regular meeting city of coronado city … · 2015. 12. 4. · coronado, california . tuesday,...

Joint City Council/CDA Meeting October 18, 2011

* AS A COURTESY TO OTHERS PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES *

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need

special assistance to participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this

City, please contact the City Clerk’s office, (619) 522-7320. Assisted listening

devices are available at this meeting. Ask the City Clerk if you desire to use this device.

Upon request, the agenda and documents in the agenda packet can be made available in

appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability. Notification of at least 48

hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in

assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting

or service.

A COPY OF THE AGENDA WITH THE BACKGROUND MATERIAL IS

AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION AT THE PUBLIC LIBRARY

NOTICE AND AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING

CITY OF CORONADO

CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Coronado City Hall

1825 Strand Way CORONADO, CALIFORNIA

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 3 p.m.

NOTE: CDA items are denoted by an *.

1. ROLL CALL.

2. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

*3. MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

MEETINGS: Approval of the minutes of the Regular meeting of September 20, the

Special meeting of September 26 and the Regular meeting of October 4, 2011.

4. CEREMONIAL PRESENTATIONS:

a. Proclamation: Coronado Lions Club White Cane Days. (Pg 1)



5. CONSENT CALENDAR: All items listed under this section are considered to be routine

and will be acted upon with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items

unless a member of the City Council or the public so requests, in which event, the item will be

considered separately in its normal sequence.

a. Approval of Reading by Title and Waiver of Reading In Full of Ordinances on

this Agenda. (Pg 5)

Recommendation: Approve the reading by title and waive the reading in

full of all Ordinances on the agenda.

*b. Review and Approve that the Warrants, as Certified by the City/Agency

Treasurer, are all Correct, Just, and Conform to the Approved Budget for FY

2011-2012. (Pg 7)

Recommendation: Approve the Warrants as certified by the City/Agency

Treasurer.

c. Second Reading for Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of

Coronado, California, Amending Chapter 84.10 Regarding Historic Resource

Code and Chapter 84.20 Regarding Historic Resource Alteration and Demolition

Permits. (Pg 65)

Recommendation: Adopt “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of

Coronado, California, amending Chapter 84.10 regarding Historic Resource

Code and Chapter 84.20 regarding Historic Alteration and Demolition

Permits” and direct the City Clerk to read the title of the ordinance and

publish the ordinance in accordance with the law.

d. Acceptance of the 2009 Street Light Replacement Project and Direction to the

City Clerk to File a Notice of Completion. (Pg 81)

Recommendation: Accept the 2009 Street Light Replacement project and

direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion.

e. Acceptance of the Pool Umbrella Project and Direction to the City Clerk to File a

Notice of Completion. (Pg 83)

Recommendation: Accept the Pool Umbrella project and direct the City

Clerk to file a Notice of Completion.

f. Adoption of Resolutions Documenting the Modification to Employer Paid

Member Contributions for the Coronado Police Officers’ Association, Executive,

and Self-Represented Staff. (Pg 85)

Recommendation: Adopt resolutions titled, “Resolution for Paying and

Reporting the Value of Employer Paid Member Contributions,” “Resolution

for Employer Paid Member Contributions,” and “Resolution to Tax Defer

Member Paid Contributions – IRC 414(H)(2) Employer Pick-Up.”

6. COMMUNICATIONS - ORAL: Each person wishing to speak before the City Council

on any matter shall approach the City Council, give their name, and limit their presentation to 3

minutes. State law generally precludes the City Council from discussing or acting upon any topic

initially presented during oral communication. (ORAL COMMUNICATIONS WILL BE

LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF 10 MINUTES; ANY FURTHER COMMUNICATIONS WILL BE

HEARD PRIOR TO THE MEETING ADJOURNMENT)



7. CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:

a. Update on Council Directed Actions and Citizen Inquiries. (Informational Item)

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None.

9. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS: None.

10. COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS: (Questions allowed but no discussion

or action.)

a. Report from the Port Commissioner Concerning Port Activities.

11. CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUSINESS:

a. Council Reports on Inter-Agency Committee and Board Assignments. (Questions

allowed to clarify, but no responses, discussion or action.)

b. Consideration of Reappointment of Two Incumbents to the Street Tree

Committee. (Pg 95)

Recommendation: Reappoint Shannon Player and Marvin Heinze to the

Street Tree Committee.

c. Approval of the Major Special Events Calendar for the Year 2012 and Adoption

of a Resolution Approving Those Major Special Events in Excess of Eight Events.

(Pg 97)

Recommendation: Approve four (4) traditional events; approve six (6) non-

traditional, previously approved events; consider two (2) new requests and

deny due to lack of local benefit; and adopt “A Resolution of the City

Council of the City of Coronado, California Approving those Major Special

Events for Calendar Year 2012 in Excess of Eight Events.”

d. Direction to Staff on the Design of Landscaping Improvements and Traffic

Calming Measures In and Around the Toll Plaza. (Pg 137)

Recommendation: Direct staff to present the conceptual design to the Design

Review and Transportation Commissions to obtain their recommendations

regarding the design and return to the Council to summarize comments

received and provide a staff recommendation regarding what the ultimate

improvements should look like.

