City Council - Special Meeting

All right. Good evening everyone. Thank you for being here at the recently announced open session meeting which was listed as a closed session on the agenda last Friday but we thought it could just as well be open session and that's always more of a fuller public discussion and so since we could go open we decided to do that instead of have yet another close session item which we've had many on this subject but tonight's going to be an open session and so the city attorneys provided me the proper instructions to do this legally. So, I'm going to call to order a regular meeting, not the close, well, I'm going to call to order the regular meeting of the Marina City Council for Tuesday, May 5th, 2026. And Anita, could you please call the role, please?

Council member McCarthy, Council Member McAdams here, Council Member Biala here, Mayor Pertim Fischer here, Mayor Dado

here. All right. close session items that were on the agenda as of last Friday regarding lock patent park real property negotiation that would have been in you know in behind closed doors that was 4 A and then 4B regarded CAM uh litigation conference regarding water issues those are both withdrawn from tonight's agenda as close session items so we have no closed session left and so item 4 A will not be heard item 4B that is the lock pattern real prop I'm sorry calm issue is continued to May 19th at our regular meeting. So no closed session will be held this evening. So now we will recess the regular meeting of tonight to 6:30 as normal, but we will convene at the same time right now the special meeting of the city council which was separately noticed for 5:00 p.m. this evening to be compliant with the Brown Act. So, we're we'll see you back at 6:30 for the open session, regular meeting, but right now we're going to stay put for up to an hour and a half for a special meeting that solely regards uh lock paddent, which was a close session item before it was moved to this special meeting's open uh session. So, clear as mud, uh we are going to begin and we'll turn it over to our city manager, Lane Long to frame this matter for us. Thank you, Lane. Thank you, mayor. Um, as everyone knows, for several years now, we've been having a lot of meetings, uh, public meetings with the public and, uh, our staff has had individual meetings with Eric Morgan, the general manager of the of the park district. And those discussions and meetings are continuing. We've had close sessions that have um discussed um, strictly terms and conditions of an agreement. We the agreement that we have with the park district expired back in

in 2012 and so we do not have an agreement right now and and so any activities and maintenance things that the city is doing we really don't have an agreement to um to do those and that is why we are um from the city's end working with the park district trying to get an agreement in place. But I want to make you clear in the closed session our discussions are strictly terms and conditions of trying to get an agreement in place. Uh the purpose of this uh broader uh public meeting is to discuss kind of where things are and uh back on March 4th, the city made a proposal uh to the park district and we laid out um some terms and conditions that we thought uh we wanted to be able to enter into an agreement for the park district so we could uh start really addressing some of those issues. uh we received a letter back from the park district and from that is kind of where I want to lead into our discussion. There's staff report that goes into more detail and so I'm not going to really go into those um issues in the staff report but I wanted to kind of focus on our PowerPoint presentation. So, if you can pull that up, please. Uh, next slide. So, essentially what we have um described is five projects on LA patent park. We have the Martin Luther King sculpture garden which has gone through an approval process um uh with the at least

with the general manager of of the district. We have the oak woodland garden and food forest. We have the Asian-American hybrid garden and then a new children's sensory garden. Then the fifth really is the wetlands project. And so those are the five projects that we're lumping everything in uh together. The one, two, three, and four are all terrestrial or on the dry areas of the park. And uh and those are all really in parcel number 43. Uh next slide. In our in our March 5th letter or March 4th letter, um the city made five requests to the park district, um number one was to confirm that there is no no deed restrictions on lot 43. and the district did this letter back confirmed that there are no restrictions or fatal flaws um that would uh prevent any of the four city supported projects to be built on that parcel. Our second one was a equal cost sharing of the wetlands uh implementation the long-term maintenance um that was paired with um allowing the city to move forward with lot 43 either lease it to the city, deed it to us, sell it to us. Um just a path forward to lot 43. Uh the third part of that was a 5050 cost sharing of the of the project planning part of the wetlands area. Um the permitting part of it and then the fourth part was a bundled SQA review and and um there's a lot of different

components. Um, and if there's questions, we can go in into that a little bit more uh detailed, but I I did want to um make it clear that um the city has a has a local coastal plan. And so any permitting in the coastal zone um comes to the city of Marina. So any coastal development permit is issued by the city or marina. it doesn't go to the coastal commission. We're the permitting agency. Um any decisions that we make could be appealed to the coastal commission, but we are the the permitting um agency. And so um a SQL review typically if a project uh and it's complicated a little bit because we have a settlement agreement with the Sierra Club and and that settlement agreement essentially says any project in the coastal zone has to have a full EIR even if it doesn't require it if the project normally wouldn't require it. Now, the Sarah Club has given the city three or four or five um exemptions for projects and they they've they've told us that if we have additional projects in the future, you let them know and they'll be happy to work with us on an exemption so we don't have to do a full-blown EIR if it's not required. The city will always have to do an um do the appropriate SQL review on a project. What the settlement agreement does allow and provide is if a project is exempt um then it doesn't have to go through the full EIR and so typically when you have small playgrounds and projects like that those are typically uh squa exempt um and and the city under our settlement agreement would not be required to do a

full EIR and so uh some of those projects minor projects up there would typically be sequal permitting process and these are things that that working with the district we're trying to um clean those type of projects up. An Asian-American um hybrid garden um would not be a project that would be um squa exempt and so with the settlement agreement with the Sierra Club that would require a full EIR. However, they've told us um we've talked to people at Sarah Club and they said they have an interest in in um in again waving putting an amendment as they've done previously. If they did, then that would require that we go through the normal SQL process. If the normal SQ process required a full EIR, then that is what would happen. If it would require a mitigated ne negative debt, then that is what would happen. Um, but to be able to determine that, you really have to have a project scope and you have to have all those de um details before you can um determine what what the SQA is. And so, um, you have to get a lot of details prior, which is why on the council agenda for tomorrow was an item, um, to, um, recommend to the council that we approve um, uh, issuing an RFP to a landscape architect that would help us um, put together the project scope and the detail for Asian-American garden so that then we can determine what the appropriate sequence review is we can't get to that point unless we have that detail and working with the park district that is something that helps and furthers their goal and that helps and furthers our

goal of moving forward with um developing that Asian garden as quickly as possible. Um the last point that the uh city council made in the proposal was to um um defer a comprehensive update to the master plan and um and part of the the city's thoughts and reasoning behind that was um all the areas have really been identified in the park. The wetlands area is the wetlands area. We know what it is. the the mitigation area for the Holiday in Express. That's an area, separate area. You don't need to have a master plan that area. Um we already know the library area. We know the playground area. We know the Martin Luther King area. And so, um it doesn't make sense for us to do a master plan update when it really is we're talking about just the Asian-American garden. And so it seems like when we're trying to move forward um and come with a um get a new agreement in place so we can start doing the maintenance and and the public safety work and all the things we want to move forward that going through a a master plan process that would um update process that would take a long time. Just seems like um we've been doing these studies and studies for the last 20 30 years and we're ready to do some actions. And so that was the city's thought behind that is is um it's the district's decision to do that. But it really is talking you parcel 43. It's the Asian-American garden. Um let's just move forward with that and and not go through another plan, another study. Um we've had two three years of public input. Um and so that was the city's thought with that. Next slide. So in uh and I kind of covered this a

little bit. Um so in the deed restriction um lot 43 does um allow for um park related um projects to move forward and so we are in agree we're in agreement with that uh the cost sharing um um Eric Morgan has said that they're going to put on the their agenda tomorrow or yeah tomorrow night they're going to talk about cost sharing for the scope of work to develop the the plan there. Um, we all want to move forward with an accelerated wetlands plan. We can do a much more detailed scope, but that may take two to three years be because you have to go through nesting seasons and and involve a lot of state and federal agencies and and there is a streamlined approach um that doesn't address all the issues but allows us to move forward very quickly and um and address some of the bull rush and and some of the other environmental issues. So, we really want to move forward quickly and so I think we're in alignment in that area. Um and the other area that we are in alignment is is the D district has said they will uh evaluate the city's four projects um uh that we have uh before and so we think that we have agreement in in those four areas. Next slide. This is where we kind of diverge a little bit. Um uh the city has said let's just bundle all these projects together so we can move them forward very quickly. what the district has proposed is is a um parallel track and so move forward on the wetlands one thing and then in there um in the staff report the district it talks about scope one and scope two and I'm um we don't have enough time so I'm not going to go in detail but we we kind of differ uh in

that approach um uh the district wants to move forward a comprehensive um update their master plan and the city is not proposed and we think that that um from our perspective is just delaying uh allow us to make some decisions and and get the improvements move moving forward. Uh again um the five projects and um at this point the district wants to go through a another public process to evaluate um the four projects of the city and then um with lot 43 uh the city has has proposed it will the district wants to deed it to us if they wants to purchase it um um we'll take care of all the cost and and um we haven't really received a direction back from the district on that. Uh, next slide. So, these are um, uh, five potential areas for discussion for the council tonight. You can certainly have a lot of other areas for discussion and um, and I'll just kind of leave these up here. uh one is just to talk about the dual track planning approach that the district is proposing or continue with the city's uh proposal of just try to get them all right down so we can get an agreement and move forward. Another discussion could be um uh participate in the 50/50 cost sharing on um the different scopes of work. Um uh another discussion could be on there the district's proposal there's scope one scope two and a lot of different things uh that are in those different scopes. Um, another one could be how to respond to the the district's questions about the food forest, the children's sensory garden. Um, MLK sculpture garden. Um,

uh, from the city's end, you have all the information. They're built. Um, we've provided that information to the district. Um, it's what more do we need to get those approved? Um, another one would be, um, discuss the maintenance issues, the cost sharing. Um we haven't again the district has talked about cost sharing of of the initial plan but not cost sharing the implement implementation of that plan and cost sharing of the uh maintenance moving forward. Uh and then another one is number six would be pursuing leasing or the transfer of of lot 43 um in part of these whole discussions. And I'll just kind of leave it that point, mayor, and and see where the council wants questions or lead the discussion. Okay. So, as usual, I'd like to go to the public first, starting with those that are in in per in person, then we'll go online to the public, and then the council can ask questions and have discussion. So, come on up to the podium if you have things you want to say. Everyone has up to three minutes. And thanks again for being here. old and might forget it. So, just in case, um, I've been a resident of Marina for almost three decades, 28 years now. I remember clearly what Lo Patent Park used to look like, and I can compare it to what it is now. The contrast is stark. I would when I long ago I would take my toddler son to look at ducks to run around well-kept areas to play frisbee or kick and throw balls and in general we would both enjoy a well-kept space with paved and smooth paths surrounding a vast green space. That park is gone. This and previous city

councils have ignored maintenance and upkeep of this space for years. The paths in the large main space between the library and the wetlands are treacherous to navigate. So much so that once I almost tripped and fell over tree roots sticking up in the middle of one. This is not a pristine and well-kept area that is welcoming to families with small children, to senior citizens with mobility issues, or to any member of the community, many of which just drive to better parks and surrounding areas because they can't tolerate this one. And I'm very concerned that now you want to spend $250,000 of our tax dollars not to help beautify and fix this pre precious space, but to build a garden in the park. I'm all for a garden from any nationality. But building it before working on the disheveled disaster that is the park is the equivalent to my planting lovely flowers in a fountain in my backyard while my roof is leaking and my plumbing is shut. And not to mention that in 5 years since given the city's track record of neglect, that garden would be as shoddy as the park is now. Uh this lack of prioritizing anything and everything over taking care of Lo Patton is just a travesty and it's in no way acceptable to any taxpayer.

Thank you, Olga. My name is Douglas Chandler and first of all I wanted to thank you for having this special session so that we could all meet and discuss what's going on at the park. Um I wanted to discuss the Lock Padden wetlands and its connection to the main area of Lock Padden Park including any proposed Asian garden. Uh, I've been a resident of Marina for 28 years and was born and grew up in the Monterey Peninsula. Uh, I remember you could once actually see water from the bridge at Lock Padden and look at a variety of uh, ducks and other birds. Um, it was quite a wonderful space and observed uh to observe wildlife. Now bull rushes and weeds obscure any view of the water from the interior part of the park. You have information about the space and its deterioration. There have been reports by CSUMB, recommendations from the Monterey Autobon Society and input from other sources that clearly state that we are running out of time uh to preserve this precious park. Um the congestion of the water um has made it so that predators uh are living on top of the bull rushes and uh can destroy the birding sites. Uh it's it's a rare opportunity to have a wetland in your own city and I think that we should really focus on doing that first. Uh I urge the separation of restoration of the upland areas of the Lock Pattern

Park uh and that this be completed first. Um I don't know if it being number five on the list was just how it happened to fall or if it was a prioritization, but if it is a priorit prioritization, I would rather it be first rather than fifth. Um, we need to act quickly so that the critical wetland lagoon returns to a 7030 water vegetation ratio. Separation of working on the upland lock pad area and working on restoring the wetlands needs to happen quickly and without obstruction uh from the city council uh or other agencies to slow down the process. I urge that you allow the Monterey Parks Department to focus on the wetlands habitat separate from the upper from the upland area the city of Marina needs to renovate. Doing so would restore the wetlands and it its wildlife to what it once used to be so all Marina citizens can once again enjoy it and know that nature is being preserved for the future generations. and also for the animals that live there. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Douglas.

Good evening, Grace Silva, Santella. Uh, first, I really feel it's unfortunate that this meeting is being called with only 24 hours notice. There's an awful lot that we're being asked to comment on. And though many of us have followed this closely, this is a lot of information that we haven't had an opportunity really to we as residents to organize our thoughts. I will say that I 100% support separating out the upland projects from wetland restoration. And I say that from having heard the CSUMB students give their presentation, having listened to an hour and a half uh YouTube on cutting the green tape, and strongly believing that wetland restoration work at the lagoon will qualify for SQUA exemption under cutting the green tape. If we bundle everything together, I believe we're really setting back the work at Loch Paden Park, especially the number one priority at the park, which is the wetland restoration work. Secondly, I do have concerns with what our city manager actually uh I'm a little confused when our city manager was talking about that any projects in the coastal zone requires full EIR SQA review but that the Sierra Club settlement agree agreement allows some and then I wasn't quite following what he was saying. I have some concerns that you have a sitting city council member who is also a member of the local Ventana chapter of the Sierra Club who is also very involved in the Asian-American garden project. With due respect to the council

member and I think that uh I would have some reservations that we would have an unbiased uh environmental evaluation if this goes before the local Sierra Club. Um, again, I want to see the number one priority be wetlands restoration work. I also have concerns uh in this staff report that there's some talk about the park district having a 5050 responsibility. I understand some of this discussion relative to maintenance of the park, but I'm concerned if that 50/50 discussion starts moving into the Asian garden maintenance. And I also assume that later tonight we have an opportunity to speak on the RFP if I'm correct on that. Thank you very much. And I'm Grace Silva Santel. I'm a 30 oh 36 year resident of Marina. Thank you. Thank you very much, Grace. Ah, good evening, uh, mayor and city council. My name is Steve Lee and I'm a resident of Marina, uh, 15 years. I would like to make a few points on the correspondence correspondence between the city and the park district. Uh, why is the MRK Plaza being raised? This is an established permitted construction. If there are any outstanding issues surrounding this, then cannot they be dealt with outside this broader plan? Uh why is the children's sensory garden included? Uh it was originally proposed to be built on park district property, but is now a city project on city land. This does not concern the park districts at all. Uh the only city projects that should be discussed with the district

are the Asian-American Botanical Garden and the food forest on the southwest of the Oak Woodland. Uh I also wonder what a new park master plan will include. Uh the library and parking lot are established on city property. The wetland area as described in the C by the recent CSUMB report will require extensive regulatory approval before restoration. Uh the area between the wetland and the library west of the cypress trees is almost entirely part of the 2001 holiday in express mitigation area. This area is much larger than was mistakenly shown in the 2005 park master plan. It can only be developed when and if restrictions are removed. The only space left for planning is the stretch of land alongside Seaside Circle between the library and restroom parking lot and lot 43. Within lot 43, that leaves just the area on which the city hopes to plant the Asian-American Botanical Garden. The Asian garden was first proposed several years ago. There have been multiple public meetings since then. The concept was presented at the joint city district meeting on April the 29th last year. It was pres presented again to the district's land use committee on June the 11th. Despite all these open public meetings, no alternative alternative proposals have come forward apart from do nothing. What were four more public meetings as the district require deliver? There is a clear majority in favor of the project supported by the city and multiple groups but they are constantly thwarted by extra bureaucratic hurdles. This project will have a detailed design produced. It will be subject to secret examination. It will require coastal development permit issued by the city. All these steps will provide opportunities for public inspection and approval. Thank you.

Thank you, Steve. Good evening, Mayor, Council, um, everybody. Uh, my name is May Holland Dumo. Uh, I I know you've already seen me several times because I've been in the meeting several times here and in the regional park. uh has been asking and pleading for the Asian-American garden for over two years now. And uh still uh I'm really getting sick and tired, but I'm here because of my devotion and dedication to the Asian-American Garden. The Asian uh the Asian-American Botanical Garden project has already been approved and funded by the city of Marina for three year uh three years ago. It ranked as the number 15 city of Marina top priority in the fiscal budget year of 2025 and 2027. Yet progress has been slow at the MPPD board while other projects move forward more quickly and received significant funding consideration. Marina resident contribute to the district funding but historically we have not seen any or no funding locally. This project is an opportunity to begin correcting the imbalance. Notably, the city and the community as step up to help fund the garden itself. What's needed from the MPPD board is not funding for our proposed tree project,

but action and approval. I know our city is fighting for this and we are so grateful to all of you. There comes a point where continued delay sends a message whether intended or not. The message of nonimportance of being second class or being easy to ignore and be continued by the MP discontinued by the MPPD board. We ask you to take a clear step forward today. Support the RFP request for proposal and we trust that the city will manage this process effectively and quickly. The RFP was asked and demanded by the MP RPD on the meeting on April 1, 2026 and is necessary to build the proposed AsianAmerican Garden. Please approve the the RFP so we can proceed. Uh we hope that MPD will not require excessive work for the city in the approval process and does not try to post more.

Excuse me. May I have to ask? Thank you. Thank you very much. May.

Good evening, mayor and members of the council. My name is Dave Brown. I'm a former council member and I've been a Marina resident for 32 years. And of course, I would like you to approve the RFP as well. Uh but I would like to note I would like to ask you please don't pay too much attention to the naysayers. They won't tell you their true motives, but anything to obstruct and delay um should be looked on with suspicion. In the process of obtaining approval for for the Asian-American Gardens, now known as the Asian-American Botanical Gardens, there's been a troubling pattern of unfairness, opposition, and opposition to the garden. After more than two years of well attended hearings with some strong support from the community, Asian-American residents, uh this council, thankfully the park districts in particular and some members of this council seem to seem to me to be listening too seriously or I should say taking maybe taking too seriously the people who really don't want the Asian-American gardens and who will think of anything. Focus on this more studies, more public input. Those are the kind of things that that they want in the in the hopes that uh they will this thing will be talked to death. I remember something like that long ago in 2010 when we were talking about mobile home rent control and the people who weren't against it who were against it wouldn't say they were against it. They wanted more studies, more meetings. And that went on for 10 years until we as a council finally uh passed some needed legislation.

For example, let's take a board member who represents who is supposed to represent Marina and other areas. He presents himself as supportive of of the garden. Yet he's quoted in the latest edition of the weekly which says a nice photo of one of our council members in it and Mr. Lee. His public statements are well I believe they've chosen a very challenging location. It would involve appeals from several agencies including the California Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, US Fish and Wildlife Services. That's an overstatement. We have a local coastal plan which allows us not to have to do that exhausted kind of review. We have the possibility of a negative declaration with mitigation and he's been listening to the naysayers too much. Don't put too much faith in what the naysayers say. Uh and please approve the RFP. Thank you.

Thank you, Dave. Just to remind folks, the RFP will be discussed in detail for the Asian-American Garden later on on our action agenda. Oh, good evening. I'm Julie Hoffman, a Marina resident, and I want to say that um I have worked uh tirelessly to see more green space happen in Marina, and I totally support the concept of the Asian garden. Uh but I do believe that the wetlands are the priority. Uh it's been decades of uh not care and um the wetland restoration. I like the idea of going with two tracks because of the squa uh requirements and having the upland projects as uh looked at as a separate way that could streamline those projects as well. um asking for accelerated permitting uh by bundling all of these upland projects with um the also the wetland project. It requires the uh park district to sort of by pass some of its processes and I don't think that that really gives adequate review of very different projects and they should be separated. Um, I have a question. What other locations have been considered for the Asian garden? Because it seems like with all of the limitations that I've heard about and read about that another location would release the SQA requirements and also streamline the process. Thank you.

Thank you, Julie. And we'll answer your question as soon as public comment's over. Anyone else wishing to comment here in person? Come on up. Good evening. My name is Iris Laktawan Nanny, longtime resident of Marina and an ACOM member. We respectfully ask that you fully support the request for proposals in today's agenda for the Asian-American Botanical Garden Lot 43. This is a long- aaited concrete step forward. The regional park district has asked for more detailed plan. We have initiated an process um that will produce exactly that, a professionally developed specific design. It is the appropriate next step, not a reason for delay. However, our city should ensure that the final document will satisfy the regional park district request for a detailed plan. However, we fear that the park district will find endless criticism of a final plan because of the ongoing resistance and delays with disregard for Marina's vision. What is concerning is the pattern of raising more and more narrow or unusual criteria requirements that are not consistently applied to other projects. For example, has the regional park district required 10 board meetings on any agenda project? has this has as has happened for Lock Padden Park and the Asian-American Garden over the last two years. Do they routinely routinely require smaller project like ours to have public participation this many times? If their goal is to stop this project before an environmental review, then yes, there will always be another reason for delay. But if the goal is fair, to be fair, then this project deserves to move forward like any other, actually more

than others because of all time already spent by the public, the Marina City Council, and your staff. For two years, the Asian-American community has shown up consistently, respectfully, and in large numbers. That commitment reflects how important this garden is, and through your vote and allocation of funding several years ago, we are grateful to our city council. Thank you for all your support to advance this Asian-American garden. Please support the RFP and allow this project to quickly proceed to its next stage of environmental review. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Iris. Anyone else in person before we go online? Thank you all for commenting. Let's go online to Shante. Welcome Shante. I think you're good to go, Shante. But we can't hear you. Okay. Can you hear me now? Loud and clear. Welcome.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, city of Marina. Um, I would like to give my quick input on the fact that I've been volunteering with the Oak Woodland Garden for uh a year now. My name is Shante Sneed and I have been on the steering committee board as a secretary. And going through all the meetings, I've noticed that we have a lot of projects and a lot of volunteer commitment to this garden, which I didn't know of, and I've been living here for five years. The the part that I love the most is that it brought me closer to the community and it started to allow me to see wider uh have a wider perspective of the people who live here and as well as the in like enjoyment that we actually get to participate in and reap or receive the rewards from. Unfortunately, I I know that there are conflicts of what people in who have been here longer, what they want to see and how they appreciate their what their environment was. But I know that change needs to happen for growth to proceed. And so I really enjoy that we have these envi these opportunities and these projects in place. Although I do really partake in the fact that when we continue to add on to those things that we just receive more and we have a broader perspective of what our community could be. So, I don't understand still what the push back is on the project for for specifically the Asian hybrid American garden because I feel like that would be such a rewarding

um and inclusive as well as just beautiful perspective to this park that we already have been participating in and seeing the growth of it just to now be able to enjoy it. But I do understand the concerns of what happened to our lake lock pardon. But I don't believe that was because of the purpose of having this Asian hybrid garden happening. I believe that was for other reasons that it has not been upkept. So I I I feel like people don't see that separately. But yes, I really I really would love for this park to just continue to flourish and hopefully I can I can see being here like a long-standing citizen, seeing what it goes through, what this community has gone through and how it got built upon and just be proud of that. So, thank you.

Thank you, Shante. Anyone else online, please raise your hand. Who wants to speak? Alex Stewart. Welcome, Alex. Good evening.

Welcome, uh, city council. I just have a couple, uh, things to mention is that, uh, at one point we had a really good relationship with the Department of Corrections, and those guys came in every year and cleaned out all the underbrush around uh, the lake, and they did a great job. you know, they were like an army through there just ripping everything up and getting rid of all the dead wood and chopping up the fallen trees which have been laying for years at this point. So, it' be nice if we could establish that relationship again, but I get confused on who owns, you know, which part of the park. So, maybe that's not the city of Marina's um purview. And uh another thing is I'd like to say that the signs that went in for those children's like PlayStations along the path, my family moved here over 60 years ago. So I've been walking through that park on a daily basis for a long time. And I've never seen any kids using those things like the hopscotch and the other little things they have. But the sign so it's like at this point it seems like it's not working and the signs are kind of if it was used the signs would be great but the signs are kind of an eyesore I think it's not going to be actually used. So we might consider getting rid of those if the city has anything to do with that property. And I'm sure that um you know the the lake hasn't been you know it hasn't been decades since it was in bad shape because as recently as a as a decade ago or less they used to bring a big machine through there every few years and clear it out really well you know and that stopped maybe five six years ago but up until that point it was actually maintained as far as I could tell pretty well. So maybe I don't know whose

responsibility that is either. And um see that's about all I have. Thank you. Thank you very much, Alex. Anyone else online would like to speak to this matter? Please raise your hand and we'll call on you. Greg Fury, welcome. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think the time has to reset here for a minute. Unless only you have 39 seconds. Yeah.

