From:Rosemary Wrenn
To:City Council; Ed Waage; Mary Ann Reiss; Marcia Guthrie; Stacy Inman; Scott Newton Subject:Public comment for 9/15/26 regular city council meeting Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2026 11:15:26 AM
External Email
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to share my deep concern with the manner in which the council took action on Agenda Item 12B “Renaming Palisades Park to Mary Ann Reiss Park” at its September 1, 2026 regular meeting. As I expressed to each of you prior to that meeting, I found the manner in which this action was prepared to be far less than transparent, as there was no outreach at all to the residents and visitors of Palisades Park between the time the request was made by an individual council member at the tail end of the August 18, 2026 meeting and the appearance of the agenda item, staff report and resolution up for consideration on September 1.
I do not know if any of you were able to read my letter prior to your consideration of the item, so I’ve included it below. At the time, my main concern was that there had been no outreach to or discussion with the community about renaming one of our neighborhood parks. My concern regarding transparency remains, however, my current concern is far more serious.
During discussion of the park renaming, it was very clear that Palisades Park at 150 Florin Street was the park under consideration. During discussion, council members suddenly suggested renaming South Palisades/Beachcomber Park instead of the noticed location.
This appears to me to be a violation of the Brown Act and I ask the council to correct it.
There is absolutely no indication in any of the agenda documentation that South Palisades Park would be considered for renaming.
I shared this concern in writing with you all and included the city’s counsel. His response to my concern was focused on defending the act of naming a park after a sitting council member, with no concerns about the actual park in question. He stated that the “mere fact that the Council decided to change the precise location of the specific park to be named does not require additional noticing.”
I respectfully disagree with this statement which was dismissive and unsupported. The locations of the three Palisades Parks are distinct as noted on the signage for each:
“Palisades Park - 150 Florin”, “South Palisades/Beachcomber - 190 Beachcomber Drive”, and “South Palisades/Silver Shoals Park - 165 N. Silver Shoals Drive”. Council acted on the motion with the new location with absolutely no notice to the public. Additionally, the logic for the change was not particularly clear, nor is it clear if both of the current “South
Palisades Park”s will be renamed, or just the one at 190 Beachcomber Drive.
I am formally requesting that the council rectify this by properly noticing the accurate location of the park to be renamed. This will give members of the community the opportunity to provide the council with their opinions, as is their right.
Pismo Beach city government has not always had the best reputation in regards to transparency and providing voice to all members of the community. The action taken at the September 1 meeting perpetuates this trend. Posting the action item with proper notice would give this council the opportunity to show good faith, to serve the people represented here, and to avoid further inquiry into a potential Brown Act violation.
Sincerely,
Rosemary Wrenn, Ed.D.
Pismo Beach
(See prior emails included below)
Email sent September 1, 2026; 4:40pm
Dear Pismo Beach City Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective with you. I am unable to attend the meeting tonight due to having to work.
I am writing in reference to Agenda Item 12.B - Renaming Palisades Park to Mary Ann Reiss Park.
I appreciate the tremendous commitment to our City that Mary Ann Reiss has demonstrated over the past 30 years. I agree that this service should be formally acknowledged and memorialized by the City.
I would like to register my concern about the manner in which this agenda item has evolved, absent any real notice or solicitation of input from the community. (The only way I learned about it was from a colleague who happened to see it listed in this week’s agenda.) As noted in the agenda item, the cost for this change is estimated to be less than $15,000, which the report notes is a “minor” financial impact (it is somewhat concerning that this amount is considered to be “minor”). In fact, new signage, information materials, and
City records will need to be changed. Given that the two carved wooden signs in Palisades Park are relatively new, it is disappointing to know that the City considers these new signs disposable. It seems the City might use that $15,000 to benefit Pismo Beach residents in a more constructive manner, such as improving infrastructure, providing resident parking discounts, or other civic access improvements that would more directly impact daily living here. Additionally, while there are several parks named after individuals throughout the City, this can be a problematic practice, as not all individuals elicit unanimous support.
Again, I absolutely support the City of Pismo Beach formally recognizing the many years of service Mary Ann Reiss has contributed to the community. I do not question that she has earned recognition through great dedication and sacrifice.
My concern with this agenda item moving forward is the lack of transparency in the process, the considerable resources to be expended, and the principle of naming public spaces after individual people. I certainly hope that future decisions that impact residents and visitors throughout Pismo Beach will be handled in a more forthright and transparent manner.
Rosemary Wrenn
Shell Beach
Email sent September 2, 2026 at 11:30am
Good morning, Council Members,
I am writing this morning with concerns about how Agenda Item 12.B on the September 1, 2026 Pismo Beach City Council agenda evolved.
As I noted in previous correspondence (September 1, 2026), the only apparent notice of the proposed action was its listing in the city council agenda for September’s meeting. Given that numerous residents and visitors use Palisades Park on a daily basis, it seems it would have been appropriate to provide them notice of the pending proposal. I understand that the request was made during the August 18, 2026 meeting during Council Comments. As of the writing of this letter, the minutes from this meeting have not been posted, thus the public’s only notice was the meeting agenda for 9/1/26.
During the course of Council discussion of the item (after public comment was closed), the park to be renamed was suddenly shifted to South Palisades park. If this was the sincere
desire of council members, discussion of the location should have ceased immediately and a new agenda item prepared in order to provide proper notice to the public. The agenda item specifically stated the change would be to the name of Palisades Park. By changing the location, Council made a material change in the agenda item. Based on my service on public boards, my understanding is that the Brown Act requires adequate, accurate notice of action items. The resulting motion was not publicly noticed.
I am confused and disappointed at the clumsy handling of this item. The argument for the location change seemed to center on the fact that if Palisades Park was renamed, it would not make sense to have a South Palisades Park. Currently, there appear to be two parks named South Palisades Park - perhaps this will make more sense if they are to be connected at a future time. At the moment, it is not clear if one or both “South Palisades Park(s)” will be renamed. Regardless, the argument does not seem to be grounded in logic and should be more carefully considered by staff, residents, and council members.
Agenda Item 12.B, along with the accompanying staff report, refer specifically to Palisades Park as the focus. There is no mention of South Palisades Park(s) being considered. In my opinion, the initial proposal lacked transparency. The action taken by the Council on Tuesday night goes beyond that and appears to be in violation of the Brown Act.
Having recently learned that this name change was being proposed, I submitted written public comment via email at 4:40pm prior to the 5:30pm start of the City Council Meeting. I am not sure whether or not that comment was included in your materials for consideration.
In that communication, I noted that Mary Ann Reiss has certainly earned the right to be officially recognized by the City of Pismo Beach. My concern is not about recognizing her service - it is about the lack of transparency in the process. The public has the right to know and to have a voice in local governance.
I would appreciate a response to this concern at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Rosemary Wrenn
805-709-8674
Shell Beach
Reply from counsel received September 2, 2026; 11:56am
Ms. Wrenn:
I have received your email below. I am the City Attorney for Pismo Beach. The naming of a city park in the name of a sitting council member was properly noticed under all Brown Act requirements. The mere fact that the Council decided to change the precise location of the specific park to be named does not require additional noticing. The Brown Act’s intent is to ensure the public is properly noticed of an action item for the Council. The naming of a City Park after a sitting member was duly noticed. The City takes great care to operate transparently and afford all required opportunities for public input on Council actions and specifically adhered to that commitment and requirement on the agenda item raised in your correspondence. We appreciate your time and attention.
Regards,
Dean J. Pucci, Esq.
Partner
Jones Mayer