12. CITY ATTORNEY: No report.

13. COMMUNICATIONS - WRITTEN:

a. Consideration of Request from Councilmember Denny to Enhance Public Safety

and Traffic Safety, Direct City Staff to Open a Dialogue with Caltrans Concerning

a Slow-Down Zone of 45 MPH on State Route 75 Around the Entrance of the

Coronado Cays, from the South End of the Cays to the Entrance, and Report Back

to the Coronado Cays Homeowners Association (CCHOA) Board. (Pg 145)



14. CLOSED SESSION:

a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION

AUTHORITY: Government Code Section 54956.9(a)

NAMES OF CASES:

1. William and Heidi Dickerson v. City of Coronado

San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2010-00096011-CU-CO-CTL

2. Maverick Campbell v. City of Coronado

San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2010-00101725-CU-WT-CTL

3. City of Coronado v. Lorre St. Germain

San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2008-00084467-CU-MC-CTL

4. City of Coronado v. Brian Cowan

San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2011-00093956-CU-OR-CTL

5. Bryan v. MacPherson

San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2011-00086449-CU-PO-CTL

6. Stein v. City of Coronado, et al.

San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2011-00097925-CU-PO-CTL

b. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED

LITIGATION

AUTHORITY: Government Code Section 54956.9 (b)(3)(E)

One (1) Potential case.

Facts and circumstances:

On August 4, 2010, the City of San Diego filed a claim for damages against the

City of Coronado alleging that the City of Coronado has introduced effluent into

City of San Diego sewer mains with extremely high levels of hydrogen sulfide gas

damaging the cast iron waste system in a high-rise condominium complex known

as “The Grand South.”

15. ADJOURNMENT

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of

the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office at 1825

Strand Way during normal business hours.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 477

City Council/Community Development Agency

of the City of Coronado of October 4, 2011

477

MINUTES OF A

REGULAR MEETING OF THE

CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

OF THE

CITY OF CORONADO Coronado City Hall

1825 Strand Way

Coronado, CA 92118

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Mayor Tanaka called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

1. ROLL CALL:

Present: Councilmembers/Agency Members Denny, Downey, Ovrom,

Woiwode and Mayor Tanaka

Absent: None

Also Present: City Manager/Agency Executive Director Blair King

Deputy City Attorney/Agency Counsel Johanna Canlas

City Clerk/Agency Secretary Linda Hascup

2. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Floyd Ross provided the

invocation and Mayor Tanaka led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 20, 2011,

and the Special Meeting of September 26, 2011.

MSUC (Woiwode/Downey) moved to continue the approval of the minutes.

AYES: Denny, Downey, Ovrom, Woiwode, Tanaka

NAYS: None

ABSTAINING: None

ABSENT: None




478

4. CEREMONIAL PRESENTATIONS:

4a. Proclamation: Walk and Bike to School Day and Rideshare Week 2011. Mayor Tanaka presented the proclamation to Dan Martin, Project Implementation Manager for

SANDAG‟s icommute program.

Councilmember Downey added that the largest employer in the City of Coronado, the United

States Navy, routinely wins an award every year in the ride share program because of the efforts

that are done through the iCommute program. She thanked Mr. Martin and SANDAG for their

efforts to try to find ways around the use of single occupancy vehicles.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR: The City Council approved, adopted and/or accepted as one

item of business Consent Agenda Items 5a through 5g with the exception of Item 5c.

Councilmember Woiwode suggested the addition of Items 11d and 11e.

Councilmember Denny requested that Items 11d and 11e be considered in their normal sequence.

She will be voting no on Item 5c and will abstain from one check on item 5b, #10086506, dated

9/22/11 for $120 for business cards for herself. Her abstention is in keeping with good

professional form in terms of Council member policy.

Councilmember Downey requested that Item 5c be removed from Consent with an apology to

her fellow Council members. She commented that the folks on Third and Fourth Street have

been looking for congestion relief for years and she feels that if someone is going to vote no on

this project she thinks those residents have the right to understand why.

MSUC (Woiwode/Downey) moved that the City Council approve the Consent

Calendar Items 5a through 5g with the exception of Item 5c.


NAYS: None

ABSTAINING: Denny, as described for Item 5b

ABSENT: None

5a. Approval of Reading by Title and Waiver of Reading in Full of Ordinances

on this Agenda. The City Council waived the reading of the full text and approved the

reading of the title only.

5b. Review and Approval that the Warrants, as Certified by the City/Agency

Treasurer, are all Correct and Just, and Conform to the Approved Budgets for FY 2010-

2011 and FY 2011-2012. The City Council ratified payment of warrants Nos. 10086399 thru

10086606 audited and approved by the Audit Committee, provided there are sufficient funds on

hand. The City Council approved that the warrants are correct and just and conform to

the approved budgets for the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 and Fiscal Year 2011-2012.




479

5c. Authorization to Advertise the State Routes 75/282 Congestion Relief and

Corridor Enhancement Bulb-outs Project for Bid. City Manager Blair King gave

background information on this item.

Councilmember Downey asked staff about how long ago it was that the City started talking

about doing bulb outs along Third and Fourth Streets and where did the idea come from.

Ed Walton, Director of Engineering and Project Development, responded by saying that it was

several years ago and that it came from a group of residents in the Third and Fourth Street area

that was meeting to bring forth ideas on how to address their traffic concerns and how to help

mitigate traffic. This was one of the ideas. This Congestion Relief Working Group also

included members from SANDAG, Caltrans, and the City of San Diego. Mr. Walton added that

the scope of the work on this project had been reduced from doing bulb outs on several other

locations in addition to the Third and Fourth Street areas, primarily because of the drainage

concerns around the bulb outs.

Ms. Downey believes that it Caltrans would not let the City install the bulb outs that would make

it easier for pedestrians to cross unless the City also addressed the drainage issues in certain

intersections. Mr. Walton concurred. Ms. Downey understands the staff recommendation is to

finally go out to bid to do the approved bulb outs at certain locations.