Uh let me know when the timer's up again. All right. Can you hear me? Yes, please proceed. Thanks, Greg.

Sure. Um, you know, a couple of things. We were members of Hakone Gardens up in Losatus for a number of years. And um, Asian Gardens are some of the most beautiful gardens I've ever seen. Huntington Library has an incredible one. San Francisco Gold Gate Park. Um, Aone is a wonderful place. My concern besides the what I would consider kind of politicized methodology that's being suggested here and when I hear somebody I know Mr. Brown get up and say there are naysayers. No, there are people who are speaking their mind and speaking their concerns. And if we don't have the ability to do that then I would say anybody that points a finger at naysayers is a naysayer. But it's not about that. It's about number one, what's the habitat that we want to preserve in this area? I would hope it's natural. We're getting buildings, as I made in comment another meeting, we're turning into Orange County, a large part of the town. That's just the way it is right now, and it's the way it's going to go. Development, development, preserve that wetlands, preserve that natural area, find another place for an Asian garden. Um, there's got to be places that are not subject to all of the intrusion of wildlife. They are tremendously expensive to maintain. I don't know whether the council's looked at the op at that obligation, but Hakone Gardens just approved some time ago, $17 million renovation. They're tremendously expensive and very maintenance intensive, and they should be. They're absolutely beautiful, but it's all about the details in those gardens. They're they're microcosms of beauty in all the different areas. I hope we will find I hope we'll get an Asian garden. I would hate to see it there because I think it would be a great mistake. Anyway, um the other thing I was going

to suggest to you, you guys are suggesting a user utility tax. I'm going to tell you, in spite of whatever anybody's perceptions are, if you're going to approve an RFP for that amount of money and then talk about a $2 million expenditure for the Asian garden for any garden when the other priorities that exist in the city are so obvious to people, and I'd also say that you ask nine out of 10 people on the street in this city, they won't know what you're talking about when you talk about a hybrid Asian garden. It's just the reality of it. So, if you want to hand yourself a loser for the utility tax, start talking about spending that kind of money because once that gets out into the public, you're going to have people that are going to be insensed. I mean, just a heads up, you probably already know that. I wish you luck. I would encourage to go separate tracks, get a quality garden. I hope it's not there. I just think that's a terrible place for it and I'd really like to see the wetlands restored. Good luck with whatever you decide. Thanks for holding this meeting. really do appreciate it.

Thank you very much, Greg. Anyone else wish to speak? Please raise your hand. All right, we'll close public comment. Julie had a question. What other locations uh for the Asian garden have been considered? and something about uh and uh I guess I don't know if I'm putting words in our mouth but uh would those need to go through SQA as well?

Yeah. Um let me answer the first question about um we looked at uh several locations in the city. Excuse me. We uh looked at at Cypress Nolles um that's covered with blight. Um, we've been on a four-year process of um, uh, working on a habitat mitigation plan. We're still a year away from that. Um, we got $3 million in just blight to remove and and so um, Cypress Nullles didn't um, uh, was an appropriate site. Then we uh looked at the Preston Park out there Preston parks and as we met with the school groups and the youth leagues it was those parks to expand those for soccer and baseball uses and not put it uh Asian garden out there. We looked at Vince Deaggio Park and and again thought there's other uses there and so we didn't um consider um Vince Deaggio. Um and then we had two park projects underway. The the um city park at the dunes and that um would had a very much engaged community process and ret recreation cultural services commission and and the Asian garden was selected for there. Um, but we did when we looked at the lock pad site and pulled up their master plan and it and the section where it's at, it had been neglected for ever. No one had ever done anything. The master plan actually we saw had a garden down through and had a meandering brook. And at that point, we thought um we approached the the park district and and asked him about it. We met with uh the general manager at the time, Kelly Sasonson, who was the representative for the marina district, but met him on site and he said absolutely. He thought that that uh was

completely supported within their concept of the master plan. We actually then uh had some site visits out to the Shinszen Garden that involved um uh the Brinard Park District as well as some uh council uh and staff from both agencies. and and that's how we kind of ended up with that site. Um and the other sites in the city just didn't make sense. Uh question about um the uh concern about the the secret validation go to the Sierra Club. The secret validation I said earlier um that is done by city staff. It's our LCP that city makes that determination not the Sierra Club. We have a settlement agreement that has certain terms and conditions and that is the discussion the city has with the Sierra Club but Sierra Club does not make that determination. The city um city does that. Then there's a question on on on is the 5050 discussion of the maintenance um of the Asian-American garden and the city's proposal was not 50/50. the city's proposal is the city 100% um uh fund um all the Asian-American garden including the long-term maintenance. And then there's a question also about um oh that uh $2 million for the Asian American garden. Um the council the council has just uh funded um money for the the planning that essentially would do the seek work and get the planning documents. The council has not um uh allocated any funds for the construction and at this point the the discussion has been it would be funded by private um donations and I think that's all the questions that I had.

Uh, did anyone else note any questions that haven't been answered from the public before we move on? Okay. All right. Let's open it up to council. Um, council member McCarthy. Thank you, mayor. Um, so for me, the statement from the public that resonated the most was that there's a lot of delay and I completely agree with that and there are always going to be re that's what government is, right? there's always going to be reasons for people to reach out and try to find ways to delay projects that they don't agree with. Um, and I don't think anyone would disagree that delay is exactly what's been happening all around. Um, and even I could sit here and argue with my four friends up here on the DAS about the merits of the individual specific projects and I have done that and we will probably continue to have those robust discussions. Um, and tonight there's another agenda item on the Asian garden in particular, right? But for me, this item stems from the close session price and terms lease negotiation um to just get a basic maintenance agreement for this park, right? And I have to assume that we all agree that we want better for our residents. And a first step to that is to go to the park district and say, you know what, we're going to be good players. We're going to be good neighbors. And we're we're going to sign that agreement that, oh, by the way, we've had with you for 30 years. Um and and we're going to continue that while we figure out these other pieces, right? Um and we tried to do that, right, with these letters to the the park district. We kind of took a hard-nosed negotiation tactic, right, as as is evident by these public letters. And I think that's great. I think that's what we owe our residents. But we failed. The park district said, "Eh, you're asking a little bit too much, right?" Um and and so what do we do now? My answer is is that we sign an interim agreement to get some of that basic maintenance done. Our residents continue to suffer um through the lack

of maintenance, the the further disrepair of this park. Um and I would like to see this this council move forward tonight under this agenda item to give staff direction to sign some agreement that moves us forward. I look forward to the Asian garden discussion later tonight. Um and and and all of the different projects and you know those are challenging and they're going to be hard and there's going to be those people that are going to want to delay and that's just part of the process. But what doesn't have to delay is making the park cleaner, safer, more inviting, as many residents said, you know, back to what it was maybe even 10, if not 15 years ago. Uh and so that's where I stand tonight and I hope that we can get that done. Thank you, Mr. mayor.

Thank you very much, Brian. Council member Jenny McAdams, I forgot your last name for just a second. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I am just sort of wondering like there's six decisions that staff is wanting guidance on. So, I kind of like put my notes down based on those six. How how are we doing this so we're efficient and we're staying on task? because we could comment for hours and hours.

Yeah, I think as Brian said, the Asian-American comments probably should wait for the Asian-American item and then how we go about for the other items on the other decisions, all the decisions that Lane mentioned is how you wish to do that. You can suggest efficiency process, but everyone else might have the same or different.

Okay. So, I'll just I'll start with how about the first three decisions because I don't want to take up too much time and then when we do a second round, I'll do four, five, and six. So, um the dual track, um I'm a big yes on that. You know, sort of what council member McCarthy said, like we asked for the sun, the moon, and the stars, and the parks district said no, thank you. And that's okay, right? Anyone can always say no. Um and so I I agree like this is our opportunity to show collaboration and good faith. Um what the parks district is proposing is very reasonable and and those steps in the right direction. Um and especially like we haven't had anything for over a decade, right? So we're all sort of like stepping in the water cautiously, right? So baby steps. I appreciate that. I want to see action. um decision two, the 50/50 cost sharing of the um the scope of work one and two. Uh I'm I'm a yes on that, but I would appreciate like a not to exceed. I don't want to just have an open yes, right? So yes and 200,000. Yes. And you know, just whatever. Um you know, as they go down that path, what that cost looks like. I mean, obviously they don't want to be spending millions of dollars either, but I think if we show that we want to be, you know, prudent and and thoughtful, um, and here's what we can initially pony up to to with. Um and then number three about commenting on on this, you know, the scope of work one and two. If comments equals delay, then I'm a hard no. I'm hoping that

we provide the parks district with a very clear response and a and a path forward. Um we've had years of delay and and um we have money allocated for tree maintenance and park maintenance and nothing has been done. So splitting the top and the bottom to me are is a fabulous suggestion. So that way we can address the wetlands, you know, get the trees that have been fallen over since a storm three years ago out of the way. um while you know working on the other projects that are that are up above. So um so with regards to the commenting no I don't want to like we've provided that was the letter we provided our comments and the parks district said here like how how about this and so I think that what they have proposed is a good step in the right direction. Um, and then I also appreciate like a short-term maintenance lease, like get us through 2 to 3 years. Um, I think that's a great suggestion. So, I'll stop there. Thank you.

Thank you. And of course, we'll come back to you as needed. I think the the number one priority is to improve the overall park's safety and appearance. And some of that is the wetland is overgrown resulting in people feeling unsafe. And some of it is that the the drylands, the uplands are not in good shape and they haven't been in good shape for a long time. and not being in good shape with poor pathways and poor weedy fields, poor tree maintenance, um unwelcome behavior going on, uh and camping in in places where a it's a protected area by a mitigation agreement with the state fish and wildlife service and b it also leads to people feeling unsafe by seeing folks doing what is not supposed to be going on there. So, I think that most people, and I'm I'm really I won't say moved by Jenny's uh ardent uh comments in our last meeting where she was just fed up because there was a recent assault. And uh this is the kind of thing that happens when you let things go. And we've got to step in and not let those assaults go on without having done everything we can to it's obvious we got to make the park better. So that's the first priority. Everything else is is important and comes after that. Addressing that first priority to me means recognizing who owns what. Who is the primary land owner? Is it the city or is it the park district? Is it 60/40 in favor of the park district or something else? At least that gives us a foundation to know what we're dealing with. Um, what? Let's assume it's 50/50. It's, you know, it's it's somewhere

close to 50/50. Who's paying for it? Are we, the marina taxpayer, paying for every trash can on park service land and every tree and every police visit on park service land to take care of that land? Did the assault happen on park district property? Was our police the ones who went there, took care of the incident promptly, and then afterward set up cameras, increased their patrols on park district property. Is that what we think of as a fair arrangement? Assuming it's 50/50, but probably it's in the park. The park district is probably the majority land owner, but let's assume it's 50/50. The lease that ran out in 2012 had the the city paying for everything. For 13 years, we've continued to pay for everything without a lease. Now, we're talking about a new lease for a better park. A better park than past means better management. Better management than past means more money. More money than past has to come from somewhere. Should 100% of that increased cost come from half the land owner or should there be a sharing? And so Jenny and Brian tonight said they want a lease. And I think that we need a lease. We the city should not be out there policing MPD lands in an increased effort without something in writing. What are we doing? Whose role is whose role? Uh, and so I think we need a lease and it needs to cover security, appearance, maintenance, broken benches, graffiti on benches, uh, patrols during the day. MPD has rangers. They don't have guns. They don't carry guns, but they patrol. Do they patrol Lock Patent? No. Does the city police patrol Lock

Patent? Yes. Why is that? We empty all the garbage on park district property. They don't ever empty garbage. Why is that? Is that fair? Is that reasonable? Would two land owners normally come to that agreement? Up until now, the city says, "We'll take care of everything." But in the last two years, the park district has started to put their foot down and say, "No, this is our land, too. We want equal say in what goes on in the park." And so we were taken a back saying, "Well, that's different. It's been a lace fair absentee sort of arrangement that was working, but not to everyone's satisfaction. Now to everyone's satisfaction, we've got to get our act together better than we've ever had it at Loch Patent Park. And it's going to be more expensive than it's ever been at Lock Patent Park. And we want a lease, and we want it to be fair. We want it to be financially, we want it to be fair socially, politically, etc. So yeah, let's get that lease going as a top priority. And let's find out how we can use the park district's rangers on park district land at Lo Patton during the day to engage with the homeless or other visitors that might be doing things that are against the rules. And let's get the park district to either pay the city to empty the garbage or help us empty the garbage. Let's be partners. Let's both be on the land understanding it, learning to love it, learning how to understand it, and paying for its proper maintenance so that the people are happy and they feel safe and Olga and Douglas come back with your grandchild, your grandchildren because it's different now. More money has been invested by both parties and it's to everyone's benefit. So, I'll end there on that because we try to do five minutes at a time. Uh, Elizabeth or Kathy, did you want to say anything? I don't have much to add. I agree with I agree with everything and that's the hard part. We we all want the park to

look as beautiful as it has looked before I moved here. Nine year resident. Um but and I think it hasn't been maintained with the big machines or whatever. They said that has been probably more like 15 years. 2014. Pretty close.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So, and we all know it it will be expensive and we also know we don't have a lot of money and we have a lot of other projects. So, I always like to see the numbers first to see before we we say okay we'll pay 50%. Like uh council member McAdams already mentioned there's a not to exceed amount and what can we do for that? Can we make it look beautiful or not? And of course, we also want our Asian-American garden like we already have discussed how many times we and already approved for that location. I think it will be beautiful location for that. I don't know if that's the issue now, but um that of course will it's for me I understand why they say let's let's split it, but for me it's we need that entire park. Look at the big picture including an Asian-American garden with a beautiful view, etc. So, but I like to see I'd like to know what the cost will be and I also agree um we're all taxpayers and we also pay uh the park district and I don't know how much of my dollars have been used in Marina. I understand that it's you know they they cover different areas, different cities and it won't be exactly that my dollars will go to Marina but I think that none not many of my dollars have been spent in Marina and I would like to see some of those dollars spent here. So, thank you,

Council Viola.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, I think I'm going to follow Council Member M um Mad Adams um process um and comment on decision one to three and then second round go to the other ones because this is a lot to bite off. So, these are my opinions about uh the three decisions. So, the first one is the dual track versus the single bundled SQA process. Um what I don't know is if we bundle the SQA process does it save us money rather than having two separate SQA uh processes and I don't know Elaine if you can answer that and if there are any other advantages concrete advantages to keeping it together I will say that my my fear about um separating them is that I am pretty sure that the wetlands squa is going to be very complex. There's so many species out there. There's there's water. There's all kinds of it's a much larger, much more complex pro u uh uh project. And if we separate them out, I am afraid that we're going to end up with um so much of staff time being focused on the wetlands because it is more complex because it is so much larger and then the the the uplands or the terrestrial areas squa is going to to fall behind and uh we won't have control over that piece. And so those are my thoughts about separating but I would like to know about the bundling whether there is anything to be saved because if all the areas need sequel why are we splitting it up

you can answer that question. Thank you.

Um I I agree with you. The wetlands um sequel process is going to be a long process. Even if they do the green tape um cutting, I I think you're minimum 12 to 18 months. You just have to involve a lot of different agencies. Whereas um with the AsianAmerican garden, the sequel work for that um I think is much much simpler and what we have proposed to the council tonight. Um one should bring a um an architect on board that has it that experience they can put that scope together and and I think probably have that ready in in four, five, six months. Um, so in reality it I think separating out would would actually make sense because they're they're just two very different projects.

Okay. Thank you. That's helpful because just even visually when you look at all the the um the uh the wildlife, the um the water elements, you know, the the wetland is a very complicated ecosystem. And so when you look at the the plot for a lot number 43, it's been deserted farmland. It's barren. It's doesn't have anything on there except um invasive weeds of native and not native species. And so that that kind of visually you can just say one is going to not have uh the presence of of San Gillia or or other endangered species. There's nothing there. So thank you for that. On decision two, um this is about cost sharing. It says for one or both scopes. Now, originally uh the garden was conceived of uh initial seed money for planning and uh there are many many organizations and businesses who really value um Asian gardens particularly Japanese uh Zen gardens. They are in California a lot. They are uh I just visited the San Francisco one. International um visitors are there flocking there. It's it's it's a real draw. People understand and feel the harmony with nature in those gardens. So on the one hand, we said that it's not going to cost the the district anything. Not one penny were we asking for it. Now, the the wetlands um restoration, which you know needs to be done, hopefully is going to be done and done as expeditiously as possible. Um that is a huge expense by comparison. And um and I'm so glad we're at least expecting that the park district do a 50/50 split. It's not necessary, but it just makes me feel that the kind of resistance we've had for the Asian-American Botanical Garden, um even without asking the district for any money, it seems then. So if we're if it

doesn't mean anything, maybe we should be asking the district to to contribute 50/50. So I am open to both scopes having some uh buyin from the regional park district because we haven't felt that. And if we're talking about money and it's their property, it seems like they should be also willing to fund on a 5050 level for all for all of their lands that they owned. Um and we are graciously saying we will participate in that decision three um scopes one and two. So scop scope one uh the scope of work number one that we have in our packet uh is for the wetlands. Scope two is is for the terrestrial or uplands and I do have issues with these these documents because it you know we talk about equity. We talk about the fact that we don't own the land, but Marina has invested our money, has has upkept this park. However, uh, however bad you may think it is, it's been Marina stepping up to do this. And the the hundreds of hours of volunteers making, weeding, irrigation, uh, you know, emptying trash or or or painting or, you know, cleaning. So that's the inequity that we we are doing the the lion share of work there and also contributing the lion share of money for it historically. Um, and yet there is obvious I would say biases or I'm not sure resistance to um an Asian-American botanical garden and some of the other smaller projects that bring in people and our if you had gone to Earth Day, you know, we had huge amounts of of community there. It was bustling people sitting on the MLK Junior statue eating burritos. We had people um at the booths

doing all kinds of work all over Loch Patent Park. That is who Marina is. We are a diverse community. We honor in inclusiveness and that's what we are. And so when I see that on this scope one for example, we say they say develop a detailed habitat rest I'm sorry organize a public workshop and facilitate public outreach. A means one to me. You go to the scope of work at number two. Now we have a minimum of four public workshops when up to now up to now we the the um the different groups whether it's Asian communities or marina sustainable marina CS4M sierra club all of those people have attended 16 public hearings on this. I I don't even know like what other project except maybe a $50 million site review would would require that. And we're asking after 16 meetings, we're still now asking a minimum of four public workshops. Do you know the effort it is for the community and individuals to give up their week their their um um evenings to come and listen to participate in this kind of process. It's grueling. But we've discounted everything that the Asian community has done up to now. When we say we need an additional four, then at the end of scope one, it says schedule approximately 4 months from notice to proceed. That's a large project. We already have heard from our city manager that's pretty much not going to be four months. And on the uplands and and the terrestrial, it says schedule approximately five months. Now, that's a month difference, but I I can't even understand why they would even conceive of four small projects that Marina is asking on a barren piece of land. Why

that would take more time in their estimation of getting something going forward. It doesn't make sense to me. So there are issues that I have with this and it has to do with the overall thoughts and feelings about the inequity to Marina and and you know so I have concerns with decision three and I'm going to stop until four and five and six later. Thank you Kathy Council McAdams.

Thank you mayor. Um so I'm going to continue sort of where council member Biala was on decision four. Um so this is regarding response to the questions about the food forest sensory garden MLK garden. I read the packet and both of the letters. What questions uh specifically are we answering? I I wasn't finding any like direct questions to the city. Um I think that the question is the level of SQL review and and that's pretty easy I think on our staff and working with our attorney if we can it's pretty clear at least in our our end

and we've had like a a SQA analysis done or a SQA attorney provide their guidance u because I haven't even seen plans for Yeah. So I I read the letters too and I think what it was the request was to get clarifications and details about some of those projects. I think that

Okay, perfect. Yeah. I mean for me like SQA and pretty easy are should not be in the same sentence. I don't want to give that perception or put that you know out in the world that SQUA is is simple and easy. No, it's very expensive and can be really really complicated. Um, so for me regardless, it's hard for me to comment on these projects because I haven't seen plans. I haven't seen costs like what Mayor Prom Fisher like how much does it cost? So I haven't seen really any details. I think I've seen a conceptual drawing. Um, not I've seen a conceptual drawing. So for the food forest sensory garden, I don't even know how to answer this. So um what my comment was though is that the city can go down this path and when the projects are developed and designed by the the you know correct process planning commission coming here whatever then those can be um discussed with with the parks district. Um decision five ongoing maintenance cost. So, we already have some funding set aside uh for tree maintenance park cleanup. Um I think moving forward a good step is we expend those funds as soon as we can being transparent with the parks district like this is the chunk that we're starting with and you can continue negotiations because right now I don't even think you've had that conversation right with the parks district. Actually, Eric and I are having those discussions and we'll plan on continuing to have them. So, I think we are making really good progress on talking about maintenance and how we can move forward

and working together on that.

Perfect. And so, for me, in the meantime, let's expend the funds that we've already allocated. We're going to be going through budgets any, you know, any day now. Um, and you're continuing this dialogue with Mr. Morgan. And so then, you know, we can regroup in a few months with a more definitive, sustainable, long-term maintenance agreement. But in the meantime, let's expend the funds that we've already allocated. And then, um, decision six about whether to continue pursuing the lease transfer of lot 43 and parallel. Um, I'm completely open to that. Um, however, I don't want I don't support allowing these like conceptual long range projects to hold up any progress. Like that is not not what I want to do. Um, so especially like we're facing an environmental catastrophe. It is in our face. Like we have had multiple people come. We've had researchers. I mean, I don't know what else we need to hear um for all of us up here to be definitive in that call for help from the wetlands and the park. Um, and so, you know, I understand the importance of thoughtful planning, but we can't just be blinded or just only, you know, seeing through this lens of future potential conceptual projects, right? Like I see what's in front of my face and I see money that we have allocated. I'm seeing crime at the park. I'm seeing unhoused at the park. I'm we're seeing kidnapping and sexual assault at the park and that

is absolutely unacceptable. And so I appreciate the mayor, you know, with with the comments at the start of the meeting like yes, like we are at the point of no return. And are we going to be complacent and delay delay delay more? I'm not I'm going to kick and scream up here, unfortunately. I'm sorry. They say that out of love, but no, I am not going to. No, absolutely not. So for me with number six, I I don't want us to get stuck because of the sun, the moon, the stars, right? Or or these conceptual projects. Um I'm happy to go down the path of developing and investing in the conceptual projects. Um, but I I don't want to be just without making progress on on another pathway. So, thank you.

Thank you very much, Jenny. Let's go to Council Member McCarthy.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'm going to try to be really brief and go through all six of these since everyone else did in four minutes or less. So, the um the the dual track planning I think is is a positive thing. I think it moves us forward. I think we need some SQA expertise. The park district has it. My understanding is the park district has their own squa attorney. It's very complicated. It doesn't work. You know, if they start SQA on the lake as a project, we don't get to jump in and say, "Oh, we're going to do our own." It doesn't work that way just because it's our property. It's a project, right? And so, they've already started that process. It sounds like they're going to be doing SQA on the wetlands and and we're going to be part of that project-wise. Um participation in the 50-50 cost sharing seems like a no-brainer. If they're willing, it'll be much more than they've contributed to date. um if they're willing to contribute 50/50 on all things, I think we should go for that. If they're not, we should have that discussion. Um comments on on the draft proposals, you know, I I think comments are good, but I again, we're let's not look for more reasons to delay. If if I appreciated your comment about adding comments may just be another reason to delay and move things even slower, and I'm I'm not for that. Um so, if we want to lob some comments across the line, that's fine, but I don't think we need to get responses back. decision four um questions about the food for so this one's interesting and and the answer to the question I think is why are they asking about that and this is really sensitive but we moved forward with those in a way that potentially violated SQA and everybody's scared about that because potentially the law was broken and so that's why everybody's dancing around this issue about whether stuff it was done or approved or whatever so let's work collaboratively um because they seem to want to do that and I think we should want to do that. And I think the more that we cause this friction, the more risk that we present to the city. Um, decision five, the maintenance cost. Um, you know, we've been doing this maintenance for 30 years. Uh, it's it's it's

good, solid work, but it's not a heavy lift for our excellent public works staff. Um, I think that they can continue to mow the grass. They can continue to collect the trash. That's not a big burden for our public works. They're we know they're going to continue to do that, right? We're we're I think not going to ask them to stop. I might be wrong. Um but let's just codify that in in an agreement. Um and then the final thing is continuing to pursue a lease. They're offering us millions of dollars of land for a dollar. That seems like the best deal we could possibly get. Why would we not do that? Is the the previous lease city manager? Was it a dollar for a year? Can you confirm that?

Yeah, I think it was. Yeah, it was a dollar for the whole term of the contract. Yeah. For 20 years, whatever it is, it's negligible, right? So, this is not about money. They're offering us a tremendous amount of land, 10 acres, whatever it is. You know, the average value of an acre of land in Marina is about $2 million. If you reduce that by 80% because it's parkland, you're still talking about millions of dollars of parkland um that they would be offering for us for 20 cents a year. Um so, yes, I think we're going to do that. I think that's the right thing to do and it makes sense. Um, so those are my takes on those six decisions. Thank you, mayor.

