas. And so I I would like to keep that in. And actually, I wanted to even expand it so that active re recreation, it says moderate and intensity recreation uses that are typically offered in the city parks, including but not limited to park buildings, community centers, bicycle paths, etc. But when I hear typically offered in a city park, I would like to see children's playgrounds. That's the that's the more typical one. You you jump into sort of more, you know, bigger projects than but a but a but a children's playground, a basketball court, and the master plan for Lo Padden said botchi ball. Those are the things that I consider active recreational use and I would like to see that added in because following that is some pretty significant what I would say very significant active uses and these are one step down but you don't you don't attend to those. So if we can consider those kinds of things so people get an idea oh active active uh recreational use is a children's playground. Okay.

Did you take five minutes on it? Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Brian. on the sex question. Um, if we if we took out the active res recreation and SEMX and the future owner of that 400 acre property that has 100 acres of disturbed land wanted to put in a visitor center, a wedding venue, whatever, would that be prohibited? I'd have to.

Okay. Since we don't know what semix is going to be, but we've had preliminary conversations that it could be an active recreation have active recreation components. What should we do? So, we have some we have a settlement agreement that we've signed with coastal commission, state lands, the city and and cmix and it's very specific on the uses that allowed. Active recreation is not allowed. passive recreation is allowed, conservation, open space, um those types. And so, um active recreation cannot Okay. But go to those properties.

Can I just say something about that? One of the things that was discussed, um by one of the public agencies considering, you know, buying that was a campground and, you know, a kind of a Western Snowy Plver museum, not museum, but you know, educational site. So it so they it might have been the definition because ours includes a campground of of active and oh I and they were considering this on that property. So I'm not sure that how how that was being handled. Um so the to the best of my knowledge the consent order uh between the coastal commission is not extremely precise or clear with what is allowed but in general it's low impact recreation and open space conservation. So it could potentially be argued that like a tent a small tent only campground could fit into that. Um but I think like wedding venue would probably clearly not be within that. So yeah, that property I think any future plans would have to be kind of worked out also with the coastal commission to make sure the the order is being followed,

right? And so in those instances, if we if we define active recreation as um campgrounds, then to continue to have it in there provisionally um you know, as a provisional condition would allow whatever might be in the future. I think that's that's how I'm looking at this. The the agreements do not allow active recreation. what they allow is is low impact passive recreation. So what you're talking about active recreation would not apply but the question was what is the definition of low impact? Yes.

Yes. Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Campgrounds may fit into that. But if we we are defining active recreation which they disapproved of then we have campgrounds here. So we would say no we can't. It's it's it's about the how we define low impact recreation and active recreation because active recreation you've got campgrounds on active recreation here. So would you like staff to look at removing campgrounds from active recreation and seeing if it would make sense to allow it under passive recreation?

I don't know. I mean, bicycle paths, I feel like that's that's in the same category. I don't know. Lam plans and the city plans that were drawn up conceptually, two different conceptual plans had roads being improved and built

and having a bicycle path along that road to access the beach on a bike as an option to driving a car. So road improvements, road development, bicycle path developments on the CAX property so people can get to the beach or parking lot would seem to be active recreation but may be prohibited if we struck active recreation.

Yes. So, what do we do if the two conceptual plans we have include active recreation components, but tonight we're considering striking active recreation allowance.

That's my point, Mayor. that would be um an inconsistence we would want to resolve um to make sure that the land use plan allows the kinds of uses that are being contemplated in those uh kind of preliminary discussions. So maybe um like the an approach or a solution would be taking those uses that seem to make sense um in the passive recreation area like low inensity campgrounds and bicycle paths and adding them into the passive recreation definition. Um, okay.

The intent of the planning commission is they wanted to prevent incompatible uses that would impact open space from being allowed. I think the examples were like a BMX course um or like pickle ball areas, but um do you consider children's playground active or passive? Okay. Well, so the the passive recreation definition allows um like public that allowed public parks.

I think it would be allowed under passive. It's already allowed or that it is uh not the definition that's on the planning commission recommended definitions. Oh, it's here. Children's playground would be very different than a community garden.

Go to the actual Well, maybe we can come back to that. We don't need to stall just on that. Yes. And u I'll come back later with some more comments. Uh let's go to Mayor Bertan Viser and then Council McCarthy.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, I agree with my council member and Biala. And um my questions were also about bicycle paths. We want people to be able to reach the coast and people now with ebikes it makes it so much easier to get there. So, um I'm looking forward to getting more um clarification about that. Yeah. And I I was just going to add to the council staff and the consultant could craft the language to say this is passive, this is active. Uh and we would allow it in certain spots with the carve out that we would, you know, put language that says so long as it doesn't conflict with the existing settlement agreements. Right? So we we we could have a carve out just so that we don't have to sit here all night and

debate what the but just so we can get past it if if that's a compromise. Right. But I don't know what other properties under LCP that outside of the CMAX. I I wouldn't want to just limit it to CMAX when I don't really know what other possibilities could be on other LCP properties. Yeah, we we can show you on the map the different uh opportunities for open space. So we can pull that up. For example, Guido, the improvements planned at Ford Dune State Beach, if that were in Marina's coastal zone piece, which it may be south of it, but what you know that we're planning on helping to build, would that be allowed?