Mr. Walton explained that the locations are at three intersections; Third Street at F Avenue,

Third Street at H Avenue, and Fourth Street at B Avenue.

Ms. Downey added that the group working on this was trying to address any impacts from

removal of the tolls. She explained that when the tolls were removed there were funds set aside

for Coronado to use to address issues from the removal of the tolls.

Mr. Walton agreed that is what initiated this and that there is money identified in the CIP budget

for this project.

Ms. Downey further explained that when the bridge tolls were removed there was an agreement

between SANDAG and Coronado that there was money set aside to address traffic concerns

from the removal of tolls. This project has long been one of those projects that these funds were

anticipated to be used for.

MSC (Downey/Ovrom) moved that the City Council authorize staff to

advertise the project for bid.

Councilmember Denny stated that she is on record as saying that using those tolls for things such

as bulb outs or to improve the drainage at Sixth Street and Orange Avenue, as it has been used, is

not the highest and best use. She receives both telephone and written communications from

residents that live in that corridor and they are not at all in favor of the bulb outs as at one time

MTS and Caltrans and whatever group of people might have been in the past. She doesn‟t

believe that we have a good feel for the number of citizen‟s that were involved in the past, but

she does because she has been doing her research and she still walks door to door in that area and

hears that the bulb outs are not very popular and not a good use of funds. What the people want

with the toll money is to spend it on things like noise reduction and to help those people such as

the citizen whose home was crashed into by a vehicle, or for things like barriers and double

paned windows assistance – things like that would be what the citizens in the corridor tell her




480

they are very interested in. She spends a lot of time figuring out what their needs are there. She

doesn‟t know what their needs were a long time ago or how we are interpreting those needs now,

but that is what she finds. The other thing is the timing. It is really strange because Caltrans

really hasn‟t approved this yet. It says in the staff report that the City is expecting approval from

Caltrans for a limited number of bulb outs. She knows we aren‟t starting the tunnel audit yet

because we don‟t have the final letter yet from Federal Highways, so she doesn‟t think we really

need to start the process on the bulb outs until we have the final letter from Caltrans.

Ms. Downey explained that the citizens who wanted bulb outs did not just want to address the

fact that there was a lot of noise in their homes and wanted better windows or other noise

reducing solutions. They had concerns about safety when crossing the busiest streets in

Coronado. The way bulb outs work is that they extend the amount of time that someone can be

standing in a safe location and shorten the distance one has to cross. One of the anticipated bulb

outs is in a Safe Routes to School area. This is an attempt to make it easier for those people who

live on the other side of Third and Fourth Streets to get across into the Village. There may be

other ways that the City could use the set aside money to assist the residents that live along Third

and Fourth Streets but she has had the experience of being a homeowner in the Third and Fourth

Street corridor and having her children cross every day when they went to school. She has heard

from all of the neighbors, including the person who chaired the citizen committee for those many

years and the others who have been involved. They have requested that the City finish this. It is

being honest to do what we told our citizens we would do. The reason we are doing a limited

number now is because it is all that Caltrans has agreed to during the discussions that have taken

place with them.

Councilmember Woiwode pointed out that in the Bike Master Plan there are some crossing

signals proposed on Third and Fourth Streets that are pedestrian activated called HAWKS. The

committee wanted to make sure that they are compatible with bulb outs because they anticipated

bulb outs to be part of the solution.

Ms. Denny thinks that the idea of helping pedestrians cross in that area is excellent. She just

wants to make sure everybody understands that, in terms of transportation policy, bulb outs are

not the be all and end all and are quite controversial as to whether they, in fact, actually do what

people think that they do. She thinks there are better solutions. She doesn‟t want to restate what

she has already said other than that she does not think it is the highest and best use of the funding

and the citizens that contact her don‟t want the bulb outs. She would be really interested to know

how many citizens is still pro bulb out in Ms. Downey‟s experience because she doesn‟t have

any.

AYES: Downey, Ovrom, Woiwode, Tanaka

NAYS: Denny

ABSTAINING: None

ABSENT: None

5d. Second Reading for Adoption of “An Ordinance of the City Council of the

City of Coronado, California, Amending Subsection 86.10.050A of the Coronado Municipal

Code Regarding the Required Rear Yard in the R-1B Single Family Residential Zone.”

The City Council adopted AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SUBSECTION 86.10.050A OF THE

CORONADO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE REQUIRED REAR YARD IN




481

THE R-1B SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE. The Ordinance, having been

placed on First Reading on September 20, 2011, was read by Title, the reading in its

entirety unanimously waived and adopted by Council as ORDINANCE NO. 2028.

5e. Authorization to Implement a Reorganization of Fire Department Command

Staff and Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Personnel Authorization and

Compensation Plan Changing the Classification of Division Chief to Battalion Chief. The

City Council approved the changes for Fire Department Command Staff and adopted A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO AMENDING

THE PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATION AND COMPENSATION PLAN FOR FY 2011-12

TO REPLACE THE CLASSIFICATION OF FIRE DIVISION CHIEF WITH THE

CLASSICATION OF FIRE BATTALION CHIEF. The Resolution was read by Title, the

reading in its entirety unanimously waived and adopted by Council as RESOLUTION NO.

8506.

5f. Authorization to Temporarily Exceed Maximum Authorized Personnel in

Police Services and Fire Services. The City Council authorized Police and Fire Services

Departments to temporarily increase the number of authorized positions. The approved

temporary over-staffing will be reduced back to regular levels through attrition.

5g. Approval and Acceptance of the Terrazzo Restoration Project and Direction

to the City Clerk to File a Notice of Completion. The City Council accepted the Terrazzo

Restoration project and directed the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion.