All right. Thanks to everybody. So, we're at a witching hour of 6:30. Uh, the city attorney says we have a couple options. One is to keep this discussion going to 7, and that would be to push the other open session, the regular city council meeting until 7 or we could terminate this now. Um, or we could do something else. Go ahead. Watch. Uh, you can also recess this meeting, go into the regular meeting, and then come back to this meeting after you've adjourned the regular meeting. Okay. I think the public probably would want to hear, and that's the reason we move this from closed to open. So, we probably want to continue that. Uh,

so I move we continue this till 7 p.m. I'll second. All in favor of that motion, please say I. Yes. I Okay, that motion passes. Brian, did you have anything else?

No. Thank you. Okay. Um Brian just said that money is not the issue and in some ways it's not and in some ways it's everything. So in the past the park district general manager offered the city to take lock patent from them for a dollar and the city said no because our opinion was we were stronger together than alone. if there's two agencies supporting the park, it's going to be a better park than if there's only one agency. So, we did not want to lose them as a partner. They contributed a couple thousand dollars here and there to Eagle Scout projects. They contributed to um the community garden. They contributed to the Oak Woodland. U they contribute every year to Earth Day. And we told them in these site meetings, if you ever get going on SEMX to turn that into the jewel that the former park u the manager said, SEMX is going to be Marina's jewel. That's where the sand mine is. The sand mine's closed now. The the proposal is to turn it into a public park right there on the beach. It it it should be fantastic for our city. And they the park district were considered to be the leader le most likely uh agency to take over that park. So we were telling him, hey, if you make that your investment in Marina, then we'll take Lock Padden. But if you don't invest in SEMX, Lock Patent is pretty much all we got from you, the Park District, where we spend every property owner $100 or whatever every year into the park district, but we don't get anything back from the park district unless they give us something. Then we don't see that money. It goes to their other jewels, Paul Corona, uh, Garland Ranch. These are places in Monterey and Carmemell. And then they're moving toward big su s sur s sur s sur s sur s sur s sur s sur s sur s sur s sur they have 14,000 acres marina they got maybe 15 acres and they don't spend time in marina except on earth day and occasionally they give a couple grand and we like that we like their

participation we want to continue it but now it's come to the head that few are happy with the park their safety the aesthetics I don't want to repeat myself so I do want to say that we should get going on the lease that Brian and Jenny and probably everybody want, but it needs to be an intelligent move where the city provides the park district cost estimates of what it's been costing us and then they move toward a 50/50 share of that. How much time does it take to empty the trash every week, do everything, mow the lawns, remove the graffiti, check out the, you know, all the issues that go on. It's more than meets the eye and it costs money and we want to do better. It's going to cost more money. So I think at least ASAP we should discuss an agreement with the park district for daily needs to be what we want as a community and what they would want in their park. What do they want at Garland Park? What do they want at Paulrona? They want it to be the way that some of us want Loaden to be or most of us. How much does that cost? They're the majority land owner. They should have a stake in it. It's not intelligent for us to say we've paid it every dime for 30 years. We'll keep doing that and we want to do it better which is more cost. It's time for us to to to be partners and they're wonderful partners and they're they know what they're doing. They're great. They have a great legacy at Loch Patent Park. I think we need that. So provide cost estimates to them what we incur agree on how much more we want to do and how much more that would cost and police is probably the most expensive piece of that but we'll see. Uh police, public works, that's pretty much it. Uh but to get it the way we all want it, it's going to be a heavy lift to get their rangers here, to get their maintenance staff here, not just Paula Corona and Garland Ranch and these other landscape properties that they manage. That's where they want to spend their time. They don't want to come all the way here and and patrol Lock Patent Park. So maybe they pay us in lie of, but we need to make sure that we have

the money and the time, the labor to do it right. So that's number one. If that's all we got out of tonight, that would satisfy for me the most urgent need. The rest of this is urgent but not quite as urgent or high a priority. When it comes to the cost sharing of the other priorities, we asked them in March 4th agree to cost share 5050 on the most expensive price tag which is the wetland improvement in perpetuity and implementation because that's the big ticket item that could be millions. If you agree on that, then we can agree to cost share on the small price tag of planning how we're going to do it. The last thing we want to do is spend $500 to a million dollars planning something with no agreement on how we're going to pay to do it. So, first agree on the big cost. If we can agree we're going to 50-50 share on the big cost, great. Now, let's agree to 5050 share on the little cost. Their letter back to us on April 9th said, "We agreed to share the little cost, the planning cost." Their letter was silent to sharing on the big cost. Well, then we're going to be put in a bind 6 months to 18 months from now. We're going to have uh a project ready to go that cost millions of dollars to implement. And if they bo or we bo, you all and us should be saying, "Well, that was a waste of money." You should have known ahead of time who was going to pay for the big ticket item before you spent several hundred,000. No small amount, but much smaller compared to implementation and in perpetuity maintenance. Because what we're talking about is what many of you want. Remove the bull rushes so we can see the water, make it healthy, make it feel safe, invite the birds back that were are gone because of all the brush. Well, that plan that everybody likes requires maintenance. So, if the bull rush is going to be here and over here, but there's going to be open water in between, someone's got to keep the bull

rush there and not in the water. And keep the bull rush here and not in the water. Someone's got to maintain the willow trees all around the park the way that we want it. Well, fighting nature forever is going to be expensive because nature is going to continue to move in. And we're going to keep saying, "No, no, no. Bull rush only here and bull rush only here. And these trees, you have to stay trimmed and looking nice." and we're going to help you do that at a big cost to people. And so that's the in perpetuity big ticket item plus getting in the heavy equipment to remove the bull rush and landscape it architecturally what you want it to be. You're you're you're fixing nature the way we want it to be and then you're keeping it right there. And that's going to be very expensive. And the plan itself will tell us how to do that and how much it's going to cost. And then we're going to say, okay, who's going to pay? We should know upfront who's going to pay. So, if we agree up front, 50/50 share on the big ticket and we agree on the little ticket. Now, we've got something to go on 50/50 sharing. That's the wetland. Now, the upland, I thought the city was being gracious and saying, "We will pay everything for the upland if you just let us do some of these community projects we want to do. We'll pay everything. You pay nothing on the up on the upland on the dry land." That's just another that's another issue for us to figure out, but I don't think we're going to figure out tonight. Um, so if all we get out of tonight was get the daily maintenance, the monthly maintenance, get it to be where we want it to be so we can be proud of that part and then we'll work on these big projects. Um, secondly, and lastly, uh, I lost my point. I'm sorry for that. It was really an important point. Okay. Uh, anyone else a comment? And if I can think of mine, I will.

Council member be.

Okay. So, I'll try to go quickly on my the four, five, and six decisions. And there's some other things that are related to that, but decision four, um, we obviously need, um, you know, more information about the food forest children's sensory garden and the MLK Junior statue. We, it's already built, so I'm not quite sure what we need more on that. maybe a CDP or not, I know we have the CDP. Um, anyway, I'm not sure what else we need on that, but whatever it is, we need to to get those done. And if that means that there's another RFP for the smaller projects, then we should get that done and have it closed and and be on with it. Decision five, how to address the maintenance cost. Um, okay. So, this is kind of tied to decision six. I'm all in favor of looking at this land transfer this dollar for you know bore for the whole parcels uh of of um the lot 43 um but as someone was saying that it's not just about money it's not just about getting the money from MPD because in this is that inequity I've been talking about um I think it's unconscionable for us to walk away from consider Considering the smaller projects that are community- based, we wouldn't say, "Well, gee, we better stop the sports center now or the aquatic center because we have to pour in all the money into the wetlands." We still are accountable to the community that we serve. And so, I'm not I'm not in I if if that means that we sacrifice um all of the other projects that we know the community is in favor of, we've talked about this for two years. They have talked about it for two years. I don't want to see that just be tossed aside like it's inconsequential. It is consequential to the people in our community. So, I want to make that very clear. Um, but I do hope that uh if we

got the land transfer for the dollar or whatever it is that that then Marina assumes the liability, which is a huge thing. It's not just that they're they're generously giving us all this wonderful expensive land. we assume the liability for the park. That is huge. So, I want to just make sure it's not just about money that they're giving us some uh some gift and it is a gift. But along with that comes a lot of uh of our accountabilities to serve that land to keep it up and to be responsible for lawsuits or whatever happens on that property. So I I just want to make sure that um you know in doing that we get the authority and the accountability for the land. We don't get that transfer and yet say well they can um they can negate something that the community wants. No, it is our responsibility and the community and how we reach out to the public is what we will do as we have done all the time but we are the decision makers for that. And I think that's really important that that if we're handed the and gifted this property that we have the authority as a city of Marina with our our constituents to make those decisions and make good on our promises to our communities. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. What I was going to say that I forgot was Olga and others have talked about prioritization and so far the city has $600,000 allocated to the wetland and maintenance of the park and planning for that and $250,000 to start with the planning on the Asian garden. Not all 250 will be spent maybe on the planning of the Asian garden, but that shows you the relevant priorities. 600,000 for non-Asian garden, 250,000 for Asian garden. So clearly there's already a priority in our minds uh between those. What I would ask besides getting as soon as possible at least that's fair and reasonable uh or cost sharing for monthly maintenance is that the park district answers the points in our letter that they didn't answer in their response. And then I would suggest that we in our motion today direct staff to answer their questions that they asked in their April 9th letter to us. And uh that includes what's up with the food forest, what's up with the MLK, what's up with the children's sensory garden. They're telling us in their letter they're confused about what those are. Tell us more about them. uh and give us a full description of them so we know what you're asking to do on our land our you know on NPRPD participation going because it's it's it's progressing um their their u comments the comments in decision three uh about what they're going to talk about tomorrow I think we at least want to ask them why are you not including in your scope of work for the wetlands, any cost assessments, why you're not uh including any uh maintenance strategies because those are

going to cost a lot of money maintaining the wetland, not just doing it, but maintaining what you've done. Whereas for the upland, they have in task for cost, sea, cost, estimates, and maintenance strategies. Great. It should be there. those exact words should be in the wetland because if you don't have cost estimates and maintenance strategies for that expensive big project, you're you're you're overlooking that and it might have just been a slight oversight. But we do need to uh uh make sure that they do that that they put a cost estimate into their scope of work for their wetland. As far as bundling, which is one of our decisions, I share um council member Biala's concern that if we separate wetland from dryland, the wetland will move ahead because the park district really wants it. And so do we. The dry land, the upland will find reasons to stall. Four public meetings on the small stuff versus one public meeting on the big stuff. So we can see we can we can assume where their priorities are. And so that concerns me. But I learned at their last meeting that if you bundle them, you're going to remove the opportunity to get the green uh the green cutting the green tape. You can't say the project is to restore the wetland for thericcolor blackbird to make it ecologically healthy and build an Asian garden and a children's sensory garden and figure out the water that's going to the Martin Luther King garden and do the food forest in the community garden. That's going to say, well, that's not all restoration. That's very those are very different. So, we can cut the green tape on the wetland project, but the green tape cutting isn't really appropriate for the four city projects. It's going to delay, make more expensive, and maybe ruin the chance to

get that green tape exemption cutting expedite expedation expedite um expedition on the wetland projects. So somehow we got to figure out how to not bundle by bundling the two projects, not hurting the wetlands, but also not being left out to dry on the dry lands where these public meetings and delays uh subconsciously or subconsciously stop what we really want on the dry land. And I'll say that everything that we've done, the library, it took weeds and turned it into a beautiful library. The pollinator gardens all around the library took degraded nasty land that was ugly and it made beautiful wildflower gardens. You can see today the Martin Luther King took a nasty weedy field and turned it into a beautiful Martin Luther King sculpture garden. The Oakwoodland Community Garden is so much fun and it's so beautiful and people of all ages go there on a weekly basis. where we put our attention turns it that park into a beautiful, safe, lovely place that the public is highly engaged. And so if we keep moving, if we do an Asian-American garden, it's I mean, everyone agrees an Asian-American garden is beautiful. We just agree on we disagree on where it should go. But if we were to take that weedy field that has some natural values, but so did the library and so did the playground and so did the Oakquin and the Martin Luther King. It has some value as foxtails and and annual non-native annual grasses and ice plant and a few telegraph plants that that bloom native sunflowers in the summer. It does have some native value but it's really dimminimous and that's going to be an issue even though dimminimous when we uh plan for the Asian garden we have to describe it and plan for it in a way that recognizes the forage value the food that it has forricolor blackbirds that are coming out of the pond. They do need a place to forage. There's other fields in Block

Patton Park such as between the lower restrooms and the library. Big weedy fieldy slope just like the Asian garden and they can forage there. At Ford they go two, three miles to forage to catch grasshoppers skipping the grassland where there's grasshoppers right next to their nesting colony and they go over to Toro school and they harvest grasshoppers there. They come back to their nest. So they could go to the 85 acres of grassland at Marina Station that's going to be restored as natural grassland. There'll be lots of grasshoppers and forage there. The oak woodland community garden and the Asian garden will have forage value to that same-colored black if we do it right. To do it right, you've got to put it into the plan, the project description of the Asian-American garden. It's got to it's got to recognize that there's rare plants nearby but not inside. And it's got to recognize that there's blackbird outside but not inside the Asian-American garden. and and by recognizing that and compensating for it, uh it makes the project better and it makes it go through California Environmental Quality Act, SQA, faster, saves everybody money and time. So, uh, I think that we should try to take more ownership as a city over the upland scope of work because if we give it to the park district, they're not going to be as on it as we are because we really want it. And it appears that they're very grudgingly going along if we must, and that's not the way to to make it happen fast and efficiently. and they're so excited about the wetland that they're going to do we we trust they're going to do a great job on the wetland because they really want it and so do we. But if we share we're partners. We're we're we're different owners of the same park. We can do the dry land just as well, maybe better than they can do because we really want it and we're willing to put money and time into it. Um and I've talked too long. So I'm going to turn it over to Kathy. Go ahead, Kathy.

Oh, is my light on? No. Council member McAdams.

Okay. Thank you, mayor. Um, and you know, when I I keep hearing like they're so excited to do the wetland. Well, no, it's like a disaster. I don't think it's excitement. I think it's like we need to do something because it's it's going to not be a wetland soon as we saw from the CSUB students, right? and and so I'm not sure that that's necessarily like excitement versus like we have to get this done. So I just, you know, I don't know. Um, so I recall that we asked staff to obtain an estimate for the reed cleaning. So did that ever get because you're talking about like you want a partner. Okay. Well, we can go up to the partner and say what? Give us a blank check and trust us. So what is that? How much is that?

Don't we don't have that. We don't know. So, that would be like the first step, right? To find out like is it a million? Is it 5 million? Is it 200,000? Like, we have no idea how much it's going to cost. We don't.

Okay. So, are we doing something about that? Well, I think that's the first step of trying to understand what that scope of the work is and then that will determine how much of the reads or bow rushes or whatever is done. And so we really can't do that until we know what that scope of the project is. And that gets back to the mayor's point of we've talked with them that cost could be significant and we just haven't heard back whether they're willing to split that cost. And so that was that's our our proposal. Let's split the cost and we're still waiting to hear back from them on that. Mr. Mayor, could I just make a small comment?

So So let's split the cost of we don't know how much is is anyone finding out how much it's going to cost. Like I feel like we're just going in this circle, right? it it's the catch 22 because I we can't tell you what that cost is until we really do the the scope of the work and understand really what that is. And so how does that get done? Well, and that that's our proposal is to split that cost 50/50. That is what they're taking to their board tomorrow as is if they'll split the cost 5050 for doing the planning work. But they have not said anything about the actual

Okay. Because when we had Allison here, I thought she was working with all the regulatory agencies going through fish and wildlife, Ottabon. Yeah. She came up with that scope of work, three different scopes of work. We've provided those to the district. Um but again, we don't know what that cost is until we actually do it.

Okay. And so for me, what is like where's the out where's the outgame, right? Where's the door out? What does that look like? If we're if the city can't afford maintenance, right? Or if we can't afford the let's say $2 million to get the park to um just basic like where we could start maintaining it and where it becomes a usable safe space. What is the out? I mean, if no one has the money, we've been doing this for years. Like, we might be doing this for another couple years. Are we engaging, you know, hey, maybe we don't want to sign the lease for the dollar, maybe go to another partner or big sir Land Trust or Sierra Club, maybe someone else wants to take this park over. Are we even thinking or talking about that?

We have not had that discussion with anyone. What we have and is a possibility is we've talked with state coastal conservancy uh to see if that's a possibility for grant funds and and this the district may on their end be exploring uh grant funds and and so that is one option that we are working on.

Okay. I mean, either way, I don't think that any agency would want to take over the park, especially with like an almost 40% increase in crime and and unhoused and all of the shenanigans that are happening there. Um, so regardless, it needs to be brought to just like a basic level of it's a safe park. You you can go on like the wood platform and not be scared that somebody's going to jump out, you know, stuff like that. So, um I think it's important like when you're asking someone to be a partner that they know exactly what they're partnering in, right? And so I'm not sure why it's taken us this long to even like get to this point, which is frustrating on another level, but I'm glad to hear that you're going down that road. And so the parks district, do they understand the importance of the timeline and being efficient?

Yes, they do. Okay. And do we the city understand the importance of the timeline and being efficient? Yes, we do. Okay. Great. Well, then I think with that on more levels than than people realize.

Okay. Perfect. And so, one thing I wanted to say just on record, I am was disappointed that this was like a 24-hour notice. Now, we're going to be an open session meeting cuz I know that we will hear from a lot of community members who are going to find out later and be unhappy uh with the fact that they weren't able to participate. This is kind of the one of the very first times where we've had this conversation on the dis. Um, and so I just I really appreciate the parks district how they have been modeling transparency, community engagement, um, you know, being open and I hope that the city uh, you know, sees that and follows that path. And so moving forward, I hope that any lock patent conversation, if it's not price and terms negotiating a lease, that we're in open session. And I want to apologize to the residents that are going to find out later um like, oh, they had this meeting all of a sudden. It doesn't look good. It doesn't look good. It looks like we don't want you here. You know, it looks like we're trying to hide something. And um I don't like that. So um but I am grateful that we are having this in open session. Um and I would encourage that, you know, moving forward we continue to have open session dialogue. All right, I'll go to Kathy in just a moment. The park district has had more closed sessions on this than we have and this was planned to be a closed session on Friday. We wanted the public to be here. So, we changed it from closed session to open session. So, all we have done is make it more open. Otherwise, it would have been closed session and no one would have hardly come because they wouldn't know what to say. Cuz they wouldn't know what we're going to cover cuz it doesn't tell you what we're going to cover really. But the open session that we're having now was more explained in detail what we're going to cover and people came ready to

talk to what we're going to cover in open session. We're even talking about terms and price right now, which is supposed to be an open in closed session. So, we're being as open as we possibly can, probably to the to the reverse of what is expected where terms and price should be in close session. But why should they be in close session? If we want to share cost share, if we want them to pay for certain things, we should be able to say that with respect in open session as well as close session so that the people the 30 people that are here were able to come and participate is better than it would have been according to Friday's schedule agenda public agenda to be a closed session. We would five of us would have been in that closed room over there. They wouldn't have been with us. All this stuff that we've talked with ourselves, they've heard it, they've participated, they can comment afterward. If it was close session, it's mum's the word. We can't tell them what we say in close session and they're not supposed to ask. Now they know it's been open session and it's not the first time. Everything we discussed tonight, we discussed for about three hours on July 1st of 2025. Exactly. We came up with eight points and we communicated those eight points the next day to the park district because they had a closed session. So they went into close session to consider our eight points that we came up with in public session. And those eight points are very similar to the points we're thinking about tonight, but we have to engage the process. Kathy, thank you.

I wanted to say I got two minutes or whatever. So yeah. So I want thank you for saying what you were doing because I fel felt like in the discussion previously that we were being pressured as a city to know the cost of cleanup. Most of the wetlands is not owned by us. That is the regional park district's part property. And so when when when we feel that we have to come up with the the cost for it because we want to be partners. I'm sorry. It's the it's it's the it's the paradigm shift again. They own the land. Where is their responsibility to also be invested in how much do these things cost? What is this going to look like? It's not just about the city of Marina. And I want to just say in terms of transparency, we've had 10 meetings with the regional park district, many of which at the end have been closed sessions, and we don't even know what they're speaking about. And we we we had a year's delay while they were researching whether there was any deed restriction on lot 43. Okay, a process that could have taken three months. It was a year and it was only revealed that there's no deed restrictions on lot on lot number 43 where the Asian-American Botanical Garden was proposed only after the city asked MPBT to let us know what that one-year research revealed. So in terms of partnership and transparency, I think that it's not just that we have lack of transparency. I don't want us to to be to to come away with a distorted idea of this process of partnership. So, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Okay, we're going to go to Brian next, but we have 7:00 witching hour. What's the council's direction? I move that we go to 707 at the latest, enough time for us to make a motion and be transparent about what we're voting on tonight and move on. I'll second. All in favor, please say I.

I. Please proceed, Brian. Um, well, I guess I'll start with a motion. Um, I would like for the public to understand how we feel about in particular the two issues of the wetlands and the lease tonight. So, I would like to make a motion that we direct staff to engage collaboratively on the wetlands project at Lo Patton given our shared values and goals. um express that interest to the park district but not commit um to funding until we understand what the total cost would be. Um and that we moved to direct staff to work with the park district to prepare an interim 4-year lease within 14 days in response to the expiration of the previous lease in order to restore clear management responsibility, prevent further disrepair of the park, and prevent the city of Marina operating on someone else's land which presents its own risk without a lease. Can you repeat that second at that point?

Move to direct um I'll shorten it and then make the comment later, but move to direct staff to work with park district to prepare an interim 4-year lease agreement within 14 days in response to the expiration of the previous lease in response to that. Okay, that's my motion. Is there a second? I'll second that.

Okay, I would like to make a substitute motion starting with the same one. Your point number one was to direct staff to engage with the park district staff to move ahead with the wetlands scope of work. Same there. Your second point, well my second point is going to be different. My second point is that we get the cost we get the district to agree we ask the cost district to agree to uh implementation and long-term maintenance cost sharing as well as what they've already agreed to which is the shorter smaller um uh planning effort. So uh my second one is that we get some certainty some clarity that they're willing to cost share on the big ticket items. Thirdly, that we ask them once again to uh answer those points in our letter that went unanswered and that we direct staff to reply to them their questions in their letter to us, that April 9th letter they sent us. and that regarding their scope of work tomorrow night that's on their agenda that they please include the wetland cost estimates and maintenance strategies similar to how they included those items for the dryland. Um, the last thing I think I want is a uh according to your four-year lease is that we uh ASAP direct the staffs to come up with a lease that cost shares the maintenance and that our staff lets them know what it costs us to do it and then they decide how much more we want to do to do even better job. but that we get a lease ASAP um to cost share the ongoing maintenance uh time and labor or some combination thereof. Um if they don't want to put their labor here, then they can pay the city in lie of but they might prefer to send their rangers here and their maintenance staff here to work with our

maintenance staff. There's nothing better than seeing staff, police, public works, firefighters on lock patent because you think that's getting attention and to see their staff would be also just as exciting that their staff is walking through their bushes connect contacting the homeless and letting know what the rules are. That would be a breath of fresh air. So, I'll repeat my motion. Number one, as Brian's motion was to direct staff to engage with the wetland scope of work and get that done. Number two, to uh get an agreement on cost sharing for the big ticket items that we've discussed, maintenance and implementation uh of the wetlands. And then uh three, that we answer that we ask them to answer the points in our letter that were unanswered. That's our March 4th letter. And that we direct staff to answer their questions in their April 9th letter to us. And then that we uh ask them tomorrow to modify their scope of work for the wetland to include cost estimates and maintenance strategy similar to what they've done in their scope of work for the uplands. Um and that's it. Could you repeat the piece on the lease? I'm not sure I Yeah, it was to uh direct staff ASAP to work with their staff to come up with a maintenance lease that shares the cost of maintenance time and labor or some combination. That's fair.

Uh I would move to split the question so only because I can't support that piece. I mean no mine was a substitute motion. I understand, but the under Robert's rules of order, there's a motion to split the question, which means you have to take each one of those items separately, right? But right now, there's a motion on the floor. So, we can split the question, but first, let's see if there's a second to the second motion. It's a substitute motion. I second. And I also want to add a friendly amendment. Okay. Now, um Brian wants to make a motion to split the question. Kathy wants to add a friendly amendment, which has preceded. Which should we do address first? Um, depends on what the friendly amendment. Just clarify. Okay. Always draw my motion until Okay. Can I have a friendly amendment too?

Friendly amendment to the substitute motion. Okay. I want some language in that gives recognition to advancing the scope uh of uh work on number two. So, I don't know if it's simply that they support an RFP or identify some specific definitive action related to advancing our four or five projects on the up upland terrestrial area.

Lane, can you work with Kathy on that? I mean, right now to kind of explain how that might work so we can put it in the motion. I mean, we are considering the RFP later, but you can't split it out. I mean, you're talking about everything else, but So, I I think we need to jump ahead and incorporate something with that. I don't I don't feel comfortable voting on anything about these six decisions.