Uh, yeah, we'd have to dig deeper into the depth of it. But I I would say we understand the intent of what the council's given us direction on. And just so we don't keep people here all night, I guess the ask would be give us the general direction. We would we'll work on the definition and then have the carve out to say um minus the settlement agreement that we wouldn't contradict that existing settlement agreement. So because there's also that sliver in the south that's also that narrow sliver. If Belinda, if you guys could pull up the slide that shows the coastal um like the beginning

towards the beginning of it. Yeah. Yeah. Uh one more one more. Uh say something more. So the point I think between uh you know her comment and my comment is that it may be other properties too that this carve out as you're calling it may apply to not just CX and other things. So if we could broaden that and not just say that the carve out applies to only one spot. Got it. Doesn't have to be that specific. Okay.

Is there something you want to say about the map? Uh, you were asking questions about the coastal commission map. No, I mentioned that sliver in the south next one. Who knows, maybe somebody wants to put them put in a bicycle path there in the future, but if we would not allow that now, that would be a problem. Yes. Thank you. Principally allowed uses in the open space designation um include public parks and botanical gardens which I think is would be inclusive of playgrounds. It's not explicit but so you would add the two words public parks.

It's that's it's already included in land use designation policy 7. It describes the uses allowed within the open space designation and it does include public parks. Why is it a little bit different than the passive recreation definition that the planning commission recommended? The so one of them is a policy and then that describes uses allowed in open space and then the other is the definition of passive recreation but we can update the passive recreation definition to match the policy. Okay. So it goes back to what Guido was saying. We don't need to spend a lot more time on it

tonight. Okay. Elizabeth, did you have any more before we go to Council Member McCarthy? Council member McCarthy.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, so I'm going to bounce back to the uh the two properties that are subject um to the potential land use decision. Um, so first I want to start by thanking all the stakeholders that are both here tonight and that spoke out on the phone and wrote letters um in an effort to bring this project forward and for I think all the time and effort that's gone into that. And I I I recognize that it's a multi-year effort. Um, I absolutely recognize the importance of building more housing and we want to be a city that partners with developers to get projects across the finish line. So, at the same time though, I think it's our responsibility to make sure that what we approve today sets Marina up for long-term success. And I see this as a very limited opportunity to kind of help shape the future of Marina. I think, you know, I've been around long enough to know that 10 years ago, our residents started telling us about these concerns about old marina and new marina, um, and the disparity between the two. And fast forward to to today, and it's becoming evident, right? And we're starting to see what people warned us about so many years ago. Um, and then add to that, last year we had a consultant come and tell us about this problem of our tax base issue, right? we lag behind most other cities uh on the peninsula in terms of what we bring in in revenues relative to our to our resident population. Um and so I think all those things kind of exacerbate this growing socioeconomic divide between um kind of core marina and and and new marina and I'm really worried about that. Um and I do think there are some significant issues with the proposal that I've seen today that was emailed by Mr. talent um that maybe we need to work through. So, I want to be clear. I'm not suggesting that we don't do something, but I really want to encourage this council to take

as much time that it takes to really think through these issues. Um to pause, you know, if if we need to um to work collaborate collaboratively with um developers and stakeholders. Um, I agree with some members of the public that kind of said, you know, this this question about AB211, I'm not really worried about that. That's the law. If that's the path you want to go down, you know, we can do that and that's okay. That's your right if you're a developer. Um, and if you want to work collaborative collaboratively with the city, like we can go down that path as well, right? And I think that we're prepared to do uh either of those. Um I do think and I I don't know council member Biala um my understanding and I all of a sudden we're all experts on AB211 which never heard of before but if they do prevailing wage then they don't have to meet right the 100% affordability threshold but my understanding is if they don't do prevailing wage then maybe they have to do the 100% affordability. Um and I see staff rising if you please if you can add some insight to that I'd appreciate it. So there are multiple paths to compliance with AB 2011. One of them is a fully affordable project and another one is a mixed income project along a commercial corridor.

Where it becomes complicated if we can't definitively answer some of these questions is that then within that there are multiple different ways to meet the affordability levels. Um, and as Guido mentioned earlier, you either follow what's in the state law or what's in the local ordinance, whichever is more affordable. So, we know that a residential project will be required to provide some affordability, at least the 20%, but we don't have the details on the different mix of unit types.

So, I'll just add it if I have a few more minutes. Um, you know, a couple concerns are, and we've heard this, the quick quack noise, right? It's it's it's loud. Um uh I'll I'll leave it at that, but that's going to have to be carefully designed in any project if if we get a say, right? Um I think that so I attended the planning commission meeting and what I can tell you is that a majority of the planning commission didn't envision what we saw as a proposal tonight when they said we want to approve mixed use. So there's this huge disparity between I think what you know the public and the planning commission says mixed use is and what's being proposed, right? Um, and so I think we need to iron that out. Um, you know, there's this question about the one retail pad on the site. You know, to me, and I I I don't mean to be offensive, but the difference between housing and a Popeye's and a and just housing. I mean, to me, there's not a lot of difference there. So, I'm wondering, right, do we just maybe go down the route of saying, "Hey, we want it to be not mixeduse, but reszoneed housing." Um because the proposal that I'm seeing tonight, I don't see a big difference between mixed use and just all housing, right? Because it's it's the addition of what I saw was one fast food restaurant, right? Um and so to me, there's a little bit of nomenclature and like difference in what I think people understand mixed use to be and what might actually happen at the site. I do have some questions about what Walmart might do with their parcel. I think that's probably an unknown. we probably um I don't know if there's a way where we could get some clarity on that if we could reach out to Walmart. Do they plan to expand into a larger store format? Um but I think that would be important to know. Um and then the last thing I'll say just for now is let's not fool ourselves. Housing prices are going to be dictated by the market. um doesn't matter if you do prevailing wage, doesn't matter. You know, a developer is going to get as much as as

they should um for the housing unit that they create that they can. And if you think anything otherwise, I I just would would beg to differ, right? Um and so the idea of a $650,000 town home seems pretty far off to me. I certainly would by everyone in this room lunch if if that's what um ends up happening. Um I think that'd be great. be great for our community, but I just don't see that happening. Um, housing prices are going to be dictated by the market, right? So, I'll leave it at that for now. I do have some more comments, but we'll come back, I think. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. Um,