6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

a. Claudia Valenzuela, SDG&E, provided an update on the power outage from September

8th

. The power went out across SDG&E‟s 4,100 sq. mi. electrical system, affecting 1.4

million customers in San Diego County and southern Orange County. In addition to their

customers, millions of people in Arizona, Imperial County, and Baja Norte lost power. The

incident was the first system-wide black out in the utility‟s history. Fortunately, the system

sustained no significant structural damage and SDG&E began returning power to their

customers within 4 to 5 hours of the outage and restored service to all customers in less than

12 hours, much more quickly than expected. Now the focus shifts to what triggered the

blackout and how to prevent a similar event in the future. It is too early to speculate on any

details beyond the initial Arizona event. State and Federal regulators will take many months

to complete their analysis which will involve all impacted utilities. This unprecedented event

reminds us that the emergency preparation before these types of situations is critical.

Throughout the years SDG&E emergency response personnel train quarterly to prepare

different emergency scenarios that may occur within our territory, including earthquakes,

fires, load curtailments, and other emergencies. Based on this diligent preparation SDG&E

was able to activate the emergency operations center within minutes of the outage occurring.

SDG&E collaborated with the County Office of Emergency Service and countless city and

county officials to coordinate restoration efforts. She personally communicated with Chief

Blood on Coronado issues and kept him updated via phone calls and texts. The ongoing

communication with the City and County emergency response personnel throughout the

region was key in effectively communicating safety messages to customers during the

outage. Their customers were significant contributors to the speed of power restoration,




482

responding to requests for conservation by turning off all non essential electric devices,

including air conditioners. This positive public response was based largely on the City‟s

efforts and support which helped them communicate with the businesses and residents of

Coronado. As they look forward to the future for their ongoing emergency preparedness and

planning, SDG&E welcomes the opportunity to continue to collaborate with the City of

Coronado‟s leaders and residents to improve the region‟s energy preparedness.

b. Jackie Wennan spoke on Item 11b. She has high hopes that the 20 or so historic

properties that have been on that Mills Act list for years will be grandfathered under the

terms of the existing Mills Act agreements. If the terms do change they should effect new

people on the list.

c. Andrea Webster, Executive Director, Coronado SAFE, announced that SAFE is on

track for the goals that they set at the beginning of the year. They had a tremendously

productive summer that allowed them to reorganize, revamp and relaunch the new Coroando

SAFE by the start of our schools‟ year. All of the newly improved programs and services are

up and running, including the newest, the Parent Advisory Council and the Napolitano

Family SAFE Ambassador welcoming committee. To this point SAFE continues to garner

diverse community support from many sectors of the community and they are grateful to

have received full program sponsorship for fourteen of their very influential programs. Since

the last time she was before the City Council, SAFE has succeeded in moving from a

problem focused substance prevention organization to a solution focused, skill building

enrichment organization. In line with this change she is thrilled to present that SAFE has a

very special guest joining them in this next week. She is not sure how many people are

familiar with Sean Covey but he is a wonderful, international bestselling author. His father,

Stephen Covey, started the “Seven Habits” collection and swept the nation with his work

over 20 years ago. His son followed up with his work and has now oversold his father. He is

a wonderful addition to the teens in Coronado. His work gives our teenagers some real

concrete skills that they can use for themselves. This keynote speaker will be in Coronado

on October 11th

from 7 to 8:30 pm. People at home can logon to www.coronadosafe.org to

reserve their free tickets on line. There will be a book signing from 5 to 6:30 in front of the

CoSA Theater and Bay Books will be there to sell books on site. There will also be several

seminar series devoted to building these particular habits in teens to help them succeed in life

and the world around them.

d. Steve Bruce, introduced himself as a leading expert on human starvation and

malnutrition, and listed the benefits that will come from completely ending human starvation

and malnutrition. He has a plan for this that is explained at the website www.thecount.org.

e. Councilmember Denny commented that the September 8 power outage was a wakeup call

for emergency preparedness. She urged members of the public to sign up for CERT training

by calling the Fire Department at 522-7374. The training is listed in the Fall 2011 Coronado

Adult Education ROP booklet. The CERO group was instrumental in keeping

communications open during the power outage. People who are interested in participating

can learn more at www.ceroinc.org or by contacting Ms. Denny. She also reported that the

Cays Homeowners Association voted unanimously on September 27 to request that the City

of Coronado assist them by opening a dialogue with Caltrans for a zone of slower vehicle




483

speed around the entrance to the Cays. She will be introducing an agenda item for the

October 18 Council meeting for the Council to decide if it wants to assist the Cays in this

request. Her next Speak Out Coronado meetings will be held in the Winn Room of the

Library on Monday, November 14 from 5 to 6 pm and then on Wednesday, December 14

from 5:30 to 6:30 pm.

f. Councilmember Downey mentioned that the EIR for the 2050 Regional Transportation

Plan was discussed at the most recent SANDAG meeting. The Attorney General sent a letter

to SANDAG stating that they have addressed all the issues but the AG, citing a study that

suggests there should be more in depth analysis of how large projects will affect social

justice issues. She was unaware there was any new criteria that they should have been

applying, suggested that SANDAG might have done more and used different criteria to

address the affect of transportation on communities at risk. SANDAG applied the existing

criteria. She went online to read the study cited by the Attorney General and found that it

specifically says it is not to be used for regulatory purposes because more work needs to be

done and criteria developed. She advised SANDAG that it had done its job, although it is

always advisable to do as much work as possible to ensure that projects aren‟t going to affect

any communities differently, specifically those at risk. Although she is not recommending

that Coronado send its own individual letter, several of the mayors who were at the meeting

have asked her to forward the information she provided to SANDAG so that their cities can

put out letters. SANDAG is sending a response similar to what she suggested, to state that it

has done its job and that when the State changes its rules then SANDAG will use those rules

to properly analyze the issue. Until such time there is no obligation to do so.

7. CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:

7a. Update on Council Direction Actions and Citizen Inquiries. City Manager

Blair King provided a post-incident report to the City Council. During the blackout period, the

following incidents occurred and the City provided the following:

Four elevator rescues

Six medical aid calls

Responded to three ringing alarms

Eight security checks

Four disturbance calls

Delivered oxygen to two residents who required it

Had 13 traffic lighter responses

Three suspicious persons calls

Three theft calls

Two requests to check on someone‟s welfare

Responded to two suicide calls

Provided service to nine critical pump stations which prevented the City from having any

sewer spills into the Bay and no reportable incidents.

Provided 50 temporary stop signs and deployed those throughout the City to back up the

signalized intersections

Responded by fueling all emergency service vehicles during the time

Provided dinner for 144 participants of a tournament although the kitchen was black

Had one wedding with approximately 80 people in attendance




484

Provided service to the Coronado Community Hospital during the course of the blackout.

Provided 48 tweets during the course of the blackouts plus one city wide alert via the

Alert San Diego

Turned off or converted all of the City‟s information technology and closed it down

during the blackout.

It is estimated that the marginal additional cost in responding to the blackout was approximately

$16,000. That was not the entire cost, but the cost would have been much higher if the City

would not have been as well prepared to respond as it was. This was accomplished by having

pumps and generators ready to go, having equipment that was ready to be dispatched, having

personnel on. In terms of first responders, defined in this case as police, fire, and public services,

there were about 70 people responding throughout the City. Staff first prepared for a 24 hour

incident in two operational periods. If the City had gone to the second operational period the

costs would have easily doubled. An after action review is included in the Council agenda

packet. The feeling is that the City responded very well. There were some hard shut downs of

computer equipment and some equipment was damaged but all of it was under warranty so there

was no actual cost. Staff thanks the Council for increasing the staffing allocation for IT

personnel. The additional staff person was not on board yet but for future emergency situations

will be very helpful. Overall, he feels that the Council can be confident that the City responded

to this incident well.

Mr. King introduced the budget brief document prepared by staff, which is a simple document to

explain the highlights of the fiscal 2011/2012 budget in a format that will help the public

understand how the municipal corporation runs, how it operates, and what the services are that

the City Council is providing. An example of the kind of information contained in the document

is the fact that out the amount retains by the City from a $221 speeding ticket is only $8.75.

Councilmember Downey said that one of the questions she received during the blackout was

about the one traffic signal that remained on. She believes it was on the same circuit as the Fire

Department and presumes that the Fire Department has backup generators.

Mr. King explained that the signal lights, with the exception of the signal at First and Orange, are

owned by Caltrans. All of the signals have battery backup units, which, along with the light

emitting diodes, in theory, allow the signal to operate for approximately two hours at all three

phases before going to default flashing red for a period of time. It appears that, with the

exception of two signals, they worked. Those two signals, even though they had battery backup

units, had problems. Because staff thought there was going to be a longer operational period

they positioned temporary stop signs to prepare for the battery backup units to run out of power

and the signals to go dark.

Councilmember Ovrom suggested to the public that they read this after action report. The report

was very well done and he thinks the Manager did a very fine job of trying to identify not only

what the positives were but also what some things are that need to be improved. He had

immediately texted the Manager about hospital and sewer and received a text back that both

were okay. He couldn‟t help thinking one step further about what would happen in an

earthquake, if either the water and/or sewer lines were severed and whether there is enough

public services equipment to handle some of that. You simply can‟t have enough to do




485

everything. Mr. Ovrom asked the City Manager to look into those issues, particularly in the way

of generators and pumps. He added that when he was at the League of California Cities annual

meeting he learned of a piece of equipment that was designed for the Marines that converts

sewer water to drinking water at the rate of about 3,000 gallons per hour. This piece of

equipment is smaller than a reference desk. He suggested that the City look into this or

something that might work on salt water. That way if the water lines ever do have a problem

here will be a backup. Mr. Ovrom asked Mr. King to if the City could get together with the

Coronado Unified School District and look at scenarios with them – one with students and one

without. He suggested that there should be some written procedures in the EOC on this.

Councilmember Denny agrees with Mr. Ovrom. She encourages the public to read pages 109 to

118 of the agenda where they will find the City Manager‟s report which also includes an after

action staff review. She really appreciates the level of detail in the report. She commented that

as the financial cost of the power outage in Coronado was about $16,000 and the City was lucky

that this happened on a Thursday when the City was well staffed. She questioned where that

money would come from.

Mr. King explained that all of the costs will be absorbed within the department budgets where

the costs were incurred. The City budgets for overtime for departments such as Police and

Public Services. The majority of the cost was from incidental overtime.

Ms. Denny said that the City was lucky in terms of weather and circumstances, which is one of

the reasons she has already gone on record saying that the small amount of $1 million that the

City Council agreed by a vote of 4-1 to put towards emergency response really seems so

insignificant. Perhaps the Council might find, in the future, that they might want to revisit that

and boost that figure up. The funds seem to be available and we really cannot rely upon the

federal government or the state government or anyone else to come in and help us.

Mayor Tanaka thinks that the remaining four Council members would point out that they set

aside $19 million in emergency funds and that is money that can‟t be used unless the City takes a

separate vote to unencumber it. The four would disagree with Ms. Denny‟s analysis.