So, you're talking about just the four, not the wetlands. Well, we're focusing almost exclusively on the wetlands in this motion and we need something that attests to the advancing the project of scope of work of not projects too in the up in the terrestrial upland. So, yeah. So, I I think just direction to continue to work with the district to um

Yeah, but I want something definitive because otherwise continue to work. We're already having debates about um how the scope of work on one and two is being worded. And if we just say we're going to continue to work, we might as well not even have it in. Or or do we say that we we expect them to identify a a a specific uh definitive action to advance the terrestrial uplands. They've made their position clear on it. They're they're taking it um to their board. They're two different scopes. We've made our position clear that we want those four. We've put all five together, but I think the council is saying split those. And so our four projects, we've made it clear that that we want those approved by the district.

Okay. If if we've made it clear and we're making a motion about that, then let's state restate that in this motion. So dear friendly amendment, it could be stated that in our motion, we direct our staff to communicate to them that we urge them to stay on track with the upland scope of work equally with the with the wetland scope of the four projects that the that the four projects and does that include the Asian garden too or go order. Yes. I'd like to make a motion to continue until the end of this item.

Okay. We'll probably be done by 7:15. We have a second. All in favor, please. Uh discussion on the motion. I would say no. We need a time, sir. We draw these things out for another. I'll make a motion we continue to 7:15 if needed. I need that. All in favor, please say I. I. I. Okay. Please proceed, Kathy. Okay. So, you were talking. I was saying that the sixth piece of my motion would be your friendly amendment that we direct staff to urge uh MPRPD to proceed expeditiously as possible with the with both scopes. Uh well, we've already talked about the scope one already. So, I want to specifically call out scope two. Okay. That they that we urge them to expeditiously progress with scope two.

Scope two. The four projects that we the city has already identified. You have to put that in. Yeah, that's that's scope two. No, that they're searching for terrestrial. Oh, I see. Okay. So, um so for for projects proposed by the city of Marina.

Okay, Lane. So, now there's more clarification here that the friendly amendment is to urge expeditious progress on the four city projects. and their their position that they're taking to their board is is they want to go through a public process minimum of four meetings to determine the Asian-American garden. And so that is if that's their position if you're satisfied with that.

No, she she's absolutely not satisfied because so so then we need something more more specific. That's their position. So if we what we're asking them is a counter offer essentially is to say that we want some definitive action defined by them that covers the four projects going forward. They would say their definitive action is four meetings a scoping process that includes alternatives to the wet the the Asian garden. Well, we don't know what they're going to say. You're you're everything that we've been talking about are things that they may not have agreed with in the first place. That's why we're counter proposing.

Well, they said in task three, develop three to four conceptual alternatives for the upland areas. Yeah. So, the Asian garden and the city projects will probably be one alternative and there might be other ideas of what to do with Asian-American proposed site. That's that's what they're saying right now. So, point of order, like what are we doing? Are we making a motion or a You're point of order is well taken. What we're doing is trying to flesh out a friendly amendment to the motion. Okay. Something that includes some consideration of the four projects that the city of Marina has already vetted and approved and funded.

So, would you want to give a a deadline of say two months or three months to get approval from them? Is that what you're looking for? That would be fine. Okay. Len, can you restate that? Say it. Um, the city wants a deadline within three months of decision on the four projects. Well, then that's just uh pushing them to say no. Can I make a substitute on the substitute motion? Yeah, we can. You can have right now as many as you want, but tonight we're going to talk about limiting it to three, but we don't have three yet. So, yes, you can. Okay. And then, but we're in the middle of building this motion. So, as soon as soon as this motion, then you're able to do that. So, we're stuck on the friendly amendment. Um, have you and Lane figured out something that you agree with?

I think we should give it a shot. And we we define on those four projects that we want some definitive answer or how did you word it? Uh, I just th it maybe you could just say you just want a definitive decision from them of of when they'll make a decision. right now they're they've said they'll do a minimum a definitive decision not a definitive decision about their decision. So so tell me okay so so we we three to four months to to to um let us know uh about a uh a an um a decision related to four.

All right. Well, I think it's less confrontational if you say 4 months because they're already saying approximately 5 months. Okay, that's fine. And that would be consistent with their scope of the wetland work, which is much more complicated, but there they're projecting four months on that. Good. Okay. So the sixth and final uh project piece of mind unless there's unless there's other friendlies is that uh we uh urge them to change their scope of work too to be um five months in duration from notice to proceed instead of I'm sorry four months instead of five months. Okay. Now um there's a second hold.

Could you repeat that though? Are you could just repeat that last? Yeah, that friendly amendment was that uh we urged the park district to change their schedule on scope 2 to be 4 months from notice to proceed instead of approximately 5 months. Okay, but you have you've not identified the four projects that Well, that's in Oh, okay. I want you to to say that. Well, they're in they're listed. Asian-American hybrid garden just add that. just add it's already in there. Um it's listed. So

So the four projects are uh MLK Sculpture Garden, Oak Woodland Garden and Food Forest number two, Asian American Gardens number three, and Children Century Garden is number four. And that's the objective of scope number two. We're just playing with the duration of the project, not the scope. I like the scope. I don't agree with that, but I I just put five. Okay. Okay. I'm going to move on. uh changing that to four months notice. Um and does the second hold? Oh, I Yes, of course. All right. Now, let's go to Jenny who who's I think we have Brian. Did you want to make a split the vote? Okay, Jenny.

Well, so I'm going to make a substitute to the substitute, which is going to split the vote. Um and this is what I can accept and then everything else like I would appreciate the separate vote. So, my substitute is like sort of the substitute to split the vote. Does that make sense? your motion. So I move that we accept the dual track path, accept the 50/50 cost sharing with the not to exceed amount to be determined by staff at a later date of what?

The cost sharing of the two scopes that's in the packet. Um and then except one and two as is in the packet per the letter from the parks district which is the wetland um habitat enhancement planning and squa um and and then the initial study upland terrestrial portions of the park. So taking those four things I only see three oh the four city projects. Oh I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Correct. You're three correct. taking those three things um and approving those and then you all can like hash out all this other stuff but I would like to see action on these three items and I think that

okay collectively we could do that. So we have a motion uh a substitute motion number two. Is there a second? Okay, let's if there's no further discussion, let's go to the second substitute motion first. Okay, I have a question. So on the two scopes, you want to just accept it as is. Meaning that there's one public hearing for the wetlands and four at a minimum for the smaller projects on the scope of the four. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. I I I I don't I can't agree to that. Okay. Okay. We said we go to hard stop 7:15. I motion we go to 720. Second. All in favor, please say I. I. I. Please proceed. Kathy, do you have anything more?

I don't know how to include that uh that that there are are that we need a more definitive um uh review of scope one and two. You made one that we should take some of the language of scope two and fold it in. Also, that's one. I have an objections to one one public hearing for wetlands and four plus for the smaller projects. Well, if it's done within four months, I think they're not going to have four public meetings in four months, but they might. I doubt it. I see. Okay. So, okay. So, but she's not including that. No, no, but she has a substitute motion that's different than the other two motions.

Got it. Okay. So, let's go to Jenny's substitute motion first, which is accept the dual track as proposed, accept the 50/50 cost share of the two scopes of work as proposed, and accept the scopes of work as written in one and two in the packet. And just discussion on the motion on item two, the 50/50 cost sharing, there's a not to exceed to be determined by staff at a later date. So, not to exceed to be determined. Yes. And then um in the packet uh council member Biala the four small workshops I just assume that it's one of each of for the four small projects.

I don't think so but it's not specified. So okay so then I'm happy to specify that in my motion that in number two scope of work the four workshops one to be assigned to each smaller project. Are you comfortable with that? Yes. Thank you. Perfect. Okay. And I will add that to my motion as the seventh piece if the maker holds it. So up to the second holds. Okay. All right. So we go to the four-point motion by Jenny. It's our substitute motion number two. All in favor, please say I. Yes. I. All opposed, please say no. No. No.

No. Okay, that motion fails three to two with council members McAdams and McCarthy supporting it. Now we will go to the first substitute motion. Would anyone like me to read read those seven pieces to it? East number one. I would make a motion to split the question on that. Okay. Uh do you want me to read the motion now? I might as well just take each piece individually. I think is probably more efficient. Okay. So how does the uh the the split the motion work too? Do we have to do it or we vote on whether to do it? I mean, you you you as chair can go ahead and take each one.

Right. So, I think I've not done it before. So, when you say split the motion, I have seven pieces to this motion. Do we you're saying vote on each of one of the pieces? Is that what you mean by split the vote? Uh, yes. Okay. Uh, and yes, I I believe I'm looking it up now. Um, now the member must second it. Chair opens it for brief consideration. Board votes on majority vote whether to allow this split or the split. Okay. I think it's going to take a lot longer to hash out each point, but that's your motion. And if you have a second, then uh we will vote on whether to split the motion. Is there a second to split the motion? Second. Okay. Now we'll vote on whether to split the motion. All in favor, please say I. Yes. I.

Thank you. All oppose, please say no. No. Okay, that motion fails. So now we're going to the substitute motion that's on the floor. Does anyone want me to read the seven points?

Yes. Number one, uh, direct staff to engage with park district staff to move forward on the wetlands project. Number two, that we uh, direct staff to seek cost sharing on the wetlands, including the long-term maintenance and implementation. Number three, we request answers from the park district on the unanswered questions from our March 9, sorry, March 4th letter. Number four, that we provide answers to the park district's April 9th letter. Number five, that uh we urge the park district to include wetland cost and maintenance strategies in their scope of work. Number one, similar to the the language they used for their scope of work number two, the dryland. Number six, that we urge the uh park district to change the schedule for scope two to be four months from notice to proceed instead of approximately 5 months. And lastly, that there be if if there are four workshops that there be one workshop for each of the city's projects. Those are the seven points of the substitute motion.

Mr. Could I make could I make a amendment or the friendly friendly amendment I guess? So I liked council member McAdams um idea of if if they're going to pursue the four the four here the the additional workshops then then one be devoted to each one of the projects and that would suffice or and we can maybe say or in in terms of what we how we specified it. You can say or that four of the hearings are and it and it can't be they word it as a minimum. So we're saying no four hearings and one for each of the projects. Okay. Can we add that?

Yeah. It was that we urge four workshops, one per project. That's what's in the motion. Yes. And so discussion on the motion. Sure. So I just want to be clear. We're not accepting the dual track path accepting 5050 cost sharing with the not to exceed or we're not doing anything out of the six decisions. We're really not doing any of those, right? We're doing both of those, but without a not to exceed. That's the only thing that's not in here. Point of order. Robert's rules of order. That's not how this works. When a motion is made, you're done. A motion was approved. I mean, I respect that we still have business to do. That's not That's not how we should be Well, discussion on a motion is part of before you go to a vote. No, but there was a second there was a second motion and it was approved. We're done. Like No, no, no. The only approved This is substitute.

We've not voted on the substitute motion. We did vote on your substitute motion. We voted no on her substitute motion. No, but it's still a substitute motion. Right. And it's it died. It It failed three to two. So now we go to the next substitute motion. And then if that fails, we go to Right. I apologize. Yes. It's complicated. All right. Okay. So, I just want to be clear that out of the six things that tasks that staff wanted direction andor mo action on, we're not we're doing two of them

where we're we're doing the two that were in your motion, which is except the dual track. We're not saying that, but by saying everything else, we said we're not we're going the dual track and we're cost sharing 50/50. We were specific to say including on the wetland implementation and maintenance which are the big ticket items that were missing from their their their letter. So we're doing the two things that were the first two major things in your packet. Anyway, that's the motion. Uh okay. Uh all in favor of that motion, please say I. I. I. All oppose, please say no.

No. I'm abstaining just because I don't really understand. It doesn't really matter. Okay. So, thank you everyone. That motion passes 3 to one with one abstension from council member McCarthy and the no was from council member McAdams. Okay. Thank you public for coming to this open session. It was much more lively and engaging than our closed sessions are when we're sandwiched in a little room without you. Okay. So, now we're going to move on to our open session and we're going to start with um a moment of silence and a pledge. I forgot. Erica,

would you please lead us in the pledge of allegiance after a moment of silence? Please stand for a pledge of allegiance. After the moment of silence. To the flag of the 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, Erica, for being a good sport. Okay. Uh, special presentations. Do we have the mental health proclamation? I haven't seen it. Is anyone here to receive the mental health proclamation? Why don't we uh postpone that to the next meeting? The building safety month proclamation. Ishmael, are you going to receive that? Is anyone here to receive that? No, they're only on Zoom now. So Oh, they're on Zoom. Yes. Okay, let's do that one. Our uh chief building official, Bill, is online for that one. I am here.

Public works. Brian, is that you? No. Yeah. Commission, can you offer that? Sure, please.

All right. Want to get started by reading a building safety month proclamation. Whereas the city uh is committed to recognizing that the growth and strength depend on safety and essential role. Our homes, buildings and infrastructure play both in everyday life and when disasters strike. And whereas confidence in the resilience of these buildings make up our community that make up our communities achieved through devotion and vigilant guardians. Whereas these guardians are dedicated members of the international code council, a nonprofit that brings together local, state, territorial, tribal, and federal officials who are experts in the built environment. These modern building codes and standards include safeguards that protect the public from hazards such as hurricanes, snows, storms, tornadoes, wildland fires, floods, and earthquakes. Building safety month is sponsored by ICC to remind the public about the critical role of our community's largely unknown protectors of public safety. Our code officials who assure us safe, sustainable, and affordable buildings that are essential to our prosperity. Whereas built to last, the theme for building safety month of 2026 encourages all to get involved and raise awareness about building safety on a personal, local, and global scale. Each year, in observance of building safety month, people all over the world are asked to consider the commitment to building safety, resilience, and economic investment at home, in the community, and acknowledge the essential service provided by all the state, local, and tribal, territorial, federal uh building safety, and fire prevention departments in protecting lives and property. Now therefore, be it resolved that the city of Marina Council do hereby claim the month of May 2026 as building safety month. Accordingly, I encourage our citizens to enjoy as we participate in building safety month activities. And I abbreviated that just for everybody's business uh benefit. But

thank you. There's no one here to accept this, I don't believe. No bill online. Bill online. I'm on Zoom. Can you hear me? Bill, if you like to say a few words. Yeah,

sure. I'll I'll keep it brief. And uh thank you, Mr. McCarthy for abbreviating that and reading that. Uh Mayor Delgado, members of the city council, city manager, colleagues, community members, good evening. Uh I am your chief building official Bill Morates. I'm in our state capital actually this evening both in reality and virtually as well. Um and ahead of meetings with state legislators tomorrow where I will be advocating for building safety measures across our great state of California. Uh the city of Marina's mission is rooted in protecting our natural setting while fostering safe, balanced, and thriving community. Tonight's proclamation recognizes May uh 2026 as building safety month and directly reflects that mission. Uh building safety is fundamental to creating safe environment, supporting economic viability, and ensuring the long-term resilience of our homes, businesses, and infrastructure. And this proclamation also acknowledges the dedicated professionals and in particular the outstanding city staff including administrative assistants, permit technicians, building inspectors, and code enforcement personnel who I'm very proud of who work year round to safeguard our community and uphold the values Marine is committed to as it continues to grow. Uh with that, I uh appreciate you reading the proclamation and uh have a good evening.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Bill. We really appreciate your presentation tonight, your presence tonight. And thank you, Brian.

Now, we're going to go to

We're going to go council and staff announcements. Staff, do you have any that you'd like to share with us tonight? All right, council, any announcements, council member. Thank you, mayor. I um have my vote by mail sticker on and just want to encourage um all the residents to vote. Even though it doesn't seem like a very uh exciting election, um there are some important um positions that we will be voting for as far as assembly, um our superintendent of schools for Monterey County, um and the California governor and the superintendent of schools for the state of California. So, um, please vote. We have a an official ballot box, Miss Anita. Do we have one in front of the community center? Yes. So, look for the flag. Look for the Monterey County um office of elections flag and you can drop your um ballot safely in there. Thank you.

Thank you, Jenny. Okay, let's move to public comment. Anything on our consent agend agenda? Please comment on that if you wish. and anything else that's on your mind that's not on the remainder of tonight's agenda. If you'd like to speak, please, we'll start with the people in this room. I'm wondering why you're here. Now I get to find out.

Hello. Um, thank you all. Uh, my name is Ryan Trundle. I am on the executive committee of your local Sierra Club chapter, Ventana. Um, also fourth generation from the area. My family moved here in 1920. So, we've seen a lot of changes. Um, Sierra Club, we support uh diversity, equity, inclusion, and getting people outside, which is why we have pledged $100,000 for the Asian-American Gardens and are very excited about helping with the project. Um, let's see here. So, I guess it's been more than two years and 16 meetings and people from Carmel, Carmel Valley, Marina, everywhere have come to support this. I'm not sure what's taking so long. um talking about plot 43. This old farmland is not old growth redwoods that we're going to cut down to, you know, make a parking lot. We're turning some plot of land into something beautiful. Um I already playground, a statue, a library there, of course. Um, and the original plan for this wasn't to keep Lock Patent Park uh behind a glass case. It's to people get out and enjoy it, which was that would do. Um, let's see. We can absolutely protect our nature and restore the park without turning our backs on the garden that celebrates the very hands that helped build this community. executive committee of the Sierra Club Bentana chapter supports this because it's the right thing to do for our divi diverse community. Uh to be honest, the delays and hoops that

have been asked to jump through for this uh starting to feel a bit like a cold shoulder and we don't need need more research or outreach. The people have already spoken about this for a couple years now and it's time to get something done. So, we're asking you all to uh expedite this and let it get on its way since it's already approved and funded by you all, too. That's all I've got. Thank you all.

Thank you very much, Ryan. Anyone else present that would like to speak to public comment? Let's go online. We have one hand up so far and that is uh Denise Turley. Welcome Denise. Hi. So, are we going to have public comment at the rules change or do I need to comment now?

Consent is time for now. It's now to now is the time for consent items. Thank you. Um the Zoom the the Zoom crash couldn't have happened at a better time. Huh. So besides Zoom crash and you know there is a hybrid between Roberts and um Roberts and uh the other set of rules. Um anyway, uh I I'd like to actually see more discussion before you actually vote to go one way or another. Um public needs to be educated on it.

Excuse me, Denise. Um this is for consent and that's an action item number 13D that you're commenting on. That's what I asked and you said consent. Yeah. So that's right. So anything that's not consent, you can comment on. anything anything that's not consent. Um I will talk to you later. Bye. All right. Thank you. Anyone else online that would like to comment on consent or other items on the agenda? Let's go to Greg Fury. Welcome back, Greg.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Listen, um about a year and a half ago, I think it was, we had a meeting over at the um the hotel over there, Harvey's Casino. I can't remember what it's called. Spring Hill Marriott. And um there were three members present. The mayor was there, council member Viser and council member McCarthy were there and we were talking about money and how to improve services, etc., etc. And one of the issues I brought up, I really thought that maybe somebody had listened. I know Council Member Viser said we should go to a budget meeting. I'm thinking, you know, you guys are getting $2,000 a month. You guys are the experts now. But the ideas are what I wanted to present and I still want to present two things. One is you really ought to look at consolidating your fire services. If you want to look at a study, look at the Rose study. It's probably 30 years old, maybe 35 from Claremont College. I feel it's absolutely idiotic to have individual little departments all over scattered all over North County here. The cost and the cost savings you would realize if you looked at streamlining some of those things, I think you would be impressed by if you did an analysis and had a couple of council members involved in that. That's number one. Take a look at Calire. Take a look at what Monterey has done. Take a look at anything you can that would give you a good model. I came before I promoted up here. I came from Riverside. When I left there, there were about 100 fire stations, 34 cities. LA County has a very similar model. On every engine in that county in Riverside County, CalFire staff, there was a paramedic. We don't have paramedics on the engines in Marina. I still don't understand why. I'll give you an example. Pebble Beach Calire staff 3,500 people paramedic on the engine. Paramedic on two engines because there's two stations that service it. That's two engines. Carmel city of and valley have transport am. They've had paramedics quite a long time. After Cal Fire staff with

paramedics, Pacific Grove and Monterey followed. Monteray's got six stations, 2,800 people. We have 2400 24,000. We had they had 28,000. PG has 14,000. They have one and a half paramedics, you might say. Cypress Fire Protection, the unincorporated area around Carmel. CalFire staff, 7,600 people, paramedics. Carmel Highlands, CalFire staff, 3,000 people, paramedic. You have one paramedic on a transport ambulance that is run by a private company that is for-profit. You cannot control how quickly they will backstaff into a situation when that paramedic goes goes to the hospital. I've talked to several old colleagues. I've been required quite a while and I asked them in your service current and past how what's the critical difference between having a paramedic there with 1400 hours of training versus an EMT with 170 not to medic not to not to diss EMTs they said 5 to 10% of the time it's lifesaving life saving. How important is this? I think it's critical for this community. Thank you.

Thank you Greg. Good discussion. We encourage you to meet with our current fire chief and we're hiring a new one soon to get on her plate or his plate as soon as possible with your ideas. Okay. Anyone else online would like to comment? Please raise your hand before we close public comment. All right. Thank you everyone for commenting. Um I didn't have any questions that I noted. Did any other council members note any questions or staff that I missed? All right. Let's move then to our consent agenda. Does any staff member wish to pull anything for deep discussion or have brief questions, comments? Let's go to council member McCarthy.

This probably should be evident, but I I want to say it for the record. I think the only consent agenda item is this police vehicle purchase, but after it keeps using the word term lease at 12,000 mi a year, $113,000, but after a year for $13,000, we own the vehicle, right? It's ours. Okay, that was my only clarifying question. Good. And this is a good uh example of how I can help make meetings shorter by asking the question I'm about to ask offline instead of taking everyone's time. So all of the questions we ask that we could ask ahead of time saves us time. Uh so if we want to shorten our meetings, don't do what I'm about to do. Um is this covered? The money we're spending on these vehicles, is that coming out of the vehicle set aside reserve? Yes, 100%.

Okay. So, it's really a good program where every time we sell and sell sell we buy a vehicle, we start putting money every year to replace it when it's going to be time. And so, here we are replacing two vehicles. Doesn't cost us a lot of money because we've been adding we've been in we've been saving up for it and now we're going to spend it. I make a motion to accept the consent agenda. Second. Uh, all in favor to accept the consent agenda, please say I. I. All right. Thank you staff for putting that consent agenda together. And we'll move on to um public hearing regarding short-term rentals. Who's going to channel and I will energy. Excuse myself from this item but participate as my own interest.

Okay. Guido is going to spirit his own energy. Hello Guido. Welcome. Good evening. Good evening. Trying to get the slideshow started. Um, can you hear me? Yes, loud and clear.

Okay, so uh third time's a charm hopefully. Uh, really just made some really small clarifying edits to the ordinance based on the last couple uh meetings. Uh, we clarified the ADU property carveout. Basically, the comm the council reinserted the planning commission's recommendation allowing property owners to obtain an STR permit if the ADU was built prior to 2020. And we just further clarified the definition of one family to allow ADU uh STRs within the properties that have one family. So, that really is it for today. Uh Rene has been very instrumental in helping to get these final edits. He did a deep dive into some of the ADU laws. So I would ask if the council has super clarifying questions to ask him those directly and just appreciate the city attorney's assistance. Uh and that concludes my very brief presentation.

Thank you Guido for all your work on this and that your team that's helped you. Let's go to public comment first with those in the room. Anyone with comments, please come back. Good evening, Sean. I thought we might have covered what you wanted, but we'll find out

mostly. Um, yeah. So, um, hello, my name is Sean McDonald, and, uh, thank you for that. Yeah, I think that is largely covering. Um, uh, I'm a Marina resident and short-term rental permit holder. As noted previously, I took part in the process of forming the current ordinance in 2019. At that time, I made clear the specific situation to city council and city staff and also made clear that we were compliant with the new ordinance as it was created. We have an ADU that was permitted in 2019 and this was part of the property that where I make my home. Um, we we run out the main home throughout the year and the ADU is vacant vacated to rent to travelers for part of the year when the travel is heavier. In 2019, the council put into motion a process that we depend on for our income. Uh, I fully support efforts by the proposed ordinance to make it more challenging for non-residents to try to rent their marine homes as an STR. However, I would ask the council to consider making a few small changes that would make a significant difference to those of us as Marina residents that have been following the rules all along. The changes I would propose um are for the STR permit holders with an ADU permitted prior to 2020 as noted here. Um to al to also be able to rent the the main home and ADU both concurrently and at separate times, also not be limited to the 180day limit. Um making these changes to the proposed ordinance would align them with what was allowed and made clear during the process of creating the current ordinance back in 2019 and not harm permit holders who have followed the rules from the beginning. The timing of the proposed changes of the ESTAR ordinance has been especially stressful for our family. Over the last 15 months between our two kids, they have been admitted to hospital four times. While while we have an appeal in process as of this afternoon, we are still awaiting finalization of hospital charges in excess of $68,000 for just one of those emergency admissions to an out of uh out of network hospital. This doesn't include hospital charges nor ambulance fees for a transfer to Stanford uh that are either waiting to be build or not build yet. Fortunately, our kids are doing well now and after seeking the

services they they needed. However, financially we are unsure of where we stand. I would ask that you allow us and other Marina residents in our situation to continue as we have done over the last seven years. My wife is a military veteran and I am a Peacecore veteran. We spent 15 combined years as educators in Marina. We tried to do the right things and follow the rules. What brought STR ordinance back to the council all these years later was not our actions. Please allow us to maintain the status quo with our home while strengthening enforcement on those not following the rules. Thank you. Thank you Sean for all your engagement through this issue over the years. Would it be okay if I approach with just a handout? Sure. Yeah.