Guido, if if we were to approve something like the housing development that was presented in a informal map today, 80 townhouse, let's say 80 town homes, something like that. Um, do we get any arena credit for that? Regional housing needs assessment credit. Yeah, I mean anytime you build housing you get but we already are meeting our arena goals for the cycle. So

Okay. Is there any chance that uh a state official could um pass legislation for us that if we were to do this project it would be applicable to the eighth housing cycle? Oh that would the seventh cycle in 2031? I doubt it. I mean it's we're in this cycle. So essentially, if we changed plans and allowed 80 town homes to come here instead of just doing commercial, uh it wouldn't really help us toward our regional housing needs, our housing element.

I mean, it would help us meet our overall goals. We don't need it to meet our goals, but it anytime you build a housing unit that it helps you meet your arena numbers, right? But without this, we're on track to meet our numbers. We are. We're building 2,000 units above our arena.

Okay. The other comment I want to make, and I'm totally undecided tonight, but I want to make the comment that Marina cannot solve the region's needs for housing, market rate or affordable. So, we have 1360 homes being built a few blocks away from Walmart, and it's going to include commercial and light industry and retail. And I think most of the people exiting that, well, many of the people exiting that large development are going to take Delmani Boulevard down to Beach, Beach Road to Highway 1 and go do what they need to do to go to school or go to work. When they come home at night, they're going to take Beach Road or Delmani Boulevard and they're going to get back to Maria Station. They're not going to go north because what they've got is Castville and Watsonville unless they work there. Mhm.

So, most people are going to be heading south from there. Do you think, this is kind of a softball question, that that's going to have an impact on the traffic counts using Beach Road? Um, so Phil can answer in more detail. We have uh when Marina Station is fully built out, there'll be an additional 12,300 trips generated. We don't have the breakdown for this particular property at this moment. if we could provide that at a later time, but yes, obviously heard more housing. It's about 4,000 trips per day ballpark.

I can't confirm that at this I we don't have the data from Kim Horn yet, but yes, obviously more housing, there'll be more trips. So, but we don't have the breakdown for the exact intersections.

Okay. So, one option big picture, leave the zoning alone, wait for Marina Station to build out, see the impacts it has on commercial demand for commercial tenants to move into that lot. Another option is to believe that it's not going to make a big difference, marina station or not. So instead of going another decade or two or more with dirt, 5 acres of dirt, which I personally don't mind because its day will come. But anyway, uh we don't want to wait. And so by doing the proposed 70 80 town homes, there's something that's going to happen there and it has pros and cons to it. So then that's kind of the big picture choices, right? wait for the general plan to work or say it ain't working. It's time to cut or fish bait. Let's let's build on this.

Yeah. I mean that that is the fundamental question before the council is that the lack of development at the site for over two decades could be an opportunity for the city to look at things in a different policy light or as you're saying wait for Marina Station to be built out or halfway or whatever and to see potentially that the demographic and the trips change for the site. So that that is the fundamental question. Okay. Right. Another big or and the third is the AB 2011 project is filed and they proceed along following state law. Right. So

so the benefits to AB 2011 is that it requires prevailing wage, good health benefits and uh pre-apprenticeship program pre-apprenticeships etc. So big question to to Terry. We've heard today that you will do prevailing wage, good health care, skilled uh skilled and trained workforce. Is that true? Can we ask Terry to come up and answer that question? Before that, if I can jump in real quick. Um, so there isn't a specific proposal before council tonight. The question is whether there mix should be allowed in a position of the general,

right? But for me to vote on whether mixed use should be allowed, these topics I've asked Terry to come up to and address are really important.

So in regard to the uh hiring union labor, today was the first day it ever came up and you introduced me to a union uh person today that I have never spoken to or heard of before and I just met these gentlemen tonight. So we're going to evaluate all of that. seems like I mean we've heard rumors that you're going to init in institute a policy that every project in marine is going to be prevailing wage and lane said no that's not the case so there's a lot of confusion on those those matters so uh while we have an open mind to it obviously the less labor costs we have the lower we can deliver a home for and Brian I was giving you numbers that were were given to me so I wasn't making that up and I wasn't um you know making misleading you uh The market is one thing, but profitability is something else as well. And if you have lower costs, you can sell something for less. So, you know, that's that's part of it, too. Now, one thing I I'd like to say as well is that you're saying you can't do mixed use in these commercial zonings, but Marina Station is a commercial has a commercial zoning and it's mixed use. And the dunes has commercial zoning and it's mixed use. So, we're being carved out of what our equal property rights are that our competitors have. And we're a tiny, we're just five acres. So, how does that affect any future development at the dunes? How does that affect any future development at Marina Station? Because with that blanket, no, you're they're out of compliance.