Councilmember Woiwode congratulated the department heads. It is gratifying to see this report

and to see how wonderfully City staff responded. The same qualities that caused the City to do

so well in the citizen satisfaction survey are those that caused the City to meet the challenge of

this emergency.

Councilmember Downey offered kudos to City staff as well as to SDG&E staff. She pointed out

that there is an opportunity to put in a claim for expenses other than overtime. She is not

suggesting that be done but raised it as an option. In an emergency, should something happen,

there are opportunities to recoup some of the expenses incurred.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

8a. Public Hearing: Adoption by Resolution of Historic Designation Criteria

Guidelines and First Reading for Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 84.10




486

Regarding the Historic Resource Code and Chapter 84.20 Regarding Historic Resource

Alteration and Demolition Permits (HP 2011-02 City of Coronado). Tricia Olsen, Associate

Planner, provided the staff report.

Councilmember Denny asked about the change on page 163 of the agenda, under 84.10.040A.3.

She asked Ms. Olsen to explain the change for the public as it doesn‟t seem to her that it has a

big impact. It is just that the application for historic resource designation no longer goes through

the HRC but now through the City of Coronado Community Development Department.

Ms. Olsen read the section and clarified that this change was just to make it consistent

throughout the code. On some places it said on forms prescribed by the HRC and in other places

it said provided by the City of Coronado Community Development Department. Staff felt that

the forms are obviously provided by the Community Development Department and if staff

needed to make small changes to the applications they would need to be brought to the HRC

each time. That was just to be consistent throughout the code on where those application forms

are available.

Councilmember Downey wanted to talk about being eligible to be listed on the California

Register and the National Register. The most recent one that we‟ve all talked about and gone

through was the rush job to try to get 1010 Glorietta determined to be historic. It was sent up by

SOHO to California. California didn‟t put it on the California Register. What they did, because

they knew under CEQA that the only way to stop it from being destroyed was to get it eligible

for the National Register so that is what it did. A decision will be made some day in our lifetime

that it is or is not eligible but if it is not eligible it was not put on the California Register and it

was not at that time eligible to be on the Coronado register or at least that the City didn‟t put it

on. At that point, if it is turned down by the National it is not historic by any recognized

standard.

Ms. Olsen stated that if the National Register does not list the property than it is not listed or

determined eligible on the California Register.

Ms. Downey concluded that it would then not be listed anywhere unless Coronado were then to

list it on the City‟s at a later date.

Ms. Denny understands from speaking with historic preservation professionals is that when the

State refers it to National for review, people in the historic preservation field consider that almost

a presumption of historicity. Would Ms. Olsen agree with that statement?

Ms. Olsen responded that in her conversation with the staff person at the State level it was

explained that if the resource is turned down by the National Register, they do not list it or have

it be determined eligible for the State register. His response to that question was that the State

does not consider it historic at that point.

Ms. Denny further asked for clarification that right now there would be a presumption of

historicity or they wouldn‟t have recommended it to the National Register.




487

Ms. Olsen agreed that they recommended it to the National Register. She spoke with Jay Correa

at the State office.

Mayor Tanaka opened the public hearing.

Bruce Coons, Executive Director of Save Our Heritage Organization, San Diego, commented

that SOHO is generally in support of the changes that are proposed. He has four items that he

wanted to talk about. The first one is whether it triggers the alterations/demo program. There

should just be one word changed. It should have “designated interiors”, too. There are hardly

any in Coronado but there is one at the Hotel Del and there was a problem in the past that the

City Manager stepped in and was very efficient at making sure it didn‟t get painted white which

is what was going to happen. There is more and more happening in San Diego where property

owners are asking for significant interiors. He is not saying non designated interiors, but an

alteration or demo of a significant designated interior should trigger the process.

Ms. Downey commented that in order to do that the City would have to be designating interiors.

None of our criteria talks about the interior of a structure. How does one get there from here?

Mr. Coons thinks that interiors should be added and went on to say that there is nothing in the

City‟s criteria that doesn‟t say the City can designate an interior either. The City actually can

already. Plus the City already has these other levels such as a national historic landmark with a

designated interior. It certainly should trigger the City‟s ordinance if someone is going to

damage that. That is all SOHO is asking. It isn‟t a big change but it is something that should be

a trigger. Also, for the demo permit they were removing the requirement for them to submit site

plan photographs and the reason for demo. He doesn‟t understand why we aren‟t asking for that

anymore. It is in the strikeout. The City should and it should be put on the City‟s website, too,

so that people can understand what is going to happen. First it is a question of why we are doing

that and second it is a request that probably further that should be made more available to the

public than it currently is. SOHO supports the 50 year threshold to be more consistent. He

believes Coronado is the only city that is 75. He doesn‟t think that would affect much and it

wouldn‟t lead to the designation of the Country Club or those other areas. There are probably

only three resources past ‟41 SOHO considers, one of which is 1010 Glorietta. Two or more

criteria should be looked at in the future to be more consistent with other jurisdictions and the

National Register to go down to one and compress the number of criteria that are available for

designation at the same time.

Ms. Denny referred to page 162 of the agenda packet when it talks about the definition of an

historic resource and it says that it is an object, a building, a structure, a site and crossed out are

the words “landmark area or place.” She asked Mr. Coons if that is something he would agree

with.

Mr. Coons responded that the City should probably include cultural landscapes which could

include parks or anything that has been changed by human activity. All other ordinances include

cultural landscapes.