And anyone else in the room that would like to speak to this issue, please come on up. Thank you. Good evening, uh, Mayor Delgado and the members of the city council. Uh, my name is Athena Bersciaga, pronoun shea, and I am a candidate for Marina's Fort City Council District. I'm here tonight to speak on item 11A, the proposed amendments to section 17.42.170 42.170 governing short-term rentals specifically to oppose the carveout that would exempt ADUs approved before January 1st, 2020 from the STR provision. I want to start by saying I support the overall direction of this ordinance. Strengthening Marina's short-term program to protect neighborhood integrity and housing affordability is the right goal. But the pre2020 carveout undermines that goal in a meaningful way for the f neighborhood. First, the neighborhood impact of an Airbnb unit has nothing to do with when it was built. An ADU taken off the long-term rental market in 2018 creates the same housing shortage problem as one taken off the market in 2022. The re the research is clear on this. Peer-reviewed studies from across the country consistently show that short-term rentals reduce long-term housing supply and drives up rent for everyone in the surrounding neighborhood. Drawing the line at 2020 does not change that reality. Second, this carveout would permanently create two classes of neighbor. Those who can operate on STR and those who cannot can operate an STR. based on an arbitrary date. That's a difficult

standard to just the fair justify fairly. The glare is getting in the way. And it will only generate conflict and confusion in our neighborhoods for years to come. Third, I'd note that California state law already drew this line at January 1st, 2020 for a good reason. The state restricted newly approved ADUs from STRU specifically to address the housing affordability crisis. The carveout this council is considering effectively softens a protection that state lawmakers put in place deliberately. Marina should be strengthening that protection, not creating exceptions to it. Finally, if the concern is fairness to long-standing ADU owners, the ordinance already includes a 50 permit cap citywide. That cap provides a natural built-in way to accommodate some of those owners without writing a permanent exemption into law. I urge the council to remove the pre2020 carveout and apply the ADU prohibition uniformly. A clean, consistent rule is easier to enforce, fair to all residents, and most closely aligns with the goals this ordinance is trying to achieve. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, Athena, and best wishes with your campaign. Mayor uh city council Brian McCarthy, resident of Marina, uh speaking as to my own interest. Um didn't really plan to talk, but I I think the previous speaker has some really good points um that really should be considered. Um but at the same time, there uh you know, I used the word kind of offramp at the last meeting. I think of um families who are impacted literally almost overnight um uh by your action tonight. And so I just think that whatever action you take should be methodical, should consider um uh you know people's I guess in individual circumstances. Um and at the same time, I think there's a couple really interesting points. One, remember that short-term rentals apply to college kids that might have their friends stay with them for two weeks um for $50, even for the two weeks, right? That's a short-term rental. So, some of the implications are more broad than we might um uh really generally think about. Um this is the fourth time I think that you guys are hearing this. You know, it'd be nice to kind of move on and and I think that you've you and the planning commission have really been thoughtful about how to implement some provisions that make enforcement a lot easier. Um which was the the primary initial concern. Um, so yeah, I would just urge you to to um move on and not draw it out longer, but at the same time think about offramps maybe in the future if if legislatively you think that it presents a housing um uh problem. What I will say is that remember that developers who built these ADUs prior to 2020 did so without a carrot, right? they did so on their own dime and uh did so to provide

extra housing stock when they didn't get the incentive right of of the the ADU laws and so there is kind of that distinction um and I think that perhaps those builders that took that risk um you know shouldn't be hit with that stic stick sorry when they um didn't get the carrot and I I think I said that in my letter that I presented to you last week so thank Thank you very much, Brian. Anyone else in public in person that wants to speak? We'll go online. Anybody online that would like to speak, please raise your hand. Not seeing any hands. We'll close public comment and come back to council. Beginning with council member McAdams.

Thank you, mayor. I just um I wanted to ask staff um and I think I asked the last time. Hi Guido. Thank you. So staff knows exactly how many of these ADUs exist in the city of Marina that were built before 2020. It's like a small number, right? Yeah. I mean I don't have the exact number. It's a small number though. So like less than 10. Uh, it's probably more than 10 because we've we've done quite a few since 2020. I I mean, yeah, I mean it's 10 to 12.

Okay. But for enforcement purposes, you do have a list of these specific addresses of the one that were built prior to the state. Is that correct? Uh, we have not generated that list yet. Uh, but we can certainly come up with that list. So, okay. And then do any of these that have short-term rental licenses, are they going to sort of sunset themselves out because of the zone of exclusion? Like are they densed in one area? Does that make sense?

Um I think there were a couple that when the zone of exclusion takes effect 15 months from now, there will be a couple, but a majority of them will be okay. I see Marissa raised her hand. Um, okay. And then, you know, I think for me, I mean, I I agree um with what the member of the public said, like ADUs are specifically built to sort of provide opportunities for renters, right? And so I mean this work has taken a long time and I'm grateful to where we are, right? And sometimes you have to sort of hold your nose on on one issue or whatever. And I you know I get the majority of the council wants to to go this way. Um, but I just I do have concerns that it will be confusing for someone who has an ADU and maybe they know someone who's renting out their ADU and doesn't understand, well, how come, you know, mine was built this day? I don't know. It just it does seem it does seem hypocritical. However, like if if that's how we're going to get these other um improvements to the policy um which for me are more meaningful, then I'm I'm happy to um to move to accept this as is.

Thank you, Jenny. If there's anything you don't like, this is our last chance to make a motion. I know. I'm happy to move for approval, though, because I mean, we've just worked so hard to get to where we are, and it's just time. I I I Okay. Yeah. Thank you, mayor. All right. Thank you. Let's go to Council Member Mayor Patam Viser.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you for the public who spoke, and it's heartbreaking to hear uh the story. So, I'm glad to hear that the children are doing better. Um just another um one more remark. It's not an arbitrary date. The date was when the ADU law became in uh in in effect. So, anybody who built after that, they did have the incentives. They did have the now they have the pre-approved plans. And I agree, we we need housing. We we need housing, but we also need to be fair for the people who built their ADUs thinking that they could rent them out as short-term rentals. So, it's a give and take. So, thank you for making the motion.

All right. Thank you. And, uh, Marissa Huntley, we were trying to give you an opportunity. Did you have input tonight? No, thank you. Okay. Thank you, Marissa.

Okay. So, I'm not hearing any suggestions to change away from the recommendation. We've had the public hearing. Thanks to everyone who spoke. Uh, shout out to Sean for again and again. Are you still here, Sean? Thank you. um as it is tonight, you're not going to get it doesn't look like these additional changes and um the additional changes you ask for are because you're built your ADU prior to 2020, you would like to get a further change to that would address your pre2020 that you could rent your main home and your ADU at the same time. and at separate times. And that you not be limited to 180day, which to me means you could have um parties renting your, you know, external families, visitors, guests renting your property 360 days a year, right? I shouldn't be asking. I'm sorry. Yeah. And I think that the 100 day limit was expressly uh trying to ensure that people will be living in their home for 180 days. Um, and so I guess I'll ask Guido, how Guido, can a family be a primary residence and rent out their property more than 180 days? Is it that they will live in one or they will live in one of those units at least 6 months of the year, but more than 6 months of the year, at least one of those units could be rented to uh private parties.

Is that what we're talking about here?

I I'm not I'm not really I mean, the 180day rule comes from the county assessor. Um, we're trying to balance supporting STR permit holders while also the whole intent of this process going back to the August 6 meeting with the council was the direction from the full council was to find ways to strengthen the ordinance to protect neighborhoods in the marina. Um, and so the 180 days was something we grabbed from other cities um that you have to prove you live in the property. Um, and so it seemed like a very objective, clear way to meet the council objectives while also strengthening the ordinance.

Okay. So, it's my understanding that if I own a property and I I I understand I know Thank you, Quidito. Thank you. I'm just going to go on with comments. I appreciate trying to understand what I'm getting at.

Um, but if I own a property that was built with an ADU, the ADU was built prior to 2020. I could move between the ADU with my family and the main house back and forth. More than six months out of the year, I could be on the premises and during the entire year, one of those could be rented because I'd still be there, but I could rent the other unit. That's the only way that you could be a primary resident for 6 months on site and rent for more than 180 days. because he's asking to not be limited to 180day limit. How could you be primary resident if you're renting out your property more than 180 days in a year? It'd be because you're still living on part of it for 6 months.

But you can't get two licenses. Like those are separate licenses and they would be within the zone of exclusion. So they both cannot be licensed. Yeah. The one license doesn't you can't just move your license to whatever property you want. I think the carveout, if we approve it, would allow that to happen. Well, I have a motion as is. I'm waiting for a second. I didn't hear that. I'm sorry. That's okay. Okay. So, there's a motion on the floor to uh having opened the hearing and and closed it to adopt uh the ordinance before us that has those two changes to it. No. No. What? No changes.

Just as is in the packet. Well, I thought the Okay. So I thought the ordinance had been modified with two edits. Yes. It's the ordinance as edited with which includes those two changes. Yes. Yes. So um the ordinance we have in front of us is brand new in that it has two changes to it since the last time we saw it. Yes. My motion is to approve as is in the packet.

Okay. And is uh we're going to have a roll call in a minute. Is there a second? All seconds. Okay. So for discussion, um I don't understand unless I can live on my property by moving into the ADU in the main unit while renting out more than 18 days at the same time I'm doing that. Yeah, if I can explain. So under the current as the way it's drafted, you wouldn't be able to do that. So he's asking for there to be a further modification that would allow him to do that because as was stated only one STR license per property or per parcel. So that would mean he would need two in this instance,

right? So you couldn't do that. So he's going to have to decide, am I going to rent out my primary residence, I mean my big house or the little unit because he can only do one and he wants to be able to Okay. And there's about 10 approximately there's approximately 10 ADUs. There's about 10 20 pre2020 situations that this would affect. We don't know the number, right? Staff doesn't know the number. So I wouldn't be quoting numbers. All right. So let's go to a roll call vote, please. Council member McAdams. Hi. Council member Viala,

yes. Mayor Pertim Fischer, yes. Mayor Delgado, no. Okay. Thank you everyone. That motion passes 3 to one with C Mayor Delgado desenting. And thank you again to staff and all the public uh for being involved in this long process before we got there tonight. We're moving on to our first action item regarding the Asian-American Garden request for proposal uh issue. And who's going to lead that for us? I will lead that one. Mayor,

city manager Lane Long brief. I think we've we've discussed a lot of this. Um, in talking with the the park district, um, what they've requested is to help them make a decision on the sequel impacts of that of the Asian-American garden. And so to help them make a decision on that, we need to um hire an architect um that would has experience in designing. and uh that helps also to move the Asian garden uh project forward which is one of the priority council projects. So this is u being consistent with the council's priority project. Uh next slide. I think we probably um what we have in in the budget right now is $100,000 for pond um maintenance which would go to the wetlands. Um, we have 250,000 allocated for the Asian-American Gardens, which is council approves this, and they won't take the won't take the full 250,000, but there is money um to do this. Next slide. Um, we we're modeling it after the um the Shinsen Gardens in Fresno, the um garden. It's about an acre garden and um we've had lots of site visits from everyone as you heard the Sierra Club um supports the project and they as they mentioned today they have $100,000 so they'll also contribute to the project. Next next slide. Um we've had a lot of community meetings about this um so I won't go into detail

there. Um uh but we've had an awful lot. Next slide. Um what we've talked about earlier is kind of a two-prong process. So I'm not going to go into detail here. We've gotten direction from uh council earlier today on that. Um and so we're going to continue to work with the uh park district on the wetlands part and we got direction on the uplands part from from the council. Next slide. Um, this would just, as I mentioned earlier, this would give us the detail that we need to understand the sequence for the project. This would give the park district the details that they need. And so, we think this is a win-win win-win to uh continue to move the project forward. Next slide. Um, it just as I mentioned earlier, it covers the goals of the general plan of the council's priorities. And I think that's the last slide. So request um uh support

to um hire put on an RFP to hire an architect. And at that point, we'll bring it back to council for approval. Okay, let's go to the public, starting with those in person. Come on up if you'd wish to comment on this. Sorry, I'm a little vertically challenged. Hi, good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Sophia Rome and I'm here as a longtime resident Korean-American that grew up right here in Monterey County. My mom worked in ford at the mess hall. So I spent a lot of time um visiting and eating here in Marina. Um so it has a special place in my heart. Um while I'm here as a resident, I do want to share a little bit about my professional background because I think it um leans into um why I understand how complex these types of initiatives can be and and that perspective that I bring. So I do work with the city of Selenus. I'm also a board member with the International Network of Asian Public Administrators and a board member with Unidos NorCal. Um, so in in that sense, I understand how challenging some of these things can be, but I also understand the importance of building a foundation of equity and a foundation of of true representation in these types of um community projects. uh the city of Selenus we went through um while while the the situation wasn't exactly the same but um we did have the Car Lake project which was um we we got to the end result through true partnership it took a lot of years and a lot of discussion but um but we were able to get there almost 70 70 acre park asset um and now we have a beautiful um public park space um for our residents that's representative of Selena's um and it was um built and designed in in the right way. Um so with all of that, what what I wanted to to touch on

this evening is the importance of with the RFP ensuring that that whoever is selected and and the evaluation process that it is somebody that truly understands um what an Asian American garden should look like and what what each element uh truly represents. There's meanings behind each picture and each element. Um, there was recently a Korean food influencer that was out on the peninsula. Um, has over 7 million followers on Facebook and Instagram and he didn't go any further than uh Carmel and Monteray. And I think that's unfortunate because of how many Korean food assets we have here here. Um, so there's an opportunity. I think this also this park asset not only benefits local residents um but it also benefits us in in the sense of potential for tourism tours that come through um Marina in order to get out to the peninsula. But um the tourists will stop if it's built and designed in the right way if it is truly representative. Um and then just um really quickly on the um on the conversation around the public safety when you have a public space that is beautifully designed that is well lit that is um well used that's all part of SEPTA the um crime prevention through environmental design. When we have beautiful representative spaces that our community loves and that are wellmaintained um that in and of itself will help reduce crime. So, I'm in support of the RFP and hope that um to continue following this process.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Sophia.

Back again. Good evening, Mayor City Council. My name is Steve Lee and I'm resident of Marina. Uh I spoke in a special meeting early this evening, so I won't repeat my comments from then. Uh, I just urge you to issue this RFP for the design of the Asian-American Botanical Garden so that the city can do its part to move along the process with the park district. Lock Pattern Park is mostly owned by the park district. They have neglected this park for decades and relied on the city and countless individuals and volunteer groups to maintain it as best they can. Over the years, these efforts must be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to the park district. But still many in the community consider this a neglected, overgrown and unsafe space. Now there is a proposal to create a beautiful Asian inspired garden on one and a half acres of former agricultural land. This will be adjacent to the now established oak woodland community garden. This proposal is supported by a wide range of environmental and conservation groups along with the Asian community, not just of Marina but the wider Monterey County. The park district has at last confirmed that there are no deed restrictions that prevent such use on its parcel. The pro this project will comply with the open space and passive use of the lot as defined in the draft local coastal plan. So please issue the RFP to continue the public process of designing this this garden and ultimately start the squa process. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. Grace Silva Santella. Uh, it saddens me that people think that there are some of us who want to squash this project and that is the furthest from the truth. All of us want this project to succeed. But many of us are concerned that Lock

Padden Park is not the right location for a project that has plant material as environmentally sensitive as an Asian themed garden will be found in. So, one question I have is, is this RFP limited strictly to Lo Pad and Wetland Park site or are other sites in Marina considered for this Asian hybrid botanical garden? The city manager spoke of some sites earlier this evening. He mentioned Vince Deaggio Park. It has since been learned that Vince Deaggio Park has deed restrictions that will prevent some projects that the city was hoping to do at Vince Deagio Park. And therefore, I think Vince Deaggio Park could provide some better environmental protections for especially from the wind for a successful Asian garden project. And I would also suggest that if the city moves forward with a fi future city hall site at the reservation road lot by the MST transit center, I think an Asian themed garden at the entrance to a new city hall would be uh fantastic. So my question is, is there another site in Marina that would be more hospitable to the plants traditionally found in an Asian themed garden? Japanese maples, aelas, podacarpus, magnolia, ginkos, ferns, and would allow better protection from the wind. Lo paddent park is one of the harshest, most difficult growing environments. Um, if Loch Paden Park is the only location, I would suggest that the landscape architects should have a resume that shows successful projects that are

thriving in environment similar to Lo Padden Wetland Park. And that would be wind, sandy soil, existing cypress fruits, plant damage from rodents such as gophers and squirrels, installation of water and electrical in an environmentally sensitive habitat, and any other issues that are really unique to Loaden Wetland Park. If limited to Loch Paden Park, then I would suggest that each landscape architect should have background in designing with California native plants that can replicate an Asian garden aesthetic. Ray and I were recently in a Japanese garden within the botanical garden in Rome, Italy. It was serene.

I'm sorry, Grace. I have to ask you to stop. Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else with in person who'd like to speak this? Okay, let's go to those online. Anyone online that would like to speak to this, please raise your hand. Okay, we'll close public comment. And Grace asked, uh, "Is tonight's RFP proposal limited to Lo Patton or are other sites potentially could they potentially receive whatever this design comes up with? Be the site."

Well, the design is looking specifically at this site to appropriately uh design it. Um, it is for this site. It doesn't mean um that down the road if if this site ended up didn't work out that there's elements that potentially could be looked at other sites, but it um to do the appropriate work, it has to be focused on this site. His other question that I noted was that is there any other site that's more hospitable in Marina um than Lo Patton for the proposed Asian-American garden? I I definitely can't answer that other than everywhere I go in Marina, they say it's harsh, the wind blows, every neighborhood, they say the same thing. Okay. All right. And we we're free to discuss that later, but I just wanted to get your response to the question. Any other questions that I may not have noted, others did. Okay. All right. Thank you to everyone who's commented on that. Um, and now we'll go to council member

Mattis. Okay. Thank you, mayor. Um, I'm wondering when we get towards a motion, um, can we also include the food forest and the sensory garden for RFP because I mean just with the discussion that we had earlier, it's clear that the parks district is wanting more information. So when we get to action, is that something that we can include? City manager or city attorney? I think a city attorney.

So certainly I think this item is flexible enough. We're going to come back uh anyway. It's not a contract we're approving or anything like that. So it is direction to move forward with an RFP. I think you can include that. the RFP and any contract will come back to council for approval.

Okay, perfect. Um, you know, and also for me with this since we're really exploring all of the options, I would want to, you know, include alternative sites by the professionals. I'm not sure who went out and said no, yes, no, yes, and or how long ago that was. Um, but I mean I I don't know why that wouldn't be um is that something else that we could include in the in the RFP request is to to provide alternative sites or at least have the um design and the scope of work be amaniable andor movable. Again, similar to the last response, you can include that in your direction. The agreement with the consultant will come back for approval to council.

Okay. So, okay. And then I think also too, I I just want to make sure because we do have 250,000 allocated for the Asian-American garden. I wouldn't want I would want to make sure that we're very we're not mixing funds with anything. That that's correct. Okay. Perfect. Great. Thank you. Those are all the questions I have. Council member, thank you, Jenny. Council member McCarthy.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, so I'll start by at risk of sounding like a broken record, just repeating how wildly supportive I am of an Asian garden. Um, well, I won't go there. Very excited and supportive of an Asian garden. I am struggling with one thing. This is a little unusual, but I'm going to ask every council member. Um, obviously you don't have to, but I'm going to ask if you'd be willing to respond to this question. Um, and that is when I asked about the preservation of ex existing Cyprus, the council said no because they're non-native. When I asked about the food forest, it was non-native. I was told, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, only native except for my food forests. That's okay." The council said no to Cypress, which are about as native as they get in this area. When I asked about the community garden and the non-native food products in there, I thought, "Oh yeah, native native native native." Except for this project because I like it, you know. And now here we are talking about a project that is likely to have a lot of non-native species. I mean, quite frankly, even oaks are are not likely, in my opinion, native to that area, right? In in pre-uropean times, they didn't have city lines, but oaks probably never grew there, right? There's no fossil record of oaks there. So my question, if you're willing to entertain it, is how do you expect me to support this in this location when I've so passionately advocated for the cypress that I believe are so beautiful that provides such that typical negative Asian garden type negative space and you've consistently told me no. You've consistently said that it's not appropriate and they're not native and that they shouldn't be there. So, I'm just hoping you can kind of bring me along, walk me through that that thought process of how you want me to support

this when you've told me the exact opposite over the last six months in terms of non-native species. Thank you, mayor. All right. I I appreciate your comments. And although cypresses according to our local coastal program and other experts are not native to Marina like they are to Monterey, PG Carmel, they're not native to Seaside, they're not native to Ford or so. So they're removed on Fort. Um this council has always said yes to Cyprus. Our local coastal program about a month and a half ago gives Cypress trees the same protections as oak trees. And that's one way to say yes. Our mayor prom has fought over the last couple of months to to keep a couple of cypress trees from getting cut down at a dunes park because that dunes park may not see construction for many years. And so she didn't want to see those cypress trees or a eucalyptus tree next to him because they were healthy and and happy trees. I urged this council and I pleaded with this council to protect cypress trees in phase three of the dunes construction project where all 273 trees were being approved to be cut down and removed, most of which were cyprress. And I was saying, "Come on, let's inventory every one of those trees, the ones that can be pulled out of the ground, set aside, put back after the homes are built. Let's do that. It's more expensive for the developer, but it's better for our environment and better for our our our community. That was saying yes to cypress trees. Another time we said yes to cypress trees was your suggestion that we include in a motion that we have 50 landmark cypress trees, each honor

for one of our 50 states. This council unanimously approved that. Our tree ordinance protects cypress trees like every other tree. If it's on commercial property or on city property, we don't just cut down cypress trees. We don't just cut down eucalyptus. We don't just cut down oaks. We have a tree ordinance to protect those. Another way we say yes to cypress trees is every single time we have a planting project, it's a 3:1 replacement or a 9:1 replacement or 6:1 replacement depending on the specific circumstances under which a cypress tree has to be removed. More cypress trees have to be planted. Immigen Parkway $41 million project just got planted with a lot of cypress trees that came through this city council. We approved those cypress trees. We just finished planting cypress trees last week at M Deaggio Park. Didn't come to this council, but it went through me. It went through a landscape architect. It went through Ishmael. We said yes to cypress trees. At Lock Patent Park, we are not proposing to remove any cypress trees, and they are a dominant feature at Lock Patent Park. We have $500,000 set aside for tree maintenance, primarily cypress trees, almost 100%. That is saying yes to keeping them healthy and safe. So, we realize that cypress trees can be iconic. We realize that birds nest in them, that raptors, birds of prey nest in them. We realize they have value while not being native. But we're not against all non-natives in all situations. And we're not against Cypress in all situations. I can't remember a time when we said no to Cypress. So maybe when it's when you have the floor again, you can remind us of when we said no to Cypress because I don't want to say no to Cypress just because they're non-native. if they're not appropriate like at Lo Patton Park in some places they are destroying the value of habitat for the rare species in the mitigation area there is death under

those cypresses the Monterey spine flower which is the mitigation focus of the mitigation area moves right up to the drip line and stops and all the other native plants that have been there for hundreds of years stop where they meet the drip line of the cyprress. So that cypress is killing the values for which the mitigation area legally has been set aside to protect. But nobody's talking about doing anything but keeping those trees healthy. So there's a direct conflict there between the stated values of Loch Paden Park and the Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act and what those cypress are doing. Still nobody is saying no to those Cypress. So I think that we're supporting Cypress in many places and I can't think of a place that we haven't supported Cypress, but you may know better than I and I'd like to hear that. Um uh I think I've talked for five minutes so I'll come back to the the project that we're talking about tonight. Um council member or mayor Pertam Fisher.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well, I'm almost as passionate about cyber streets as you are. So,

I do have a painting here, my my my artwork hanging in my home of one of the trees that we saved. And uh just for the public or anybody and my my fellow council members, it pays to open your emails if you get an email that there is an an emergency or special meeting from the tree committee, open it, read it, try to show up. Always dinner time. But anyway, um so yeah, we were able um or I was able just me and with a little a little bit of support from Grace who um has also sent an email, but it was just one person to prevent two cypress trees and one eucalyptus tree from not being uh removed at this point and hopefully not for a long time. So uh um but yeah I would um so council McAdams suggested to include the food forest and the sensory garden in the RFP. I think that's a totally different kind of architect we need for that because um like one of the speakers already asked you know make sure you choose an architect landscape architect who specializes in Asian gardens. So I and also you also mentioned let's not mix up the $250,000 that's allocated for the garden. I think we should keep it separate. Just let this move forward and do those other little projects as they're called on their own track. So that would be that's my suggestion and I'm just in favor of just moving it forward as fast as we can. So thank you.