Yeah. I think being in the local coastal program makes a big difference. and you're in it and they're not. So I think that's the answer of that. But okay, thank you very much Jerry. Okay. So we don't have any guarantee of prevailing wage etc etc. Um and it will affect cost. That's why Ford is that's one reason why Ford is expensive compared to the rest of Monterey County. Okay. Uh that's been enough time. I got more. Let's go to Council Member Viala.

You know, one one quick question. So if we say mixed use, like can we put a percentage on it or I mean I know that Mr. Talon seems to have already an idea of town houses and I don't know what percentage is. I I thought the other one was related to his property, but it sounds like it's the whole property. But when we do mixed use, when we approve mixed use, doesn't always mean storefront on the bottom and uh resident on top. So, you know, can we say 50/50 or I don't know how does that go? Oh, sorry.

Yeah. So, we've been kind of internally discussing that amongst the staff and I think the real question tonight is do you want mixed use on a couple of the parcels? And if the answer is yes, then we would work with HDL or Kaiser Marston and then with the applicant to identify what's that appropriate level. Is it vertical or horizontal mixed use? And all that would get put in the implementation plan. So you and so the implementation plan does come back to the council. So you're not making the final final decision. This is not your final bite at the apple. Okay.

But I think the goal for today is to answer the policy question. And then once we get direction there, then come back with very detailed implementation plans and then the applicant would have to follow objective zoning standards to make sure that it's a very high quality design.

Right. Well, I I like the fact that you'd be using HDL because it bothers me that we got this wonderful um you know, a report from HDL, probably an expensive one, and it was calling for clearly calling for um you know, for commercial on this site, and they listed tons of stuff that Marina needs, etc., etc. And granted, I know that for for, you know, two decades, nobody's, you know, taken the b the the um the bait, but at the same time, this report and these are, you know, credible consultants were saying that this is what Marina needs. And so, I don't want to walk away from that either, but at the same time, I don't know what mixed use means. That's sort of the compromise. But, but do we just pull it out of thin air? And you're saying you you you work with HDL to to craft that.

Yeah. And the implementation plan as part of the overall local coastal program access the zoning code for the coastal areas. Um so it'll have height set back lot coverage um basically the building envelope and then the applicant will be required to follow objective zoning standards which the council's already adopted.

Yeah. So, so wi with that said, I mean I I favor mixed use. I mean, I would like that and however that comes out using your, you know, your review materials and your consultants. That's that's seems like the best thing for me because we can't predict the future and we can't just assume that the you know 1360 units coming in North Marina is not going to have an impact on that property and so I don't want to give up all the commercial part either. Mhm. So that's that's kind of it expedites sort of the the feeling from for me is that I would be in favor of mixed use and then down the line you'd be presenting us what what that what that um uh option looks like for us.

Right. Yeah. So Fischer and then we'll go to Council McCarthy.

Thank you Mr. Mayor and thank you all for being here and for having spoken. Uh you already said it. We need to decide, you know, and I also um think that mixed use will be the only way forward now. Although I wish we could wait for Marina Station to show whether they will um provide more customers. But I also think this is totally not appealing to me that plan. You know, it it for me it looks only to how can we get as many units in there without paying any attention to how they relate to the the environment to each other. Even although it will be affordable units, I would like to see some some small park with play structure. Uh there's none none of that. It's only it was mentioned to be walkable. This for me is so car oriented. It's it's it's just a road going through with alleyways and um so I would I mean I don't know if we you say you will work with the developer or if we decide to go this way we probably cannot um

correct I think force them to do anything but can we well no you that's the whole imp implementation plan we staff has the same concerns I think it's we're hearing council articulate and those implementation plans are the teeth and that would come back to the council at a later date.

Okay? Because I would like to see this made pretty and and inviting and walkable because now there's a uh a fast food with probably a wall around it. It's really this can be so much nicer and I agree there's a discrepancy between what the public is expecting you know the pictures they post on social media is like oh beautiful and um they might somebody said it's just like the dunes no it's not like the dunes they might want to look at the dunes with the walkways and the and the prominade and and I always thought for this area and it will be an investment but this is our way to the beach I would expect a wider sidewalk along Beach Road, you know, make it a prominade. I know it will take space. It will be more expensive, but if we want to do something pretty, something inviting for the customers and and the future residents, look into that. Look into the whole big picture.

Okay? Even though there's a Walmart and a and a uh car wash and a gas station, we will we hear loud and clear from the council that if mixed use is proposed to work with future applicants to ensure it's high quality design. Yes. And also I understand the directive ling and if we can also can we enforce uh prevailing rates or is that how does that work? You said you cannot do it with a private developer. Yeah, the council can Rene jump in, but that's not on the agenda tonight, but the council can take that up as another item if they wanted to look at it from city.

So, they they can certainly you can provide direction to look into it. Um I'm not sure if you can. I know that typically you can require for public work projects for an entirely private development. I don't know the answer to that question. Okay. But we can request it. You can request that I do it. Steve will not uh because it as we know we support uh apprenticeships uh people paying being paid prevailing weights at livable wage so they can afford to buy the homes or rent homes. So but thank you there I'll stop now. Thank you member McCarthy.