488

Ms. Denny referred to page 163, letter E, which talks about historic resources. “It has been listed

on or formally determined eligible for the California Register.” And then it is crossed out,

“meets the State program of landmarks” and so forth. Does Mr. Coons agree with that?

Mr. Coons has reviewed that and feels that it is fine for that criterion. He referred to a different

question from Ms. Downey that there is a threshold for what triggers an EIR and is different if it

is alleged to be eligible for the California Register by the HRC or SOHO or an historic group

then it triggers the environmental process. In the end it would have to be determined eligible or

formally listed so there are two different thresholds there.

Ms. Denny referred to page 168, under definitions; it says what an alteration is. It says that it

means an addition, relocation, demolition, or any change affecting the exterior visual qualities of

an historic resource, including but not limited to, architectural features, visual characteristics,

design and materials, excluding routine maintenance. There are some removals as well: „means

any exterior addition, relocation, demolition of an historic resource‟. Is that something Mr.

Coons would agree with?

Mr. Coons thinks this would cover the issues that have existed recently such as demolition of

trellises and other things. He thinks that language is appropriate.

Dave Gillingham, Coronado resident, commented that he emailed each City Council member and

received replies from most of them but was unable to reach Mr. Ovrom as his mailbox was full.

He has a couple of concerns that he expressed in his email. He thinks that the change from 75

years to 50 years is something that deserves greater public input than has happened so far. The

number of homes that would be included in that 25 year difference is quite substantial. It is not

so much whether they are designated or not but whether someone wants to come and replace

their windows or change the roof or make a second story addition or something like that. It will

have to go through the historic review process and get an historic demolition permit or an

historic alteration permit and that, to him, seems unreasonable. He notices that Coronado is, as a

City, a little bit more lenient in the number of years. He has had to deal with this a couple of

times across the bridge where it is 45 years and it is onerous. He thinks the public needs to

provide input on that. Perhaps more important, though, on complying with the National Historic

Guidelines, the Secretary of the Interior Standards, he thinks the City needs to be real careful and

think that through very carefully about whether or not to choose to apply those standards. As it

stands right now if someone gets an historic alteration permit, one of the criterions of an historic

alteration permit is to comply with the National Secretary of Interior Standards. Many of the

permits that are issued in Coronado do not. Straight out of the box they don‟t comply. It can

create some unintended consequences that the City may not want. For example, if someone

comes in and requests an alteration permit that the City otherwise thinks looks fine and looks like

the original house that does not mean it complies with those national standards. In fact, additions

are supposed to look markedly different. The Lodge project was shot down for National listing

because of the additional building that was constructed. They said it looked too much like the

original building. They were very upset about that having spent a great deal of money

attempting to comply. He thinks the City needs to be very careful as to whether or not it wants

to actually tie its hands with those standards or not.




489

Susan Keith spoke in support of the HRC recommendations. She has no problem with reducing

the age from 75 to 50. As a matter of fact, she really doesn‟t have a problem reducing it to no

age. If a house is going to be historic, it is going to be historic no matter what the age is. If

Frank Lloyd Wright were to walk into the City tomorrow and build a new house she thinks the

City would have to look at it carefully to say that this could be historic. Age doesn‟t really

bother her. That is just the first wicket you go through. There are all the other criteria that have

to be met. There is a safety system here. Just because you are 75 years of age or 50 years of age

or 45 doesn‟t necessarily mean you are historic. She is not concerned about the age in there just

because there are so many other wickets and criteria that staff and HRC need to go through. She

thinks staff has done a great job presenting to the City Council the items that have come forth

today. It was particularly important to her to see the number of cities shown on page 177 & 178

that are the cities in the State of California that have historic preservation ordinances. Coronado

is the only city with 75 years of age. There are those with 45 and 50 and there are many with

none. She thinks we are a little out of step with the rest of the State and the National. She

believes this all came about because Councilmember Downey wanted a review of the criteria and

wanted the City to be more in line with the federal and state guidelines rather than making our

own. The HRC has come back with exactly what she thinks the City Council asked for and she

would hope that the Council would support what staff and HRC are recommending.

Doug St. Denis responded to what Dave Gillingham suggested. If she is correct, the City doesn‟t

have the option of not using the national standards. If there is an historic ordinance the

municipality is bound to use the standards of the Secretary of the Interior. Back to the changing

of the age, yes, it is just what started when Councilmember Downey asked HRC to bring the City

more in line with state and national and that is what HRC did. Doing this research that staff has

done so wonderfully there are 63 California cities on here. Most of them, all but 3 of the 63 are

50 years, less or none as an age requirement. So we are definitely out of step. These

inflammatory emails that are getting everyone upset from a former Council person saying that

the Cays will be asking for Mills Act and Country Club – this is not true. People should read the

criteria. Age is not one of the criteria. The criteria come after the age. That is just an age

requirement. Then you read those criteria and they have been cleaned up considerably and there

would be very few. There is a John Laughtner in the Cays and the City would want to take a

look at that. She clarified that there is also an email from the chair of the HRC and it sounds like

it came from HRC but it actually didn‟t. It wasn‟t discussed as a memo so there may be things in

that email that one member might disagree with. There are a few things she disagrees with.

Ms. Denny added, as a point of order, that the chair of the HRC did send a follow up

communication stating that this was his own opinion.

Laura Crenshaw commented that there are numerous structures within the City of Coronado that

are less than 75 years old that are historically significant. Without a change in the City‟s Notice

of Intent to Demolish they could be destroyed and part of Coronado would be gone. Specifically

she is one of those homes and she is a volunteer and will designate her home so that it will not be

destroyed. There are a lot of valuable homes that have gone by the wayside because they don‟t

meet the 75 year criteria. If you don‟t change the criteria for designation, the City should at least

look into the Notice of Demolition and make sure that staff looks at those homes that are

significant based on the architectural construction or maybe even the contractor or builder.