Thank you Mr. Mayor. So, I just want to add on the um Oh, it says it says tours. So, all I'm sorry, I just saw all of these list of things. These aren't the supporters either. Tours. Those are the people that went out on that the tour. It's not inclusive.

Okay. Right. Sorry. All right. Um so, just um the RFP basically has been asked for by MPD. uh a former board member of um the MPRPD um requested a a concept design of the Asian-American garden and so the city provided that and it was hardly recognized by the MPRPD. No, no comment, no um you know public hearing looking at it or or making a comment. Now they have asked for a more detailed one and so we're going to do that and the way we do it is through an RFP. So we can get a uh competent professional uh person to design it. We had that in the past also. But uh the concept design which was presented was the kind of concept design that I know was offered uh at the um Shinszen garden, the ume garden because I have the original of that. So it's not it's a it's an overall concept design. That's not what you initially ask for. you don't ask for a complete detailed of where the rocks are, blah blah blah. But anyway, so we're going to comply with that. That is by the request um by MPRPD. And when we ask for an alternative site, um in my eyes, the 2005 park lock pad and park master plan called for such things as a meandering stream. They they said that an observation deck, bridges over streams. Um, you know, and when you look at the property, it it's really weed infested. Um, it's right next to the MLK statue and the oak woodland. So, it it speaks of Marina's values in terms of diversity and inclusion. So, why why that has been vetted by our city council? Why are we now suggesting other sites when we

haven't even vetted the one that everybody has wanted? There was uh some kind of a survey both on Facebook and and uh uh next door and the question to the public was do you want the Asian garden in Binsu or Lo Pataden Park? And guess what the well overwhelming majority said in Lo Pataden Park. So we've already vetted it. the survey from maybe likely an opposer turned out to be in favor of lock patent park. So I I think we need to focus and not be directionless by saying well could go here and here and and and and challenge you know a a a consultant to figure that out. we want to know if this site can work and let's let's go ahead with the RFP focused on uh one location. And um um going back to council member um McCarthy's uh question, I I was shocked that you said that because I don't recall us I know that the mayor has a debate about whether a cypress is native or not. But I don't recall any time from the dis that any of us were opposing cypress trees. So, I'm sorry. I I have no recollection of us voting or or or or stating publicly that we don't think cypress trees are appropriate in Marina. So, I I can't help you on that, but I you know, so that's my answer to your question. Thank you, Mr. Mayo.

Council member McCarthy.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, so I don't recall the the 54 Cypress inventory ever passing. If it did pass, there's certainly been no movement on it by staff, although there's been a lot of discussion about the other four projects. So, sometimes actions speak louder than words. I I'd love to go back and and remember if that passed or not. I I don't recall. I don't know if staff does. Um, but my recollection was that it didn't and that there was kind of a lot of silence when we when we went to vote on that. um you know further and I I I don't want to belabor this too much but I know um mayor even at the last meeting I think you talked about how you directed people to pick up and destroy cypress seed seedlings but um allow oak ones to thrive. Um and so that's kind of just another example of just where and and I'm bringing this up because it genuinely confuses me. I before the discussion that I just heard my assumption was that um some on the dis felt that all cypers should be destroyed in lock patent. So I think it would be really good to kind of clarify that and and have a moral basis about how we're going to treat that park and that we don't say oh this is a new project and for this one we're going to do it this way but you know I think there should be a baseline of of of what our objectives are and then we should follow that a little bit more uniformly. Um, and and I should mention that it's not just about cypress, although those are happen to be some that I'm passionate about because of the stark beauty, the same kind of beauty that I think an Asian garden would bring to lock patent. Um, potarpus is another one that the speaker mentioned. And I happen to agree with the speaker that if those things aren't shielded by wind, I mean, if they're used, they will not survive in cabin, which is a bummer because they're beautiful trees that resemble that have all the resemblance of of typical Asian folage. Um, I'm likely to be supportive of the RFP. It sounds like council member Biala just

articulated that the RFP is a step into deciding whether this is feasible or not. I hope that we genuinely go out to a knowledgeable um entity that doesn't have any preconceived notions about whether it should succeed or shouldn't, right? Um, they need to be objective. Um and and uh you know from there I just hope that we uh you know if this passes tonight and I think that it will um but if they say no or that there are serious challenges that we do consider other sites so that we can get this thing off the ground. We've dedicated a lot of money um and you know I I was honestly hoping to be enjoying an Asian garden by this point right and um I I think at the rate that we're going now it's just going to be a really really long road. So, um, I'll just keep my comments at that. Uh, thank you, mayor.

Thank you very much, Brian. Um, we starting in Black Lives Matter, George Floyd Times, we spoke a lot about diversity, equity, inclusion, and we had a um a task force including our fire chief, our police chief, council members, members of the community of all, you know, races, uh, but primarily people of color. and they came up with like 40 different things that we could do to walk the talk. And when you talk about an Asian-American garden or Martin Luther King sculpture garden, um that those walk the talk and not everybody supported the Martin Luther King sculpture garden because it was focused on a slice of our culture here in Marina. But the majority of people supported it and I don't know anyone that doesn't love it, but I'm sure there are people that don't love it. But it's highly loved and it means something to a lot of people. It was a good thing to do. It cost 1.5 million. Um, there were proposals to hide it down by the amphitheater where very few people would see it and it would be more subject to vandalism and fortunately the consensus at the end was to put it in a highly visible place, put some light on it at night. It's not been vandalized, but it's been loved. And it's turned a weedy field into a Martin Luther King sculpture garden that speaks to our values and our culture and our history. The Asian-American garden would do the same. The food forest, I've been told tonight by our city attorney, could be included in this. And so, I just want to speak to food security because not everybody can afford food. That's why they go to the several giveaways that we have every month in Marina and other places. And most people don't grow their own food. When you grow your own food,

you spend less money on food, but people don't know how to grow it. outside of a library where you have books of learning. You now have pollinator gardens that interpret Marina's natural history of local wild flowers that support butterflies, bumblebees, hummingbirds. And you have an Oakwoodland Community Garden that extends the learning inside the library to learning outside the library. And with the Oakwoodland Community Garden, including its food forest, there's lots of growing of food. There's lots of and eating and harvesting. There's lots of propagation of natives and the community garden that has food which is all non-native uh is a gateway to our native plants and vice versa. So people that like native plants get introduced to food growing food that people that like food growing get introduced to native plants and everyone supports native plants at Lo Patton Park District City everybody. And so that oak woodland community garden is doing that. It has 23 fruit trees that were planted in part by NPRPD staff, celebrated in the NPRPD's newsletter, supported by previous NPRPD uh elected officials, but all of a sudden they've run into roadblocks. And so we're dancing through those roadblocks, trying to add to the fruit trees, the original plan of seven other layers of food to show people that in one place you can grow eight layers of food in a guild format. But we're stamied on that temporarily. Hopefully, we'll get through that. But we're talking about using a public park for public purpose, for DEI, food security, loving, and resulting in safe areas that are engaged by our families. There's no better use of a public park. Um, meanwhile, we have a 5acre mitigation area set aside for rare plants that are native. We have the Oakwoodland

Community Garden. It's 100% native marina local plants that are native and we're going to do great things and we're very excited about the wetland restoration. The board meeting on April or uh the in in April 1st, whenever it was 2026, there was excitement about restoring those wetlands. Uh yeah, it's the right thing to do, but it's also really exciting. The board was excited. The their general manager, Rick Morgan, was excited. Of course, the students are excited that their their project is being so well accepted and the the council is excited when we saw the presentation by the students. There's excitement in the air to do what's planned for that wetland restoration project or that wetland uh project. So, I think all of these projects outside the marina library are making the park more beautiful and making it more safe and making it more cared for. And most of that is volunteers, not costing the city hardly anything. That Oakwood Community Garden, the Children's Sensory Garden, the food forest, Asian-American garden, in perpetuity, 90% of it's going to be volunteer funded. Are we here to say no to volunteer efforts that beautify a park that we're screaming to beautify and make more safe? I think this is a chance to say yes to doing something wonderful. Um and I remember when this dis was occupied by elected officials of Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District about two years ago to to a person all five of them said we support the the the Asian-American garden but we don't want to get ahead of ourselves and have to tell you no later get bit in the butt by finding out there's a deed restriction and Kelly Sorenson our elected official sat up on this das and he said representing NPRBD I hope this doesn't take longer than three months to look at the deeds and find out that there are no restrictions or if there are so that we can move ahead with this project. We also Okay,

that was two years ago. We finally got word from the park district a few weeks ago on April 9th. There are no deed restrictions. Why did it take two years for that to be told to the public? I'm not really sure. But that wasn't MPRPD's board's intention when they sat on this dis two years ago. I think it was in May of 2024. Um, and so I don't know what's happened because most of the board members are still there. Um, or at least a majority, but something has happened clearly. And so they're asking for what we're talking about tonight. And I think that it's inside the partnership to deliver what they're asking for so they can move ahead. They said last month, "We're sorry we can't approve something that you haven't designed because we know that you don't want to spend money on the design until we approve it, but that's not how we, the park district, work. You got to design it and then we'll consider it for approval." So, this gives them what their April 9th letter is asking for and what they wanted verbally. They expressed they wanted this uh at their last meeting. Okay. Uh, let's go to Council Member McAdams.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I So, I'm going to I just I feel like there's an opportunity here to further that desire from the parks district. Um, and I think that the motion could be worded in a way where it would be it would be separate RFPs. So, it's not a package. So the specialty landscape architect could bid on the Asian-American and maybe they also want to bid on the child sensory garden or a Do you see what I'm saying? So I think we can word this motion in a way where we will be providing the full package and the full desire to um the parks district. So when we get there um I'm happy to make a friendly amendment or whoever's making the motion um you're sort of hearing what I'm saying. So thank you. Thank you, Counc McCarthy.

Thank you, mayor. I guess first starting with a question to the attorney. I mean, the the food forest RFP is not agenda and apologize if I missed you already addressed this, but would it be more appropriate to bring that piece back on an agenda item or is it okay to to vote to to do that? So, you would be uh adopting the resolution that's presented to you tonight. you would provide be providing direction to come back also uh that that RFP also include um an architecture consultant for the design of the children's sensory garden. Now again, this is not an agreement. It's not a contract. It's not an ordinance. So there's not that, you know, sort of strict parameters uh that you typically have.

So I think it's flexible enough that you could direct staff to do that. This is not a final action. The contract for the consultant will come back to the council.

Okay. Um so quick story and then I'd like to make a motion if council member I would definitely defer if council member Viala would like to make the motion. Not um I'm happy to make it. But I do want to share one of my favorite stories about Marina is that in the 1800s the story goes John Ban and William Lock Pattern had all these acres of land that had absolutely no foilage on it. And in those days what developers did is they would plant something to prove that the land was worth something, right? And so they actually planted these trees in Marina and people came from Monterey and said, "Holy, there's something growing here." Like this land is actually can produce something, right? Like it was so and so unproductive to the growth of of most plant species except for native dune dune scrub, right? Um that people wrote about they thought that the the developers had buried hidden tanks of water underground. They couldn't understand how they were getting stuff to grow. And the reason I bring this up is because there are serious challenges to getting anything to grow here. As the mayor knows, the oak woodland is is not exactly thriving. It's not doing terrible, but after overwatering, right, using way more water than probably should have been used for a for a quasi native species, um those species are are are most of them are living. It's very tough, right? And so if I made a motion, I would just want to clarify that in addition to the adaptation to the soil, wind, all of those things that the RFP asked the planner to make kind of a value statement on what if they believe that this actually stands a chance at surviving, right? Like because we can say we're going to adapt it, right? But that does nothing if it's all dead within two years, right? So I I I want to hear that from the RFP is that whoever we send this out to bid that they provide a professional opinion. Yes, not only is this feasible and we've

adapted it to the soil and all of that, but we also believe that it'll be sustainable and it will it will survive, you know, for years to come. Um, and I'd be happy to make a motion unless Kathy wants to start it off. No, please do. I'll second it.

Okay. I'd like to make a motion that we approve the resolution authorizing staff to issue a RFP for landscape architectural design services for an Asian-American garden at Logatton Park and authorize staff to solicit proposals and return to the council with a recommended consultant and that that RFP include um some more stronger language that the the consultant will make a determination whether the plant material is likely to survive over a 10-year time frame. I I'll second that. And can I make a friendly amendment? Sure.

Then to also include two additional RFPs um for the food forest and the sensory children's garden. So it would be three separate RFPs. Yes. And and in the way the attorney described it, having staff come back to us. Yes. Okay. Yeah. I accept that amendment. Thank you both. Council member Bial.

Yeah, I'd like to also add something. Um, and so so how you worded it almost sounds like you're it's hard for for a landscape artist to know to predict whether something's going to survive. I mean, I think what we could do is ask them for a plant pallet of thing of species that are that are likely to thrive in this environment rather than having them predict the future of plants that won't survive. I think it's easier to go the other way. So, we get that list and we do have access to a local uh nursery person who is of Asian descent who does plant and does he he planted the uh sister city eukuni's gift to us the the the Japanese maple and we have it here and he knows the kind of plants that can thrive in this climate. He has 47 acres of a nursery. So we have local experts who do understand Asian uh garden design as well as what grows and doesn't grow here. So but I I would like to be having a broader scope in that that the consultants recommend a plant pallet that would be that could be used to show the aesthetics of an Asian gardening plus survive in this.

Yeah. I'm Yeah. What came with that one? I think we're saying the same thing a little bit. I think we are, but I think mine might be positioned in a more concrete uh task. And this doesn't have to be answered now, but if we ever get to a construction phase, would we likely do a bond like we do all our other like a plant bond with all our other projects? In other words, if it doesn't survive within x amount of years, you can go out and claim the bond. Yeah, correct. that we typically would require that

that's Mayor Pro Viser or Kathy, are you? Just a real quick thing. You in Saratoga, the Japanese garden there, they actually do have um native plants that uh that that are known by us that they you wouldn't even know it. I mean, it's very aesthetically um designed inside the the garden. So, I think that it could be very nice.

I' I'd love and I you know, because we can't really talk offline, this is my only opportunity, but I'd love for you to take a look at the pot of carpus that's at the Holiday Inn right by Lock Padden Park. One of the most stunning potass I've seen in Marina, but it only survives because it grows up against the wall of the building and is totally shielded by the wind. Um, and so those things make all the difference in the world. Just a little bit of wind and salt air and those things just totally die, you know. So it's um it's just interesting how small environmental changes can make all of the difference. Thank you Brian. Thank you Kathy. Mayor Prom.

Thank you Mr. Mayor. Now that you mentioned Hakonei Gardens and and speaker at the close session mentioned how expensive it was to um um make repairs or or um and I and I always share concerns about cost but I looked it up that that garden is 18 acres and we are speaking about 1.5. So just to put it in perspective, you know, we we will have a a a cute small silent. So and and but I I don't have any um requests to uh no friendly amendments, but I wanted to remark that if you look at the new developments or anywhere in Marina, but especially the new developments, many trees are planted and quite a few don't make it and they are just replaced. And you have it in my own yard, you know, I'm I'm not a master gardener. So um I just try things and sometimes it works in one spot it doesn't work three yards from that spot but so it's it's trial and error you know it's it it will plants will die some plants will not make it and the developer at the dunes they protect all their trees now that are close to the coast they give them windshields to get established so it will be a challenge definitely but anything in marina is a challenge I think to grow in the wind so thank One of the beauties of the food forest, the fruit trees that started the food forest at Lo Patton is that for the most part those 23 trees are surrounded by natives. And so you have this great interlocking that's really beautiful together, but I don't see in the staff report or the presentation the word native. And it's my understanding that the word native was initially suggested by the Sierra Club who said that they want to call it an Asian-American hybrid native garden, something to that effect.

And uh I think to get through the whole MPBD process, the larger the emphasis on natives, the more it's acceptable to people because it has a native element to it. And uh up until now, over the last year, I've only heard this referred to as as a project that included natives. And I don't see that mentioned here. And so I wanted to ask our city manager about it and the motion maker uh if we could do something to incorporate native plants into this Asian-American RFP because the criteria suggested for the RFP site analysis concept design I don't see the word n I don't see the word native plants. So,

I think for the most part, um, the type of plants in the Asian-American garden are not going to be native plants to Maria and not necessarily native plants to California. Um, but they are going to look at those pallets um, and see if those those can be incorporated. But I think most of them will be the type of plants that will be in that Asian-American garden. then the balance becomes they need to survive in this climate and and uh and I I think the the landscape architect won't be looking at all those issues. I think they'll be looking at plants that will survive and um but at this point it we've not got any direction to specifically include natives in there.

Okay. So, I feel disappointed because I thought the direction this was going over the last year was always talking about the inclusion of native plants for Sierra Club purposes, for public uh appreciation purposes, for MPD process purposes. Uh so, I think that something has been dropped and I don't think it makes the project more likely to succeed. Council member Miola Sorry. I think it's going to be a balance and I think that the Sierra Club called it a hybrid garden. I don't think that you can now like an Asian garden without having Asian plants. I think we have to be real clear that we're not shaping this into a native garden that won't look like an Asian garden. But I think we could do under design development planting and material concepts including native species. And I think we've already said that we want a plant list, a pallet that will have the greatest um um abilities to thrive in this in this particular um climate. So I think that's going to naturally revert to some natives and then figuring out how to shape those and to uh plant them in ways which can reflect the same aesthetic quality that we're looking for. So I think we can just simply you know the under number two planting and material concepts including native species.

Okay that addresses my concern. Thank you. Now is there a motion on the floor? So the friendly amendment would be under number two design development bullet number four would read planting and material concepts including native species and cypress trees.

Oh they're already there. There's plenty of cyp street. It wouldn't be bad to have a a bonsai cypress tree. Uh okay. Uh are we ready to vote? All in favor, please say I. I. All opposed, please say no. Thank you everyone. Thank you staff. That motion passes unanimously. And we're going to move on to 13B. Uh update regarding potential November ballot measure.

Thank you, mayor. and had this to a couple weeks ago really to update on these upcoming meetings. So, I'll just give you a brief update. Uh we did have a site tour of our city facilities, one on the 20, April 23rd, one on April 25th, one on April 30th. Um we had four to five people on some of the initial tours tours and most of them were from our um existing city commissions or the citizens advisory group. I think we had uh one or two new different people. Um, but when the mailer arrived on the Thursday, April 30th meeting, we had almost 25 people attend and they all said they had received the mail mailer and we had a lot more than we people that hadn't been involved and they saw the neighbor and they wanted to see about the the city facilities. I can tell you after each one of those meetings, we we did a tour of the facilities and it was about an hour, hour and a half and we went in in the um uh community center just to answer questions and we ended up sitting there an hour, hour and a half um getting feedback, answering questions, very thoughtful questions, very thoughtful feedback and I can tell you all across the board the concepts or um you don't need even need to talk about how bad the facilities are. Just walk it, see it in person. You don't even need to talk anymore. They that you just unanimous these facilities absolutely have to be replaced as referred to police and fire and city hall facilities. So out of all those

tours, unanimous feedback that these these buildings are beyond their useful life. We got a lot of good suggestions that we're going to continue to to move forward on uh good feedback. We talked about the utility user tax. There is support across across the board on the utility user tax and the 7% level. Um talked that they had lots of questions about city finances the budget and we're going to do a lot more FAQs uh to answer those questions and get a lot more feedback on that. Um uh they we had a community workshop this past um Saturday, May 2nd. We didn't have as many people. I think we maybe had 10 or 12 people, but again got great uh feedback from community workshop. No one is saying don't move forward with a ballot measure. That was consistent across the board. So moving forward, um FM3 they um have a a survey that is going to be testing the the it's going to be a statistically valid survey. So it's going to help somewhere between three and 400 grad students. Uh but it's going to test um there's um what they think about Marina, the different departments um uh the actual utility user tax, what level that they would support it. And so that will be going out probably in the next week. Um we have another uh community workshop that will be on um May 27th. That's Wednesday. And again, um, encourage everyone to come. Um, we'll spend the start of that workshop walk touring the facilities. Again, one of the things they they all said, they said, you just need to keep

on doing these tours of city facilities every month up through the election. So, we're going to continue to do that even if we only have four or five people. Um, they really tell the story. Um, we're going to, um, we're working on a lot of mailers, a lot more um, educational information. and we'll be updating the website and uh so uh Bey Smith is moving um head strong and um nothing has changed from um where things are at the council. Our intent is to come back to the council with some draft language for the ballot measure in one of our June meetings and again it'll just be draft language. Um um one of the things that they did talk about in the committees was include an advisory measure along with it that um would specify this is their desire for the funds to go in these types of facilities. And so our uh city attorney, he'll be working on that. And then our plan is to bring the final ballot language to the council at our July 7th city council meeting. And then from that point on, it would just be education and outreach up through the election. So that's kind of the update of where things are with that. Um, want to really give a shout out to our police chief and our fire chief, interim fire chief have they've come to all these workshops and and done a tour of all this facilities and have really provided a lot of good information to the public. here assistant managers now attending all these workshops will be attending the future ones. All right, let's go to public comment. Anyone in person want to comment on this issue? Please step forward. Not seeing anyone. We'll go online. Please raise

your hand if you'd like to comment. Uh Steve Smack, welcome and good evening.

Good evening, mayor and city council. Um, as you know, I was uh vehemently opposed to um this ballot measure uh one year ago. Tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend. You're already wasting money on this ballot measure before you even know what it is through these city mailings. This measure failed a year ago and cost the city 400,000 for a sham of an election. The only thing you're changing is that it will be a utility tax instead of a property tax. Both regressive. This means it negatively impacts lower incomes more dramatically than higher incomes. Bad decision. I agree with you that we are in need of a new city hall and civic center on Reservation Road in the middle of our downtown. What I'm uncomfortable with is creating a $50 million slush fund for a project without a plan. A project without a plan ends up far exceeding its original budget. We all know this. So what happens when this dream city hall ends up costing 100 million, 200 million? Do we continue to tax our community on and on in perpetuity? Maybe you shouldn't have given away 5 million to the Mercedes dealership to cover their construction costs. Why isn't the Mercedes dealership chipping in for a new city hall? Why is it always the citizens that have to dig deeper into their pockets and the developers get paid? You cannot give a handout like this, then turn around and tax your citizens, most of which don't even drive Mercedes. It also shows very poor discretion to be talking about a new tax with the cost of gasoline where it is and where it is likely to stay for a while. Please stop wasting city funds and resources on new ways to shake down the public. Thank you. Thank you very much, Steve. Anyone else online would like to raise your hand to comment, please raise your hand.

Okay, we will close public comment and come back to the council. I would like to u recognize Steve's Max comments. Um, one comment was that there's $5 million being given to Mercedes. So, right now there's a field of dirt that's not generating any money for the city. But if Mercedes were to come and spend $40 million to build their lot, um they would start to sell cars. And when those cars start to sell, those cars will start will generate sales tax. And Mercedes would get to keep half the sales tax. The city would keep half the sales tax. until the Mercedes share reached 5 million because they're saying to pencil their project out they can afford 35 million but not 40 million. So they would spend 35 million on construction and then well they would spend 40 million but in the end they would get 5 million back. So resulting in the end that they would spend 35 million net on their construction. If their construction costs 50 million or more because costs go up, they will pay all of that and they will get paid back the same five million that the arrangement is uh to do. So it's similar to other incentives given to developments across the country to try to land them. If you don't give incentives, sometimes you don't get the projects. So, we would get $5 million projected in the first seven years, as would Mercedes. If Mercedes doesn't build on that field of dirt, we won't get a penny of sales tax unless something else moves in. Um, but it's hard to beat that much sales tax revenue. That's why Seaside

loves their auto mall and that's why cities across California compete for hotels, auto malls, um, and shopping centers because they have to compete for sales tax and hotel tax since Prop 13 passed in 1979. And property taxes no longer bring in the kind of budget they used to. So, we all chasing the dollar in order to meet the rising costs of the city. If we want better streets, can keep our better our improved fire department, if we want more uh emergency services, if we want our parks to be better and more numerous, it costs money. That money has to come from somewhere. Uh we the Spring Hill Suites, we were going to give a million, they didn't open it soon enough to get the million, so they got nothing from us. and they're generating $2 million a year into our general fund since it opened in 2017. So that's nine years uh times this about $18 million that's gone into our parks, our streets, our police, our fire. But if we didn't offer the incentive, they were going to go to seaside. People lament that we didn't give Costco a deal. People lament that we got a Kmart instead of a Costco. People claim that that city council made a big mistake by not letting Costco come to Marina. So the UUT and the ballot measure to say no to them because we're trying to make revenue in other parts of our city, it that doesn't really line up. We need 50 million. We had a citizens advisory committee unanimously who approve the the seven up to 7% UUT. So, we're trying to go from a bottom up. Last time we went from a top down and we were told go bottom up. This time we're going bottom up. The 12 person committee, many of whom the majority

were against the bond measure of two years ago, unanimously voted to go ahead with what we're talking about tonight. So if we said no to this, we've got what we've got, which are inadequate facilities. Um, so it's a it's a pain pill to ask people for a new UUT, but if it does pass, we're going to join all the other cities near us that have it. If it doesn't pass, we'll be one of the few cities that don't have it. Is that because we don't need it? No, it's just because it didn't pass. I will say that if the ballot measure passes on the state ballot that requires twothirds approval for ours to go into effect, it's going to be real tough for this to get 67%. And I'm real scared about that. Um, but we'll see how that statewide ballot measure goes. But all this effort could be for not if we don't get 67% and that statewide ballot measure passes and trumps this one by requiring it to get 67 or it doesn't go into effect. Council member McCarthy, did you have more input?