Thank you mayor. So, I think, you know, I kind of came into this thinking that um after, you know, hearing public comment that some form of mixed use might be smart to really evaluate. And I I still kind of think that, but after hearing the mayor's comments, um I also uh you know, could see the value of of quite frankly waiting. Um and I know that's an unpopular thing to say, but I I'll say it. Um and so I just want to full disclosure, I'm still kind of torn even in this moment. Um, I do want to say a few things. Vertical mixed use, I'm told is dead and will never happen. I don't know that I agree with that. Um, I don't know. I'd like to explore that a little bit more. You know, right on the other side of this window is a beautiful vertical three-story building that at the time we were told would never be built and it doesn't pencil out and blah blah, you know, all of those words that developers always tell us. And here it is. It's a beautiful building. It's serving our community nicely.

Which which building? It's this student housing. Um, I forget what it's called. Mosaic. Mosaic. Mosaic. Mosaic. Um, I thought you meant it was an example of vertical mixed use.

No, no, but it is an example of something where at the time developers were saying those vertical style buildings were too expensive to build and that they didn't pencil out, right? Um, and yet it pencled out. It's it's it's there and it's serving our community very nicely. So, if we do decide to go down the path of mixed use, I definitely would like staff to really put some effort into exploring vertical mixed use. Um, the car wash noise issue is one that also has got to be mitigated to the greatest extent. I mean, staff's going to have to, if we go down that path, is going to have to spend a lot of time figuring out how to develop policies that mitigate for that, especially in that area. I don't know how you do that. Um, and I don't know for nurses and first responders that sleep during the day. Um, you know, I it's loud. We hear it at the library. You can hear it at the Oak Woodland. Um, you know, I'm I'm old and my hearing is not that great and I hear it, um, from very far distances. So, we're going to have to mitigate for that. Um,

do you mean mitigate that quick quack with future uh, imp projects? I think however we structure what mixed use looks like, it is going to have to account for these commercial uses that have these noise problems. So you mean don't repeat the noise coming from a new project on that site.

No, I mean that a mixeduse development might have a policy might be you have to build a a soundwall around a a noise producing facility, right? um and that you have to guarantee that and and I got to tell you I was on the planning commission and approved that quick and I'm a little frustrated that developer came to us and I remember asking is there going to be a noise issue and that developer said no it's not going to be an issue and the quick uh owner said no it's not going to be an issue well it's an issue um and it's frustrating for me and you know if I was the developer I would be reaching out to them and trying to mitigate that noise proactively to the best of my ability I'd be reaching out to surrounding parcels, Walmart and and ensuring that some of the issues that our community faces are are mitigated, you know, and I know that's a big ask, but that's what I would do if I were in those shoes. So, I think that if again, if we go down this path of exploring mixeduse, it's going to have to be a really robust process. Um, and I'm not really impressed with the the proposal that I've seen tonight. Um, it just doesn't really work for me. Um, so I for me a policy supporting that kind of project would not be something I would vote for at this point. Okay. I I think mixed use is the way to go. I'm happy that the implementation phase can move this debate to another day when we're talking about optional visions of mixed use. When Mike Mohler says retail on top, that's everyone's fantasy, my fantasy of mixed use.

But I find very few developers that ever want to do it. and very few commercial tenants who want to be beneath residential. And if there's not the commercial tenant desire, then the developer who's building doesn't want to build it. That's why at

the dunes we have lots of ret lot lots of commercial. We don't have any retail on top of commercial and that's the newest commercial that we have because that developer Scott Negri and Sheay when they were we were trying to urge them it's like they weren't having it. So uh I don't expect today's mixed juice plan with the the the yellow housing and the red commercial to be the final, right? That's just something put on paper. But I and and I don't know what the sideboards are that we can require, but I guess we're going to find that out in the next chapter of this process.

So tonight, everyone from the public supported mixed use. Um the union folks I think have a lot of concern if there's not going to be prevailing wage prevent uh pre-apprentices, apprentices, um health care, good health care, you know, their their their support's going to wither on the vine if they don't get that. And I'm not sure that they're going to get that

um because it's not on Ford or therefore it's not required and it's going to be you know 30 or more% higher to build according to the developers on Ford or and and this developer Terry. So we can't we can't promise that to anybody. Um, so I think we should go through some of these questions. And before we do, I just want to say small points. I'm in favor of all of the California Nated Plant Society because I heard the staff say they're very amenable to that. Those include a map of the rare species of plants that's accurate, scientific names that are accurate of those rare species of plants and animals, properly mapping the wetlands that exist today, um giving a correct description of central maritime chaparel, and this piece about the cypress trees, those are death to maritime chaparel. Cypress trees are death to snowy plver. their death to the Monterey spine flower. So, we have to be very careful when we encourage cypress trees. If you look under cypress trees, you see barren nothing. Sometimes you'll see weeds like New Zealand spinach or oxalis, you know, the the the grass that you can eat, you know. Um anyway, you don't see native plants under cypress trees. You see barren landscape. And so like at Lo Patton, we talk a lot about nature and native and under the cypress trees, it's death. There's nothing under the cypress trees except weeds because no native plant can handle that in marina. And so to give them special treatment is giving special treatment in a coastal zone meant to encourage the growth of rare plants and

natural habitat. It's not happening with Cyprus. They get big. They're huge. They have a huge drip line. And underneath that drip line, it's just death to native plants. So, you're not going to have any uh Smith blue butterflies because you're not going to have any buckwheat because you're you're under a cypress tree. And when when I heard staff say they're not ESHA because they don't support rare species, that's accurate. They do support red tail hawk, red shouldered hawk, you know, uh, but they don't support nesting of rare birds. U, so is that what staff meant that they do support wildlife? They have a lot of value, but they don't have value to rare species.