Yeah, just super quick. Um, you know, I' I've often expressed my concern about the regressiveness of the tax, but beyond that, Paula Pollo had wrote written a letter on April 21st. I'm not sure if staff got that, but it kind of presents some interesting um questions that I would like answered. I'm wondering if we can forward that to our consultant. Um things like she recommends that senior citizens over 70 be potentially exempted. She talks about writing the ordinance in a way that technology changes can be kind of incorporated without going back out to the voters. Um, so I don't think we need to go through them all tonight, but I'm just wondering if we can get some clarity on on her email. Thank you.

Council member Fisher.

Yes. Thank you, Council Member McCarthy, for requesting that because there were some very good points in in that letter. I just um I'll repeat what I've said before. For me, it doesn't make sense to exclude or exempt seniors just based on their age because there are quite a few seniors who can pay. So, um that's one thing I wanted to mention. And for the um workshop, I attended that one workshop on Saturday morning, May 2nd, and it was very informative and I'm glad that there will be another one on May 27. I would encourage anybody who can please attend that workshop here in the council chambers at 6:00 p.m. or I wanted to ask the city manager, you're probably going to offer the tour first again. So, it might be good to tell people the tour is from 6:00 to 7:00 and if you don't have time to come at 6:00, just come at 7 for the workshop or if you've already know if you already know what the facilities look like, that might help people to come because it's always during dinner time our meetings. seems that's by the way that's what I'm eating so I apologize but thank you it was very informative okay would someone like to make a motion okay so if there's no directions for staff then we don't need All right let's move on to the main event of the night police department's 2025 fireworks impacts and planned activities is for July 2026. And our illustrous police chief, Randy Hopkins, is with us via Zoom. Hello, Randy. Thank you for joining us.

Good evening. Thank you, everyone. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes. It's a little low on the volume. All right. Um, I'll move a little closer and speak a little louder. Is that how that that that helps? Thank you. Okay.

All right. Um, so I uh first of all, I just want to say good evening and thank you, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tim, council members, and city manager for giving me some time on tonight's agenda. I know it's a full um full agenda with a lot of things to discuss. So, I appreciate you giving me this opportunity. One of what I would like to provide is a neutral fact-based 10-minute review of how the Fourth of July has played out in Marina over at least the last three operational cycles. If you can go ahead and go to the next slide, that'd be great. All right. Um, and talk about how we compare to our neighbors, uh, what the data supports, uh, as council considers the 2026 year. Uh again this is not me advocating for any position that uh I will leave up to you to uh for you all to decide. All right. Um let's see here uh on this slide making sure that my slides are aligned here. Yes. Yes. All right. So the issue um uh sits at three or a couple at at four intersections of realities. Uh the community views are divided. The regional landscape is not uniform. Public safety demand on uh July 4th continues and enforcability depends on resources behind it. The legal framework uh is layered. Marina owns our our own ordinance uh in Marina which is code 9.16.0 0 uh 0 or 030 let me sorry 9 9.1630 allows for safe and sane uh and also prohibits uh also the um uh dangerous ones as well. Also state law and California health and safety code section 12500 also defines what those uh illegal fireworks are and prohibits them

as well. uh to possess those or even use them as a misdemeanor regardless of whatever a city or local rules would be. And so that's what we also go by. If there's an escalation in terms of quantity of fireworks that are illegal that are recovered, the fines for that can range from either $500 as to up as much as $50,000 with a potential prison time uh at with higher quantities. Marina enforces uh a zero tolerance under that framework and we also have a tiered administrative fine schedule for first offense. It's $339.92 for that first offense. The second is $533.92. And then the third offense is $1,133.92 with a 36-month look back authorized under uh Marina Municipal Code 9.16.030 and uh 15.32580. Next slide. the uh so here I'll talk about three operational cycles. So in 2023, Marina logged more than 50 firework calls specifically um on the 4th of July with three confirmed fires and nine individuals were cited or arrested. In 2024 dispatch logs, 46 related calls. That figure uh came from our CAD system and um we looked at that on July the 5th of 2024, the day after. Three citations were issued under the California Health and Safety Code that I mentioned earlier. One property damage incident was confirmed. There was dense fog that night which limited our visibility. So, we didn't were not able to deploy our drones as effectively. So, in 2024, we

had a reduction uh of that u 46 calls. However, in 2025, the department again logged more than 50 calls. So, we went back up. uh those were all related to Fourth of July. Uh we also staffed we ran an all hands deployment with the majority of staffing committed to the airport celebration that we had last year. One favorable data point um for you to consider is in both 2024 and 2025. There were zero fireworks related injuries uh were reported in the marina. Although we had elevated call volumes, uh that did not translate into any reported injuries or incidents for us as it relates to Fourth of July. Uh on staffing the reported uh we also uh staff above normal uh of our regular scheduled shifts. Uh in addition to that, we would have one sergeant and eight officers both in 2024 and 2025. Uh next slide. All right. So, to put uh Marina's workload in context, uh the department compiled fireworks related and uh shots fired calls for volumes uh for every law enforcement agency in the Monterey County for the calendar year 2024 and 2025. All 14 agencies were represented. There were 12 uh departments, the sheriff office and CSUMB is police department as well. And I did not in the data set there were no missing data. So this is a comprehensive review of those numbers. Two scope notes are that are critical. First uh there are minimum there. These are the annual totals not just fourth of July alone. Second these are police department calls for service only. Fire department responses were not included because fire agencies operate under a separate CAD system and

reporting uh structures. Therefore, aggregating uh them into this mix would uh one they have different definitions and in some cases it would double the count and so to eliminate that or prevent that they were not included. So the headline for Marina is that Marina is the only peninsula uh with safe and sane uh city with a volume that increased year-over-year. So in other words, we went from 42 calls to 56 calls, which was a 33% increase. Seaside dropped 28%. Selenas dropped 54%. Uh and the smaller uh safe and sane cities, which are Solidad, Gonzalez, King City, Greenfield, all trended down. On the full band side, those that have full bands, uh, Monterey fell 76%, Pacific Grove rose 6% on small numbers. Uh, the sheriff's office held roughly flat at 99 calls. Uh, so one caveat is Selenus also hosted professional displays in 2024 and 2025 after an 8-year hiatus. So, we believe that that likely also suppressed illegal firework activity uh in our data in the area. All right, next slide. The department's enforcement posture has and will continue to be um uh like I said, no tolerance. Uh it's drawn from our administrative citation instructions for fireworks. It's also um uh we look at the use, sale, and possession of illegal or dangerous fireworks draws enforcement action year round, not just on the fourth. Uh it's prohibited year round. Uh and every year uh every officer or every day, every officer knows that uh those duties are to be

looked at and adhere to in terms of citing individuals. So citations follow a tiered schedule. As I stated, for that first defense, there's a $200 base plus $133.92 because it shows a breakdown of what I was describing earlier for that $33.92 uh with that 36-month look back. Uh so you see the totals there off to the right that kind of gives you the breakdown, I'm sorry, to the left. That gives you the breakdown of what the recovery cost is versus the fine as well. So two operational points. When illegal fireworks are discharged from a residence, the directive authorizes uh citing both the user and the homeowner. Uh specifically to address the quote, "It wasn't me, it was my guest," close quote uh scenarios that we often run into. Um and felony level cases do not get administrative citations. They go directly to the Monterey County District Attorney's Office. Regionally, Seaside uses a flat fee of $1,000 per violation. Selena starts at $1,500 per violation and generated themselves $58,126 across 118 citations that were issued in 2024 alone. Uh fullband cities such as again Monterey, Pacific Grove, Carmemell, Sand City, Delray Oaks do not publish a structured local fine schedule. Although I'm sure they have them, they enforce through local ordinance plus uh the state overlay which I mentioned earlier. uh the state framework California Health and Safety Code uh 127 0000 or 00 and following they range again up to $500 to $50,000 depending on the quantity of of um illegal fireworks that you that they

recover. So marijuana or marina sits in the middle of the published fine ladder meaningful proportional and escalating uh with cost recovery built in. Next slide here uh two partial low competitors worth uh council's attention. So Seaside published five years of data through their own and so I kind of looked at that the real cost of fireworks for them the outreach that they uh put forth. So as it relates to police calls they ran between 178 to 306 across the period. Fire calls ran between 59 and 97. pounds of illegal fireworks seized grew from 30 to 100 pounds uh across uh the years that uh that the figure was tracked. The takeaway, even with substantial enforcement investment that they put forth, total call volume did not trend down. Seaside enforcement infrastructure includes a 10pm discharge curfew. Uh they deploy drones, body wararm cameras, escalating fines, and a measure CC passed by voters in November 2024 to strengthen their civil enforcement authority. Selenus runs their program through a fire prevention office with a stand lottery system. Six drone pilots. $84,000 in fines, again, like I stated earlier, were uh generated in terms of revenue in 2023. and prior violation fines again start at 1,500 and up. The shared lesson here is both cities share safe and sane with substantial enforcement layers an investment on top of model or an investment uh on top

model not a standalone permission. Okay. Uh next slide. Here I want to talk about two national data points to anchor uh the conversation. So the US Consumer Product Safety Commission most recent firework uh annual report released in 2025 covering calendar year 2024 reported a 14,700 emergency room treated injuries occurred. a 52% increase per uh increase yearover-year and 11 fatalities uh which is 36% of those injuries were uh to children under 15. Second uh pediatric injuries rates from peerreed surveillance uh in states where restrictive firework laws occurred the pediatric ER injury rate runs from point Z 0.5 per 100,000 and in states with permissive laws it runs around 2.25 per 100,000. That's roughly 4.5 fold higher or percent a ratio higher uh in the in the permissive states. Both numbers should uh be read with what the for what they are national surveillance data. They cannot be applied to marina uh mechanically, but the evidence uh this is evidence that I wanted the council to to look at to see what's trending nationally. Again, there's nothing uh we didn't have any injuries in 2024 2025. All right, next slide. All right. U on July the 4th, uh Marina moves from an all hands posture as it relates to staffing. The department averaged over 100 calls for service on July 4th across all calls layered on top

of the ordinary holiday activity. We run at or near full capacity for the entire holiday window. Um let's see the report um let's see. Yeah. So the report we the report above normal augmentation for work week or firework week uh was one sergeant eight officers for 2024 and 2025 which I stated earlier. Uh the normal resting uh staff um we don't really talk about those numbers but I can provide that to you in close session if needed. a specific 2025 note. Uh the airport celebration. We committed the majority of the augmentation uh detail for that event. If we move forward with that this year, I would pair half of those off and they will be special assignment in the city along with our regular staff uh folks just to make sure that we had a more heightened posture of um uh response from our staff to address some of those calls that are coming in. All right, next slide. All right, council has four broad options. Option A is the status quo, maintain the municipal code 9.16 with current enforcement resources. Option B would be enhance enforcement. Keep keep safe and sane but add tools such as staffing curfew violation. Consider that higher fines consider that uh the sea in other words the seaside and uh Selenus direction. Option C would be restricted safe and sane narrow the discharge window narrow the geographic zones or tighten still conditions. And then option D is a full band uh aligning with Monterey, Pacific Grove, Carmemell, San City, Delray Oaks. Each option performs differently against five criteria and just wanted you to to know

what those were. So first, public safety impact. What does the evidence suggest about injury and fire risk? Second, operational demand. Can Marina PD and fire deliver on its current or projected staffing and budget? Third, uh regional consistency. How does the options uh interact with neighboring jurisdictions across border movement? Uh and then fourth, community values. Does it reflect what the community is hearing, what we're hearing from all residents? And then fifth, uh enforcement feasibility. is the policy written so that we can enforce it fairly and consistently. Uh so again, I wouldn't I'm not scoring those. I just wanted to take the time to go through a lot of information, try to make it concise and meaningful for you to at least kind of understand what the uh the landscape looks like. And next slide. All right. So again uh for findings uh the evidence supports safe and sane um legal legal does not by itself remove enforcement workload. I wanted to be clear about that. Uh if we went that route Marina Seaside and Selenus all see significant uh July 4th call volumes. Second partial um partial allow cities are pairing uh safe and sane with stronger enforcement tools, curfews, drones, bodywn cameras uh and escalating fines. Third, the regional inconsistency compli um complaint compliance uh and enforcement uh as it it impacts marina in that it's we sit in the middle of the peninsula environment where most bordering city cities uh now prohibit fireworks. Uh and

then fourth marina specific data should be strengthened uh in terms of a midyear cat a cat or citation or seizure and staffing extract further from strengthening any uh our council records. So again um I will close uh with where I started. The briefing is neutral by design. The design uh belongs to the council or the decision belongs to the council. Marina PD will execute professionally and fairly whichever direction you set. And so again, thank you and I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you Randy for an excellent report. Sure.

It's kind of part and parcel to how you do things and we really appreciate the caliber of your presentation and content.

Let's go to people here in person. Anyone want to come up from the public? We'll open public comment now and hear from you. Up to three minutes everybody. Hi, my name is Erica Graham and I um am one of the nonprofit um booths that represents the um Marina Athletic Booster Club, Marina High School Athletic Booster Club. Um thank you Chief Hopkins for that very informative and persu persuasive presentation. Um, one key piece of information that was left out um of this one and the last one that came to the board um was the amount of those calls and violations that were due to illegal versus safe insane fireworks. Um, in addition, it's also missing the amount of money coming into the city by uh that sir charge that is being paid at every transaction at a safe and sane fireworks booth. um to offset the cost of the increased staff dedicated to enforcement of both legal and illegal fireworks during that time period. Um, it would also be really helpful to have the comparative information to the other cities um that are decreasing in calls for service um to better understand how they're utilizing that search charge and the money for the additional staff and to what degree and compare it to what our increased staff numbers look like. So we have a better understanding of the true comparison um against those cities especially at a time period where we are increasing in our um residents and our our city is increasing in size during this time period as well between 2023 to 2025. Um so it might skew those numbers. Um all of this would be helpful in making the decisions for

the next steps for the fireworks in the city. Option A is clearly not working. Option C seems very confusing and costly to regulate and option D would take away um the searchcharge money currently supporting the fireworks um actually sorry in ensuring uh enforcing the fireworks illegals and legal issues and would hurt the nonprofits benefiting from the sales of the safe and sane. In my opinion given the limited information we have option B would be the best for the current decision. um the council is being faced with. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Erica. Anyone else? Okay, come on up.

Thank you, Mayor and Council and Chief Hopkins for that presentation. Um, my name is Tim McNe and I'm here um I'm on the board of the Marina Youth Soccer Association and so I just wanted to u come talk a little bit about Erica had some great notes and great points about the presentation and what it would be good to learn more about. But I just wanted to emphas empath uh empath uh emphasize the importance of um the fundraising that we do with our fireworks booth every year. Um, one of our main goals with the Marina Youth Soccer Association is accessibility um for our program to be as affordable as possible so that as many community members can participate as want to. And um the money that we raise with our fireworks booth every year goes a long way towards reducing and keeping those costs as low as possible. And so if we can figure out a way to, you know, keep our community safe and um still allow safe and sane firework sales, then that would be it would it would really mean a lot for our programs and what we're able to do. But I don't Yeah, I think that's the main thing I wanted to say. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Tim. Anyone else in person? Come on up. Hi. Uh, my name is Jerica Balaharia. Um, I'm with the Marina Youth Baseball softball board. And I also just want to piggyback off of what Erica said and Marina Soccer. Um, this fundraiser is one of our biggest means of raising money for keeping our costs um, affordable for our community members. And um I don't know if you went to our opening day ceremony, but we did it kind of big this year and um it made an impression on neighboring cities and losing the fundraising um from the safe insane fireworks would really hurt our program. Um, and right now, I believe we are the only league in Northern California, um, who offers a champions, um, for disabled children to play, uh, recreational baseball. Um, and a lot of the funding that we get from this also pours into that. So, um I would agree that the enhanced enforcement option would benefit the community um the most. Um I don't support the illegal fireworks, but these are safe and sane and this is safe for families in the community to enjoy the 4th of July, which is really exciting for the kids and families alike. uh barbecues, you know, the safe fireworks, I think, are not the problem here. It's the illegal fireworks. So, that's all I really wanted to say.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Jessica. It was Jessica, right? Jerica, sorry, Jerica. Thank you, Jerica. Anyone in public? What's all right, let's go online? Uh Denise Turley, welcome back, Denise. Hi, thank you. Um, so um within the area where we live, we have a park surrounded by housing and although the housing puts out a fireworks flyer, the city does not. So all our kids, older kids of course, go across the street into the area that will eventually be the extension to the park here, which is of course heavily wooded, and that's where they hide and shoot their uh illegal fireworks off from. So, um perhaps the city um chief or somebody else would actually send a letter to all the residents saying that um that's trespassing on property that they're not supposed to be on there. And uh uh anyway, um next I want to say I I want to say gently cuz I get that you need to raise funds for sports, but there are probably other items that you could use that don't catch on fire and potentially burn people and make noise. And I I get your safe and sane don't. But the safe and

sane offer a screen for the people who are letting the other ones off. And so um and um safe and sane were you last year were not used safely and we did have um several incidences in the park. Um, it also produced a really interesting side effect that people thought that they could rust out to roll out an old rusty barrel, put it in the center of their driveway and uh cook s'mores um while setting off fireworks, which was a really weird just just really really weird one. Um anyway, so I would suggest I would suggest uh the things that I've mentioned. So far, I would suggest um I suggest to the former recreation director that you do something like cell phone chargers or something where maybe your profit was a little higher than the safe and sane and that that we be really really clear as to what and where and when. Please don't forget that three residents here lost their home to fire in 7 minutes. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Denise. Let's go to Steve's Mac. Welcome back, Steve.

Thanks. Um, another option um to be considered that's not on the list here is low noise and noiseless fireworks. Firework detonations are simply inhumane towards dogs. Any dog owner will tell you this along with at least one heartbreaking story of their dog injuring itself trying to escape the loud bangs. Some Marina re residents even leave the city on the 4th of July to spare their dogs the trauma. How fair is that? I have a question uh for the chief. What level of enforcement is there for uh New Year's Eve? How many citations were issued for fireworks on all the other days other than the 4th of July? During this last year's New Year's Eve, a friend reported to me that her dog clawed its way behind the refrigerator in an effort to escape, ripping several of its nails out of its paws. Going to low noise and no noiseless still allows our service clubs to conduct their annual fundraising, but our dogs are spared this annual pain. But if you have to go with the staff recommendation list, then I would advise as a pet owner a full firework ban or at the very minimum option C, a narrow discharge window and specific geographic zones. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Steve. Anyone else online? Let's go to Mike Mohler. Welcome, Mike.

Hi. Uh, good evening, Mayor and Council. I hope you can hear me. Um, you know, I I wanted to jump into this because I find it it's a really interesting um intense topic because I mean, I'll share a little bit about um my history. I was a a high adventure explorer when I was younger and um one of our main fundraisers every year were a fireworks stand. Um you know, they they generate a good amount of money. Um and without it, we probably wouldn't have been able to do near the amount of things we do. Um, I'll read a quick excerpt from um, in 2024, LA County Fire documented uh, 142 fireworks related fires. Only two involved safe and sane fireworks and neither caused property damage. In 2025, uh that same LA County Fire Department reported 87 such fires. 74 were caused by illegal fireworks and only one involved a state improved device, again with no associated damage. So, you know, I don't really see a benefit to banning safe and sane fireworks. You know, it's obvious that the illegal fireworks are the real problem. But if you do decide to go this direction, uh you need to remember that you're taking away a significant amount of funding for sports programs that are already begging for uh support for the kids looking for fields they can play on year after year, decade after decade. Um and I'd be really be careful of how what you do to their funding. And if you do, please find a way to make that up. support them any way you can. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mike. Anyone else online wish to raise their hand if you haven't spoken yet? Let's go to Dennis Rll. Welcome, Dennis.

Good evening, mayor, members of the council. Dennis Rll on behalf of TNT Fireworks. And my purpose in joining you this evening was uh in case you had any questions on the wealth of information that I gave you as well as after listening to the presentation, I would share that uh illegal fireworks enforcement in California has become probably one of the most innovative areas in police and fire enforcement throughout the state. um because many cities uh have the same challenge but have different strengths and weaknesses uh within the personnel's levels and issues that they have within their community. I think it's significant to note that Selenus uh really uh led the way in that for a number of years they had uh such low um police staffing thresholds that they had no police firework enforcement. And the fire marshall at the time with a rather innovative approach to uh asked this city manager if uh they could use uh city employees to help document social host ordinance violations that year without police. They issued over, as I recall, $200,000 in uh fines. Um, the city of Sacramento has uh had record-breaking um illegal fine levels without police involvement. So there there is no um set menu that every city has to follow. It's just uh a matter of trying to be as innovative and as strong as you can given the threat that illegal fireworks uh we're facing in every city throughout the state.

Thank you very much Dennis for your information you provided via email. I appreciated that and joining us tonight. Anyone else wishing to speak, please raise your hand if you haven't done so already. Okay, we'll close public comment. Uh Steve asked, "What kind of New Year's Eve enforcement has been necessary?" Let's start with 2026. Randy or Chief Hopkins, do we have any information on that? Um, New Year's is pretty much staffed the same way. Uh, it's maybe not as high a number. Uh, and most of the calls that we receive on New Year's are, um, discharge of firearms. Obviously, we put out our PSA and tell people not to do that. Those rounds that are discharged, those the rounds will come down and often uh will damage property, roofs, andor unfortunately also individuals. And so we do increase our staffing every Fourth of July as well as New Year's because we know there's still celebratory uh discharge of firearms as well as fireworks. Um again, having drones uh in the air uh is is a common practice. Uh but we're looking to renew some of our drones because they're aging. Uh but we do increase our staffing just to be short with the point. Uh, Chief, I think I recall your presentation said that for July 1st, you increase one sergeant and you increase eight officers.

Eight officers, correct? Um, what's the relative numbers for New Year's Eve? Um, I have to get to those numbers, but I would guess at a minimum one sergeant and maybe five to six officers. It's not much difference. All right. And uh has your analysis considered the option of low noise or noiseless safe and sane?

Yeah, I would say uh the points that some of the uh individuals were making about the safe and sane, most of them do not have a noise. A lot of them do. Uh the the thing that makes them illegal uh or distinguishes them from the safe and sane from the illegal is the mortars that go up into the air and make the loud booms. Uh the safe and sane, some of them will have a a whistle or a pop, but it never leaves the ground with uh flashes. Uh their sparklers, that's also part of the safe and sane. That's also part of the pediatric injuries that are occurring or have occurred, but not in Marina, not in our area. So um the noises that we that's part of the problem when we receive calls for servers like I said 50 of the hundred calls well we will receive about 100 calls a day 50 of those are fireworks related. They're not calling and they're not saying that necessarily this is a safe and sane firework that we're calling about or this is an illegal firework. they will call and just say there's noise, there's fireworks being u executed in our area and it's been going off and we want someone to come by. And so we don't have the numbers precise to be very uh specific as to what that ratio would be illegal versus safe and sane because some of the safe and sane will emit a pop or a sound as well.

Thank you chief. Sure. Let's start with uh well, first of all, did I miss any questions that someone else noted? Okay, let's start with uh Council McAdams and then McCarthy.

Thank you, mayor, and thank you, Chief, for um this presentation. I mean, something that I think about too, like I don't know if you've ever called our non-emergency line, but it is complicated and not user friendly. So, if you get a 100 calls, there's probably a thousand because people couldn't get through or can't figure it out or whatever. So, I just I wanted to to say that on record. Um, the city of Selenus does have a reporting tool on their website and maybe that's something that um we can consider doing. Um, so the city of Selenus uh from your presentation, they have six drone pilots. Uh, are they flying multiple drones or one pilot per drone?

I think on that day they will try to fly as many as they possibly can. I'm sure there probably due to staffing, but they made the the point of emphasizing that they will have as many as six up flying simultaneously. Got it. Okay. And how many drones does Marina have to use or do we outsource this?

Uh, we don't outsource it at all. We use our own drones that we have and uh when I gave my AB481 report recently, I asked for uh replacement of our aging drones. And so we're in the process now of getting uh our drones updated. And so once we do that, hopefully we'll have them here before Fourth of July or shortly thereafter. So the ones that we have are two. So we have two.

Yeah. Yes. and and the drones that we have. So, the city of Selenus, they have a $1,250 fine for each wick lit plus a $250 no noise fine. Um, and the citations are issued based off of the drone coverage. So, they just mail mail the citation. There's no like going to the house. Um, is that something that we're able to implement? We can certainly look at all of that. That's why I wanted to present a lot of the the options that others were doing creatively and just different and uh see what uh you all had an appetite for.

Okay. Um and as much as I personally enjoy safe and sane fireworks, my dogs don't, but I do. Um and they are a gateway to illegal fireworks period. And by allowing them, um, it does make it very hard for our public safety to enforce. Um, so, and actually, can you describe that? I was on a ride along and we were trying to find where the fireworks were coming from. This was just a random night, too. It wasn't even Fourth of July. And it was literally the officer, we were like looking, we pulled over and we're trying to visually pinpoint where the people are. and this group was actually shooting them from the back of their truck and then driving around town. So, what does that look like on Fourth of July? Or do you find that most of the um illegal fireworks are being launched from people's homes? I mean, is it easier to enforce on Fourth of July?