That's correct. Okay. All right. So, I'm happy if if the council wants to go through these very important questions. They're going to be like, "Yes, no." We've done all the talking. I think we're ready. So, to uh for the mayor and the council, just to help out the council, uh Phil did summarize the kind of straw poll for each of the five. Um the fourth one, we've already kind of gotten some initial, but if the council's able to give us that clear input, that'll help us for future.

Okay. Does anyone object on city council to number one allowing mixed use on the two vacant sites adjacent to Delmani seasite? I think it it's just a tough question to answer because we haven't defined what mixed use in that area means and so that's where I'm struggling. Right. But I think we get another bite at the apple. So staff, if we don't like what you come up with, are our choices okay, we don't want mixed use. If that's the best we can get, we don't want it. That's still a future choice.

Would it be outside of the agenda to say also propo what the proposal is of just reszoning it to housing multi like a R2 or R3? So, so they'll come back with what? So, a mixeduse proposal. I guess if you reject that, then you could further direct to come back with a different proposal, right? Okay. So, no objection to allowing mixed use on those two sites. Drive-throughs. Oh, well, I was asking for no. Okay. So, no objections. What do you all think about drive-throughs? We haven't talked much about it up here. It's fine. Fine. Now, fine. I hate them, but yeah,

doesn't matter what I say. Oh, you are for on it. I I have a question. I So, the quick crack car wash is a drive-thru to me. So, yeah.

How are we defining what is the difference? Whether it's driving to get food or driving to get your car wash. Good question. The existing the existing land use plan allows drive-throughs. This prohibition on drive-throughs was added in the update to follow with the Marina downtown plan. Yeah. But it came to our attention that this is kind of a specific shopping area where there's already drive-throughs and it might actually make sense to continue to allow them. So that's why we're asking for council's feedback should we actually allow them.

So no objection to drive-throughs, right? Okay. uh the LUD20. Is there any objection to what the planning commission recommended? Um Mr. Mayor, I think we had some suggestions and and modifications. So Oh, that's right. Revise as presented by our council tonight. Yes. I think we might be talking about a different policy. LUD20. Um perhaps we can put it back.

So, uh Lud 20 was the general commercial policy where staff had made some recommended modifications. Um so it didn't have a blanket no impacts statement for general commercial uses. So it gives more flexibility by deleting those eight words. Yeah. Yes. Does anyone have any objections to doing that? So it's flexibility to allow a larger option of development commercial uses. Yes.

Okay. But we're talking about commercially zoned properties, right? Um the way that the policy is written is it just it applies to all general commercial uses, right? But commercial uses generally aren't so general commercial uses typically do go in commercially designated properties. Okay. All right. And then number four, I'm sorry. Okay. Number four, we've talked about it. Staff's going to work with it. Come back to us. Uh, and then the active uh, recreation. I think staff, you were gonna work on that, too, right? Yeah.

Okay. So, looks like we're all in agreement on this. Would someone like to make a motion? I I'll make the motion that we allow mixed use on the two vacant sites adjacent to the Mania Seaside. That we also allow drive-through uses in the general commercial designation. that we allow or we revise the policy LUD20 as uh presented, deleting the words to have no impact on sensitive coastal resources. And then we ask staff uh to um work out work out and come back to us the active recreation definition and um the the kinds of active recreation uses that can occur in the open space designation. Is there a second?

Second. Okay. Now let's discuss it in friendly amendments. Let's go to Council Member McCarthy. Thank you, mayor. Um, so I think um the first amendment that I would ask is that we give direction to staff to ensure that the proposal for mixed use is is different enough from a ministerial review, right? Because I don't want to waste staff's time. If if staff's proposal is going to be exactly what could be approved ministerally, then what what are we really talking about, right? So that would be my first amendment. Um, okay. Uh, staff, do you understand that? I'm not clear of the question. So,

yeah. And I'm sorry. It was probably a little confusing. Um, it's okay. It's It's already midnight. I think I think we're all we're all tired. Happy Wednesday. Well, you too. Happy Wednesday. Happy Wednesday. So, um, so we we talked about that AB211, um, gives a ministerial right for a certain type of development. And I think the council has expressed interest in something that exceeds that design. And I know that's very vague, but we wouldn't want staff to come back and say, "Oh, well, this is what mixed use could look like. It's exactly what AB21 looks like." Well, don't waste your time because it's already allowed, right? like

um so if I could just so I I would say the motion could be that staff would review potential proposals that are consistent with state law but also incorporate a high level of design consistent with the discussion today. Is that is that a fair if I summary of echo that as a as an amendment? Oh agree to that friendly amendment. as a second hold and maybe someone can write up something so we know when we make the motion. Yeah. Okay.

And then my second amendment and I know this is going to be controversial but I really would like staff to come back with some language about these locally significant coastal trees. Um I think that they will be vital for any kind of batonical gardens that we've talked about. I mean they are visually just stunning. um and not to call them out as um both habitat creators and you know and I and I understand the passion for um the the deserty coastal scrub environment that is is native to Marina and I and I agree that Cypress may not be ESHA, right? And I'm I'm not arguing that point. Um but what I'm saying is that they pro they do provide a tremendous amount of value to the city of Marina. Um and we're already designating them right in a category. I just think the it's really semantics the wording of I forget what what the consultant called it. Um the category that you had put cypress in I think you called them

uh major vegetation. Major vegetation. Yes. Um just doesn't seem like the appropriate word to me. I mean it's really a word smithing thing. Um but if if if staff could at least recommend three sentences, right, that says one uses a different term locally local coastal tree stands or whatever it is and then a couple sentence about the value that Cyprus do provide and maybe a couple sentences about the harm that that or the the issues that they create too. But this is our opportunity to be transparent with the public about both the pros and cons.

Okay. I'm not going to accept the friendly amendment, but you can make a substitute motion because what it says is coastlive oak and Monterey Cypress are in the same boat. They're major vegetation. They're protected and you can't cut them down 6 in or greater at diameter height. So, it's very clear we're protecting Monterey Cyprus and Coast live oak exactly the same. So, we don't need to go into all the detail about what makes an oak great or what makes a cyprus great or what makes an oak bad because it does have some things that aren't great for other things. There's there's pros and cons to oaks, too. Uh, so that's why

and I'm happy to make a substitute motion, but what I what I'm arguing is, and that's fine, Coast Oak and Cyprus can be in that same category, but call them out as a category of trees that provide a certain level of value to the community. Um, so I'm not I'm not suggesting that we break them up um at all. I'm saying that they both although one may be native and one may not, they also fall into a separate category where they all share the same traits. Okay. So you mentioned you can I guess do you have another friendly amendment? Uh that was it.

Okay. All right. Let's go to uh Council Member Viala. Okay. Okay. Um, so staff, do you have any motion written up for us? Uh, well, because this is really the structure of it. Yeah, because it it wasn't a clear do this or do that, we had to get some. So, we have the tape, we have our notes. I mean Okay. Yeah. So, and we we've we've gotten clear direction. I I feel we have.

All right. Brian, make sure I have your friendly amendment before I'm finished. So, just to restate the motion, we will allow mixed use on the two vacant sites. We will allow drive-through uses. We will revise policy LUD20 as suggested by staff. And on four and five, we will direct staff to come back to us with uh a with new verbiage. And then Brian's first family amendment was

to encourage applicants of mixed use to follow state law but to ensure that barring the requirements of state law that the project is of high quality design based on the discussion tonight. So that accurately that's my motion so far. Is there a second holds?

Okay. Now I want to take care of the the union issues kind of what you just said but for the union issues that something about we will encourage. So I want to say something like uh the city would like to encourage the developer to work with the union trades for uh such things as prevailing wage health benefits uh skilled in you know apprenticeships pre-apprenticeships skilled and trained workforce. I think that's it. So I would like that make that uh part of the motion as the second hold said encourage. You said encourage the Okay. Yes. Thank you.

Okay. So now we have a motion and then the substitute motion my substitute motion would be identical to that with the addition that asking staff just and we don't have to approve it but bring work with stakeholders such as return of the natives um and other stakeholders that have reached out and come up with some language that recognize Monterey Cypress as having value to the city of Marina.

Okay. Okay. Okay. Second on the substitute motion. Okay, that motion dies for lack of a second. Um, anything else? Questions, comments, friendly amendments. Okay, and it's the California Native Plant Society. Um, all right. All in favor, please say I. I.

All oppose, please say no. Okay, that motion passed unanimously. We have a lot of work still ahead of us. Thank you staff for all the work you've done. Terry, thank you for 22 years or more. How How long's it been? About that. My third decade. And you don't look a day older than when you started. Thank you, Diane. Thank you for coming tonight, Diane. So, um, Mr. Mayor, we we do have two consent items. One of them is for $750,000 of free money from the state. Okay. So, I I motion we take the free money. I know council member

Well, thank you for that. I pulled the item. Um so, we're going to uh F2, the PIP money.

Yeah. So, I I appreciate the opportunity to review, you know, this grant application and I'm so um grateful that um you know, staff brought the funds forward. However, so my concern is that um staff's recommendation is to allocate the $750,000 in grant funding toward Cypress Nolles pre-development and specifically site readiness um as outlined in the application. And so given the scale of that project, um the funding is not going to make a meaningful impact on this development. And so um alternatively, the funds could be used to provide direct renters's assistance. So $750,000 of direct renters assistance that would have an immediate and tangible benefit for residents in our com community. And so that's option six. um which and this option also offers greater flexibility um in how the funds can be deployed um to meet our urgent housing needs. So um I you know so exhibit A it indicates the funding expenditure timeline extended through June 2029 and as a city like we already sit on a bunch of money that like doesn't ever get utilized. These projects don't ever happen. Um and so I believe that we have a responsibility to prioritize the resources um that can be deployed quickly and efficiently. And if that's the thought like through 2029 there's going to be other opportunities for grant for for grants. So um again I I want to utilize option six um in this grant application and it does also bring additional flexibility for the funds versus just this very

stringent um project pre-development. So I wanted to make a different motion for this um resolution. So I move that we adopt resolution number 2026- to be determined supporting the city's application to the pro housing incentive program authorizing city staff to submit the grant application with the eligible use number six checked. I'll second for discussion. Let's go to Mayor Prov. I would like to know what the staff's rea reaction is for this.

Uh it's purely a council decision. My only objective is in order to get the money. We have to adopt the resolution tonight because the the grant submitt is by March 30th. So I can stay here for as long as you guys want today or you can just direct me to file for it and then there could be a se separate meeting after March 30th. But it's it's really it's $750,000 of free money. So, so whatever the council, it's purely a council decision. So, what they did tell us is as long as we get this application in, we can come back and these additional uses.