It's it's a mixture. Um, sometimes we'll get a call uh that someone has been discharging fireworks and they believe, you know, they're going up above up into the air, which gives us an indication that they're illegal. Uh, and then emitting a loud boom. Uh, but then sometimes it's a one one time thing or sporadic once every 30 minutes or something. Uh, by the time that it happens, they call in and then we respond or drive by. They're not doing it at that time. So now another call is in Q. So we responded in that area and then maybe that person didn't fires another firework in the area. So it's it's a constant whack-a-ole if you will.

Uh unless you had drones up in the air and and that's where the the strategy I'm sure Selenus and Seaside uh why they do that. You can have that multiple visual in the air so you can kind of monitor, see where it's coming from and fly the drone closely to identify either the block or the house specifically where uh those illegals are illegal fireworks are coming from. Thank you. And then um another question I have is we heard like there's like a fee or something that helps pay for the public safety. Do you have an idea of what that revenue is collected? Yeah, that's each year. I mean, does it even does it make a dent or

Yeah, that's a great question. I do not know. I just know in my research uh based on our fine uh fine and fee structure, we have it baked in toward the first occurrence of $333. 200 of that or 133 of that is our cost recovery. So, and it and and it's $133.92 period for each first, second, or third that that part the cost recovery doesn't change, but the fines will substantially increase over uh depending on whether it's the first, second, or third offense. But I don't know what the volume or what the net uh volume of that those funds are that we receive and and how it equates to what we're actually spending in enforcement and salaries.

Okay. And I just think my my sort of last comment is this year the illegal fireworks started like a week and a half before and went on a week after.

Um so I'm on Vista Del Camino and um I mean it was it was going off. Like that's what I guess people describe it as like it was going off. And on Fourth of July I literally felt like I was watching a Disneyland fireworks show. Um, there were some firework presenters that were like five, 10 minutes long and were incredible fireworks. Um, and they're lovely and they're fun and it's also um illegal, right? And very scary. I mean, especially when, you know, we we are in a high fire severity zone and stuff like that. So, um I just um thank you for your service and I know the Fourth of July is going to be here sooner than later.

Um and it's a busy busy night. Um and I just appreciate your work and I look forward to hearing what my colleagues say. Thank you. Thank you, Jenny. Let's go to Council McCarthy. Thank you, Mayor. Um so, I'll start by just kind of recognizing the 26 humans who died from the fireworks factory explosion 24 hours ago. Um, I think it's fair to acknowledge that fireworks impacts go way beyond the discussion that we've had tonight, right? Um, including significant environmental impacts, noise, groundwater, uh, here on Marina, they impact the ocean, right? Um, so although this is a great discussion on on the criminal element or the crime element, like there there's

much larger discussions that could be had here. Um, I'm not really sure where I stand on the decision framework, but so first I want to clarify. Do any of our um police or fire nonprofits uh benefit from firework sales? I know they have in the past. Yes, they Yes, they do. Okay. And which ones are those? Uh I'm not positive.

Okay. Um so, you know, and I and I've made this comment in the past and I'll make it again um this year. I think that there's a real value statement um issue there for me. It's um and I got to tell you TNT great playbook. If I ever have a controversial business that I want to sell, I'm going to the first thing I'm going to do is get the nonprofits involved, right? Because it speaks to us. We want to support nonprofits and the last thing I would want to do is terminate that funding overnight so that you, you know, are expecting this funding source and all of a sudden you don't have it. Um, but I really would like the city to to move off of that model. I think that it's um it's a challenging value statement for me to support. Um, I think that there are other ways where we can support our nonprofits and I think again there needs to be an off-ramp um to do that. Um, and we need to think about what those other methods are. It really bugs me that that um you know here we are having this discussion when our own kind of um staff is also benefiting and and our our beloved sports teams right um are benefiting from the sales of these um there were 10 to 15,000 ER visits last year according to one source 1,700 from sparklers alone um right safe and sane things that don't make noise um because they're not safe and they're not sane they're actually very dangerous and they do cause real injuries especially to young young kids. Um myself as someone who lived in Iraq for two years, right, it took me years to like and and just to kind of echo the point about pets and and veterans that weren't mentioned, it took me years to really be able to cope with uh what I went through around the 4th of July, you know, and I don't expect anyone to understand what that's like. Um but be assured that it's it's tough. Um it's uh you know you don't understand PTSD until

I guess you go through it. Um so you know in summary I again I don't really know that I how much I even care about the decision framework because we're not even at the point of having this value statement discussion yet. And that's the discussion I would like the council to have is um do we want to continue allowing the sale of safe and sane fireworks uh to benefit our nonprofits or do we want to move towards a paradigm where we support our nonprofits in other ways um that may even be more profitable than fireworks? I don't know. Right. But let's have that discussion if we want to have it. I certainly do. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Brian. Mayor Pan Viser.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I totally agree with what uh council member McCarthy just said and I also feel for our youth uh sports teams but um we know how many complaints there are from people if if you see the social media around the 4th of July before and after it it bothers so many people I almost think they would like to pay maybe donate some money if to the sports teams. So, but I would like to know, do we know the numbers? How many how much income they do get from these sales? Tori's online. She may know that number.

So, Tori should be clear. You're probably going to be asked how much the nonprofits bring in, which you and and then what percent search charger is it? Is is it 7% and how much the city gets by that percent revenue? And it might be if it's too hard to do that now, we can discuss it at a later time because I know we're running out of time as usual. So because that's of course a consideration and I agree if if it would be decided in the future to ban it. Oh, that we need a lot different.

Welcome Tori. Hi. Um I I'm sorry I I had to sign in. I wasn't listed as a panelist. So um I I did hear the question and I believe it was related to um nonprofits and and what was that piece? If you know approximately how much marina nonprofits bring in from fireworks sales and if you know the percent if it's 7% please please confirm that that there's a search charge. And thirdly, approximately how much revenue is the city bring in from that search charge to help offset the cost of increased enforcement for that holiday season.

And that I would have to look up and I I I wouldn't be able to have that handy and just look at a general ledger string, but that is something that we can check on. Is it 7% search charge? I am not certain if it's a 7% search charge. audience who pay it are saying it is okay.

Okay. Yeah. So, thank you. So, we can that will be for a later discussion. That will be nice good to find out. And um because how can you value the um uh how do you say that? It bothers so many people. So many people like pet owners and veterans, but also people who don't have pets, who are not veterans. It's if you read social media, it's a hard time for a lot of people. So, how can you put a dollar amount on disturbing the peace for so many of our residents? So, um I would like to see something in the future just add it to the future agenda. But I also agree that we cannot just stop it overnight because we do need to come up with a plan to help support our teams in a different way.

All right. So, thank you. I motion we go to 10:30 hard stop. I second. All in favor please say I. I. All oppose say no. Please continue. Kathy um council member Riala.

Thank you Mr. Mayor. This these are always so difficult for me to make some judgments on because you know it's like anything else whether it's excessive alcohol purchasing and or smoking or vaping or you know I mean it's all it's all sort of wrapped up in a value value system of both um economic benefit and also personal choice and also So um uh you know injuries and deaths and you know that so it's it's very difficult and it's part of American tradition as well. So, it's um it's a hard thing, but um I wanted to ask Randy um you know, with the policy options before the council here, um what what do you think? I mean, we've seen far more of of the direct impacts of all of this, you know, monetarily as well as injuries and deaths. And so what what would you what what is your instinct for a choice among these A B C and D?

Yeah. So I um first I'll start by saying the the question was asked whether or not we participate in some of this. when 20 24 when I came uh we had a conversation with my leadership team and I think the police athletic league did have a booth and that was a major way of uh generating funds for the youth youth league but because we have the enforcement arm of it we just thought it wasn't a good look and so we haven't done it for two years and it's our plan just to take a step back and not participate in that. So, I just wanted to answer that question. Um, but I uh again, I wanted to stay neutral. Uh, there's there's there's what I see across the board is really almost a 50/50 split in terms of the community complaints. Um, like Fourth of July, for example, there were multiple calls that we had that we responded to, and then there were others to include on social media that said it was a quiet night. So just two ends of the spectrum uh reporting uh from the same day, same events. But um it does it wouldn't hurt to have uh more drones in the air. It wouldn't hurt to inc look at our fee instruction or fee structure to increase it maybe $1,000 per event. Uh it wouldn't hurt to have the curfew um and also restricted to geographic areas. um certain zones are prohibited from uh from that as well. So any I think anything along that line to help find a middle of the road if if that exists um or all things that we could be a part of and um um I'm I'm all for it.

So for right now you're suggesting all that individual interventions from um B and C, huh? Because you asked drones, you have narrow window discharge, you geographic zones. I don't know what you mean by tighter sales conditions, meaning that um we could either limit the number of days that we allow sales uh to occur or or and then we can um that could be that could be one option just so that you restrict that part of it. Uh again, the safe and sane are the only things that are being sold and the illegal fireworks is the

arguably for some is is the main issue, but then there's again some that have a sound that pops uh as Councilman McCarthy mentioned, just that sound alone uh can can bother our our pets or veterans and and others. And so all that is very very true and um it's part of the question. Could you if we were going to do a full band someday

could you um I I don't know even how you get to that you know how do you transition into a full band? Do do you have some ideas about that? And is like do you transition over three years or one year or you know what does that look like? Um I I'm not sure how others do do it, but if it's a decision that's made, you just decide you do it and then uh the with the understanding that banning anything doesn't mean that it's going to permanently stop

anything from happening. We have laws against running stop signs, driving drunk, and people still do that. So, um yes, there's there's no, you know, magic wand on this. I just want to be clear about that. Uh but but um it the the enforcement piece of it is where you then have the higher fines and you have more enforcement and you do more creative things to catch those that are doing it. Um so you it doesn't have to be a phased approach or it can be. It's just again whatever um you all decide to do as leaders.

Okay. And for me, it's really important to know um you know from the nonprofits, how much money are we talking about that helps your your teams like are we talking 5,000? Are we talking about 10,000 or 20,000? You know, I kind of in in order to understand the impact um on the beneficial side to all of this, you know, I I feel like I need to have the scope. It's probably 10,000 or more depending on how long they're out there as that's what we were getting on our youth side and we weren't staffing it all the time because we didn't have the staff to to man to staff the booth. Awesome.

Yeah. Yeah. If we can find out from the public that'd be great. Yeah, tell you from the Marine Youth Soccer Association, it varies a little year to year, but last year we ended up with after expenses and everything um our income from fireworks sales was about $20,000. Wow. And um to by contrast, our annual donation um and sponsorship income is usually about $5,000. Right. So, it's several times more than we get in sponsorships and donations.

It's probably about half of the registration income that we have. So, if we just lost the fireworks income and kept the same budget, our registration costs would increase about percent. What percent? Sorry. About 50%. Thank you, T. Wow. Yeah.

Okay. For those who couldn't hear, Erica Graham, I think she said the Marina High School Booster Club raised $30,000 last year. They did the July 4th fireworks booth. And that's $30,000 profit. Okay. I remember there was a year when Marina Youth Soccer was run by Erica and Mike and they were at Walmart for the Marine Youth Soccer booth and they were excited because they made $52,000 in sales. Something like that. And if you make 50,000 in sales, how much do you end up with a profit? About half. So,

right. So 50% profit margin more or less. I think that if we said 300,000 or less, we would be in the ballpark of what all the nonprofits make profit-wise. Maybe it's a little high. And so if we were going to give money, here's your here's your money, you know, we'd be giving out $300,000 or less profit. Kathy Uh yeah, there's about 10 booths. Only four booths in the entire city, huh? Well then, well then $300,000 profit sounds like way too high. Four booths average of 15,000 profit. Now we're talking 60 grandish, less than 100,000. That really puts it in perspective. Thank you, Jenny. Uh and Erica. Wow. All this consternation over 60 grand

tax.

It should be like farmers. We pay them not to grow. We pay them not to sell fireworks. All right. Um, you know, and right Brian, I'm gonna go. Um, so I think the injuries, the deaths, the fires in Marina are really minimal. We're not we're not going to ban fireworks because of that. Um, and the injuries, deaths, and fires that happen in Marina uh on Fourth of July or around Fourth of July season are probably not coming from safe and sane. Um, we don't know that unless we have the data, but as the chief says, sometimes you don't know. Um, the fines, if we raise them to $1,000 or some much higher amount, that affects lower income people more than people that can afford it. I have a feeling a lot of lower income folks, a lot of younger folks, uh, who would be affected by $1,000 are doing this. uh the vets, the pets, the nuisance uh are mostly coming from the illegal fireworks. And Chief, I want to ask you, uh, last time I checked, the research was super inconsequent, super inconclusive whether safe and sane is a gateway to illegals and super inconclusive whether if you stop safe and sane, you have a big impact on illegal fireworks. Can you confirm if my memory is accurate or if it's wrong? No, I I think you're spot on. There's no there's there's nothing that would lead you to say it's a gateway to the illegals. I think those that want the

illegal fireworks are going to go straight to that. Uh and that's a problem that the state uh is already addressing and it's continuing to be a problem. And um what was the other part of that? I'm sorry. Um I don't know. I can't remember. Okay. There's no correlation. The bottom line I think one is it a gateway? Yes. And two is the research conclusive or inconclusive? If a given jurisdiction bans safe and sane, is it likely to see a large in decrease in illegals fireworks?

In some cities there is a decrease. However, in Selenus and Seaside, there's a decrease, but not a significant decrease. And in the county, it remains flat. Well, now seaside and they allow them. So, there was one year when they didn't do it. That's true. So, I'm just wondering about research, not a specific city because that's such a small sample size. No. So is it in your understanding is it inconclusive or conclusive given peer-reviewed research that banning safe and sane has a substantial or significant decrease correlative with uh illegals going down. It's inconclusive.

Okay, we're I don't suggest we're going to do this this year. If we were, we probably should have gotten this sooner because these these organizations need more notice and we need more time to think about making them whole and how that might look. But $60,000 is peanuts to satisfy what Chief told us is 50% of our population that don't want them. And I think they don't want the aerial and the large booms from the illegals. But I think a lot of people see a correlation, we heard it tonight, between whether it's researchbased conclusion or not, a lot of people connect safe and sane as a gateway to those illegals, those those currently illegal aerials and and M M40s and 80s and 200s. Um, so I don't think that there's a lot we should do this year except to promise the public that will take uh a timely look at this so that next year it can be changed in a way that makes nonprofits whole because that's the main reason and then there's a social reason. I grew up with them. Now I'm an environmentalist. It's not good for the planet. I think Ryan outlined, you know, enough about how it's not good for our planet. We probably should move away from them, but it's like mother, apple pie, and baseball to move away from these. Um, and so even as mayor, I'm not ready to move away from them, even though as an environmentalist, we should have moved away from these a long time ago. Um, so that value system that Kathy and Brian talked about, you know, my values are anti- fireworks from an environmental perspective, but as mayor, my value system is to support nonprofits and keep America's

pastime going. Um, I hate to be the one to put a put a bit buzzsaw on our culture in that way, but I think it's coming. I just don't think this year is going to be the year for us. That's my perspective. All right, let's go to Council Member McCarthy. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, I mean second what you just articulated, but also mentioned that, you know, just using Google is suggesting that a well-run community barbecue could net5 to $20,000 over one to two days. A group, a well organized 5K run um could possibly net $20,000. And so I think as a council I'd love to see that we support if nonprofits wanted to come to us that we as a city will support, you know, through permit fees and all that kind of stuff the organization of of something like that. Like obviously the nonprofit's going to have to put in a lot of the leg work just as they're going to have to staff a fireworks booth is going to takes take some work, right? But um I think that there are a lot of different ways where nonprofits can make money. And I I also, you know, just want to reemphasize kind of my disappointment with the the the organizations that support our, you know, city police and fire continuing and I and I know that's a hard pill to swallow, but I've said it several years and I'll continue to say it. It just for me doesn't speak to the values that I represent. Um and and so I'd love for those organizations to be the front runners to organize something like a 5K um just to see maybe in addition to the fireworks, right? Um to see how much profit that might or might not make um or or pancake breakfast, whatever it is. Um so

so in uh emergency, you know, our public safety, I heard that they're not anymore doing it. I think fire. Did I Is fire doing it or No. Okay. Correct. No, the the fire never. Okay. Excellent. I believe many years ago the volunteer firefighters association at that point. Okay.

Okay. So, you might not have heard that. Um, so the interim fire chief said that our fire department hasn't ever sold fireworks, but the marina volunteer firefighters association many years ago used to. So our public safety entities are not directly or indirectly related to any firework sales in Marina. Okay, that that makes that piece very easy then. Okay. Does someone like to make a motion? Mayor, I had one comment. I had my light up. I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. Um, let's go to council member Biala and then council member

McAdams and then and I agree with the mayor that we don't have to do anything uh now because it's so close to July 1, but July 4th I'm tired. Um, and then that will give the folks some time to think about alter alternate um ways to fund raise. You know, just hearing the discussion and saying what future look like? We probably need to start experimenting. Um but the um uh one thing that um the chief mentioned is uh that your drones are very old and you need to replace them.

That's correct. And uh in this budget I just had or discussions that we're looking to uh replace them as we speak. Yeah. Because that's of all the things on here, the other ones are kind of process related. Um and but it seems like drones is replacing current drones is is something we can do in terms of helping the police force um you do their thing on July 4th and New Year's. So you're planning for that. So is you don't need our support today to get replacement drones? No. I I think we're already underway with that.

Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. need our support for option number B if we weren't going to choose option number A. Council member McAdams. Thank you, Mayor. I'm just curious, um, you know, I am hearing consensus that this will come back, but until then, which we could implement before Fourth of July, do we want to increase the fine to $1,000? Do I mean I think that there's something that we could do such as option B. Um hold on let me see.

Well yes except we wouldn't be Yeah. So, the higher fines, I like the curfew of 10 p.m. Um, I don't necessarily know or want to expect um the police department to be adding drones within a couple of months. But, I mean, until then, do we want to amend the policy to just at least increase, you know, the the fee? I think our direction could be we like B come back to us with your proposal for B and they could say oh we do have time to buy drones and it's already in our budget or let them work with B. Uh but but but you can make a I'm

sure I mean I just I know this is just give staff direction but I still am interested in giving the nonprofits writing the checks. They don't have to do fireworks anymore. And I mean, I look at that as an investment in our comm communitywide for all the people who are just furious about the fireworks. It would be easier for our police department and public safety to only have to be enforcing illegal fireworks.

Okay. So, are you in my opinion being bold in suggesting that even tonight we could give direction to staff to give the four booths the profit they made last year and to not allow fireworks this year? I don't know. I mean, I don't Is that what you were thinking? I'm just trying to That's Or I'm thinking maybe not this year, but that's a goal that we have for next year. Just you wait. Yeah. Till our budget discussion. We're gonna have a city fireworks booth. Yes, I can see it. The money isn't flowing like you think.

But I mean, for this year only, do we want to have staff come back so we can increase the fine or have a curfew or we're just going to thank you for the report and we'll hopefully do something by next year. Yeah, I think it's thank you for the report. Please come back before July 4th with your proposed B option. Okay, got it. Check. Okay, thank you. July 4th. Next year. No, this year. This year. But then there's a whole like communication part and getting the word out. Yeah, it might be too soon for B. Yeah, I'm thinking because you have it then to increase the fee you have to give certain notice. So I'm

Right. their their B might not include fine increases. It might be more drones, more staffing, a curfew, whatever they whatever's um reasonable toward B. So if that's just by consensus, I don't think we need to go to a vote. C uh Mayor Prom Viser,

thank you. I think it can be a combination of B and C. But what I forgot to mention when it was my turn earlier, I like facts as you know. And uh if you see how the cities were compared, I mean you can see that the the ones with the cities with the most calls, firework calls, the those are all the ones that have say that allow safe and sane fireworks. The ones at the bottom are all the ones that have full bands. So, and I know the cities I I scribbled the the population uh because some you know s city has 300 some people but so I would like to see this uh well might be too work much work. I already can see even if you look at the population Marina we we have a lot of goals per per resident per

yeah our diversity of people is something we all love and if you go to Carmel and PG and you have yes a different demographic and you said it's a cultural thing well I've said here before I grew up with fireworks in the Netherlands we don't do 4th of July by the way but we have New Year's which is there no no risk or way lower risk of for fires but even in the Netherlands where real fireworks were allowed for people to we it's a war zone if you and um but I grew up with that this year is the first year that will be banned they still allow safe and sane but it will it will be interesting to see how that goes because that's something that people grew up with

so the Dutch are still trying to catch up to us

they are yeah sometimes they're behind yeah so anyway but but for me the um the graph that shows the number of calls and if you look all the ones that have the most calls those are the ones that do allow safe and sane. So there seems to be a correlation there. So but I agree we need to prepare for next year. Oh, one more thing I thought um for the the youth sports clubs that do get income. Would it be possible and I know Elizabeth is here to have them have a booth at the Fourth of July event and they can sell cookies. Well, that's not healthy or make us run. And anyway, um but that's something to consider in this year or next year.

They're too busy at their fireworks booth. They can't do two things at once, maybe. No, this is on the 4th of July. Are they still selling on the 4th? Oh yeah. Oh my goodness. Okay. It's a big day. Okay. So maybe next year then. That's a plug. 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Okay. So next year that might be another incentive. You can come to the party because you don't have to sell. So thank you. Yes. Thank you all for the discussion and the answers.

Okay. So uh Elizabeth brought up uh she made a comment. Maybe it's a combination of B and C. So, I want to give I want to make sure the staff knows what council direction is. If someone would like to make a motion or clarify what they think our consensus is. I think it's I thought it was tell us what can reasonably be done toward B this year in the police departments and city managers opinions and Elizabeth's uh idea to include something like C discharge window zones tighter controlled. I don't know if we're serious about that or not. Elizabeth,

if it's too hard, I'll skip it. Yeah, because it's um we have seven minutes left. So, so the consensus is do what you can in the direction of B and let us know what that is prior to the for. The second part of this present of this item is uh uh recreation director is going to update you on what we have planned. Okay. So, it's quick. I promise. Ash. Uh, I don't think tonight's tonight. And anyone interested in the rules and refinements? Um, that's not tonight either, right?

Elizabeth, please continue.

Thank you, Mayor, mayor prom council members and staff. So, just to uh piggyback on to Chief's presentation about what we are going to be doing on Fourth of July this year, um several of our event components, we're going to have several bands, a touch of truck display, beer and wine garden, food vendors, activities for kids, um and probably the most important part is our redesigned launchpad and viewing area. Um because we've redesigned how the fire the safe and sane fireworks will happen. Next slide. So, this map is a little bit busy, but it gives you a layout of what we're looking at. Um, it in the kind of lower left where you see those two blue arcs, that's actually where the fireworks were last year. And, uh, for this year, we have them in the upper uh kind of middle area. It's a much larger zone. Um, and we've actually uh designed a more controlled launch pad. So, we'll have 12 separate pods available for families. Um, there's 15 ft in di, excuse me, in diameter with 10 ft of separation between each pod. Um, and then there'll be a viewing zone below that um for families who are not actually shooting off the safe and sane fireworks. Um so this redesign allows for much better control with um emergency personnel and then also um pulls the fireworks portion out and away from the rest of the event. So um sounds like we're going to be moving forward um as status quo with safe and sane fireworks this year. So this is our plan to um just implement the activities for Fourth of July. And that's it. So I can answer any questions if you have any about the event itself.

Questions for Elizabeth? Great job Elizabeth. You and just short sure short. Thank you. Just from last year. Just questions. Oh yeah. Just from last year we needed more food trucks. There were such long lines. We are on it. With last year being the first year it was, you know, kind of a hit and miss. Weren't we weren't sure how many people would attend. So, we are adjusting accordingly based on last year's attendance. Yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Okay, we're about to adjourn. We have a few minutes left. I wanted to make an announcement um that I've been considering for the last six months. And I've uh decided not to run for reelection after seven terms. And I've looked at this every which way I can, such as with and without opposition, with and without pay. what would I do with or without the projects that are important to me? And in every way I look at it, the conclusion is I want to run for reelection, but I should not run for reelection. Um, primarily mother and a fantastic relationship I have with Angie. The next four years are going to be my best years. The next four years after that are going to be the best years left over, right? Uh, the best years are behind me, I think. Uh, but the next four years are probably the best that I'm going to live uh as I get older. And uh uh to staff, I will miss you. You're a big reason why I would like to run again. And to the public, it's a quite a honor to be in this city every day interacting with people of all walks of life. And the experience as mayor is rewarding and fulfilling and satisfying and it uh it definitely takes its toll, but it's worth every bit of the toll. And uh it it's just been a great life and a great experience. And uh to the council members, I've enjoyed your your intellect, your passion, your hard work, your uniqueness. Each of you uh Lane and Renee, you're just spectacular. in my book. Um, Lane, you put so much time into this for 13 years and you've stayed so positive in all all moments. Thank you for working alongside of all of us. All right, so with that we will be

ajourned. Thank you everyone. Nice. Thank go.