Okay. I would like to postpone that because I cannot think now enough to uh Yeah, it's early in the day. Why Okay. So, everyone's okay? Yes. No. No. No. I'm so sorry. Council member McCarthy.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, and while I appreciate staff's interpretation of what the state will do based on my limited reading in the in the two minutes since I became aware of this, I mean, it sounds like the state may not be that flexible and that there it may be a very difficult process. Um, I kind of share, actually, I do share council member McAdams, I guess, frustration that threequarters of a million dollars was already allocated to a particular project before we even had a chance to kind of talk about it. And I also understand the timeline and trying to get this done. And

yeah, just real quick, the timeline is we didn't get pro housing till March 6. We met with the state March 10th or 11th. They told us if you want the money this year, you have to get this done by March 30th. So there was a mad scramble on my part to get this staff report. And just to be clear, they did tell us

if you can get it in, then we can discuss one of the allowed that that was the discussion we literally just had last week. So that just so I appreciate that. Um, so for me, if that's the case, I mean, I would lean a little bit more towards non-cypus nullles. Tongue and cheek. Apparently, Cypress aren't that important to us anyway. Um, but so why not just do it for the rental assistance then? If we want to move it back to Cypress Nolles, we can do that, right? Like, because I think for me, it's a matter of if we had to decide what was more important. If if the decision did matter tonight, which route would we go, right? And for me, it would probably not be Cypress Schnulls. But we can change it anyway. So if we if we said we're going to do it towards a renter assistance program tonight and we decided later we want to go back towards Cypress Nolles, sounds like we can do that.

Well, that's I think what I would I would support Council Member McAdams motion,

right? The motion is to um spec specifically uh support number six, but when we get the money, we could specifically support something else. Is that true? Like number eight or number two or number? Um, I I think we would want to be able to tell the state after March 30th with some certainty like pretty quickly after like because I have to sign a contract with the state. Okay. The deadline is only March 30th to get this resolution passed Wednesday now, not Tuesday. Right. So, April 7th, we can talk about this with fresh minds.

That's my understanding unless the lane you wanted to That's my understanding. like we can't wait a long time at April 7th. Yeah, I think that's plenty time we can input back to them to amend the application however we need to. Okay. So, what would the motion look like, Jenny? Can you say that uh tonight we we lean toward number six and we will have further discussion in April? Yes. I just would like that the document that is submitted to the state has number six checked. Okay. Okay. And you can only check one. Is that correct? Uh I you could have Yeah.

multiple. But the other one that was brought up was number nine. We already have $900,000 of PLA money first time home buyer. So that one's already covered. What about number four? It's about housing, low and moderate income housing. That one I haven't really explored. I'm just really here to talk about said nine tonight. So

Okay. Go ahead, Kathy. That's what I was saying is could we do what about four? I'm just reading this stuff for the first time. So I want to check we need to stop. I mean this is getting to be very irritating and we can't. So let's just check a few. I don't want each of us choose one to check and then let's be done with this. Okay. Because you said we can check several. So let's each choose one and then be done with it and vote for it. Let's just check them all. We we have a motion on the floor. Mhm. And if you want to make substitute motion or friendly amendment, a friendly amendment, I I would do four. And I I don't even know what this is particularly, but it sounds good. So I'm going to add four.

Yeah. I don't We don't actually have an asset fund, so I Okay, you some other one that seems So So real quick, so so just to help out the council, we get out of here. Um so the question that was posed to me was number six or number nine. Uh, Council Member McAdams existing six. That's fine. Uh, nine, I would say we could also go with that, but we have $900,000 of PLA money. We're establishing our first-time home buyer program as we speak. Okay. So, nine's already being covered. So, so if the council wants to pick a couple or pick six, it's totally up to the council to vote.

So, thank you. Then there's a motion and a second. And so I'm happy to read what six is because I think council member Viala it it for me it provides more flexibility than just allocating it to you know develop like pre-planning pre-development of Cypress Mall. Though U6 is assisting persons who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness, including providing rapid rehousing, rental assistance, navigation centers, emergency shelters, and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and trans transitional housing. And so for me, that is the most um encompassing um solutions of this. And number nine is is a down payment assistance program um funding, but as uh Guido said, we're we're already we already have 900,000 for that.

Where is the thing with Cypress Nulls? Where where does that fall on any of these? It was number one redevelopment. Okay, pre-development. And then it says summary of proposed activity. Cypress null site redevelopment estimated cost 750,000 which is not I mean I get that's not going to complete that. Is that correct? I mean it's going to take quite a bit more to like a million like millions more. Right. Right. So what are we doing? And then um it's through June 2029. And so for me it's like if we have these monies let's just spend it and give it to our resident.

Call for the question please. Okay. Well we call for the question. I have to go to another vote. If we're ready to vote. Ready to vote. Can I still say something? No. Okay. We had call for the question. So, all in favor of voting without any further comment, please say I. I. I. I said I. Yes. All All oppose, please say no. No. No. Okay, that wins. We're going to call for the question. We have a motion on the floor to uh Can you repeat the motion, please? Yes. Number six. Number six. Number six. Number six. Adopt the resolution number six. All in favor, please say I. I. I. Okay. Now we have 10 G2 Izuni.

Thank you, council. I appreciate you guys doing at the last minute. Thanks. Kathy, would you like to No, we need to postpone it because we were going to show a video this. Okay. So, we're going to we're going to we're going to table 10 G2. We will continue that to our next meeting. Okay. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you everyone. They're not going to They're Look at him.