There are significant people within the City of Coronado, throughout time, that have built




490

significantly beautiful and historic homes that will not be considered because they are not 75

years old. If they would look at the structures that are 50 years old or even 45 or if you choose to

have none, those that are just historically significant and not allow them to be demolished. The

criteria for Notice of Demolition is that they aren‟t even going to look at them unless they are 75

years or older and there are many, many homes that are not. We are going to change daily as we

get older and older and only then will some of these homes be eligible to be saved by the criteria

that are now established.

Mayor Tanaka closed the public hearing.

Councilmember Ovrom referred to page 177 and the list of 63 cities. They talk about the fact

that the age requirement is none but it is then followed up, for demo review, only demos that

trigger CEQA. Is his understanding correct in that it means that it has already been designated

historic?

Ms. Olsen explained that if it says that the age requirement is none that is the age requirement for

nomination. For example, in Bakersfield, where there is no age requirement, you can bring

forward a resource of any age for designation as long as it meets the criteria. The next column

over, where it says demo review that means that, in Bakersfield, they only review demos that

trigger CEQA. So, for example, if there is a project associated with the demolition that triggers

CEQA then that resource would be reviewed regardless of the age.

Mr. Ovrom went on to say that to be considered for CEQA means that it already has to be

designated historic.

Ms. Olsen responded that is not the case but it just means that if there is a project that triggers

CEQA for whatever reason they review all impacts to the environment including historic

resources.

Mr. Ovrom doesn‟t understand triggering CEQA. It sounds to him like anything can trigger

CEQA and he does not believe that is true.

Ms. Olsen explained that in many cities a coastal development permit would trigger CEQA, for

example. When she worked in San Diego, if there was a project on a bluff in La Jolla and they

needed a coastal development permit, that would trigger CEQA and as part of that CEQA review

you would review for impacts to the environment, including impacts to historic resources, both

cultural and architectural.

City Attorney Johanna Canlas explained that the public resources code provides in 21.084.1 that

a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource

is a project, meaning it requires CEQA review. Then it further defines a historic resource as

defined under section 21.084.1 a resource is either listed in or determined to be eligible in the

California Register of Historic Resources, the California Register. It also provides that those

resources listed in a local register of historical resources or those resources deemed significant

pursuant to the criteria found in subsection g of section 50.24.1 of the public resource code. The

public resources code actually defines the historic resource that would be considered for CEQA

review in addition to other CEQA review that may be required as part of a discretionary permit.




491

Ms. Downey understands where Mr. Ovrom is trying to go. If the City were to change its statute

and say there is no time limit and she has a house that is 32 years old, does that mean that it has

to go through review if it has not been declared historic by our HRC, by the State HRC or by the

National HRC?

Ms. Canlas explained that it is not a black and white answer. This is because there are certain

criteria that have to be considered so there is no easy answer. If it is not eligible for all those

resources, if it is not listed, then that is where you have to balance which law suit you are going

to want to defend. The conservative side is that the structure is to be preserved and if the courts

determine that the City was in the wrong then the structure is there or, the alternative is because

it doesn‟t qualify then a demolition permit is then issued and at which point what is the recourse

after the fact. Those are the interests the City has to weigh and those are very fact specific.

Mr. Ovrom moved to the next question where it says Campbell, no age requirement, survey for

demolition. He asked what that means.

Ms. Olsen explained that means that the City of Campbell has a city wide adopted survey that

identifies resources that are potentially historic. If a demolition permit would be submitted for a

property on that survey it would be reviewed by the HRC for eligibility prior to issuance of a

demolition permit.

Mayor Tanaka added that would have been akin to the City‟s list that had been previously

worked on.

Mr. Ovrom understands that is a finite list. It may grow but it is a finite list. So any property

owner should be able to go look at the list to see if they are on it or not. If they are not on the list

then they are not subject to any demolition requirements by the City.

Ms. Olsen agreed that is the case for the city of Campbell.

Mr. Ovrom pointed out that Coronado has a list but in Coronado it doesn‟t work that way.

Mayor Tanaka commented that the City switched to the age requirement.

Councilmember Denny explained, for the public, that what Mr. Ovrom is getting at is that

members of the public took hundreds of volunteer hours and identified an historic resource

inventory. That has since been dropped by City Council. It doesn‟t have the force and effect as

it would in a city like Campbell.

Mr. Ovrom noted that on the list of 63 cities, of the 18 cities in the County, only 9 are on the list.

It seems to him that what is going on is people are saying that we ought to do what everybody

else does. He doesn‟t buy that. He thinks Coronado is unique and he doesn‟t think Coronado

needs to do what everybody else does because he could just take that 50/50 and say that we

should do nothing and do away with the HRC and not do this. He doesn‟t favor that and never

has favored that. He is just trying to get down to the base of this thing because he thinks the

emphasis is being placed on the wrong syllable. To him, in securing the historic resource they




492

really ought to be truly historic and everyone ought to think that. He can think of a half a dozen

structures in this town that he is worried about and he is worried about the fact that the City is

going to lose them. Somehow in all of this talk he thinks that the City loses sight of the fact that

those are the things that the citizens really care about and not 50 years or 60 years or 75 years.

Ms. Denny feels that Mr. Coons brings up some very good points. In particular, he mentioned

that on page 161 limiting demolition to just the exterior of an historic resource is not favorable

and also, on page 162 that we are losing cultural landscape and cultural resources so that might

be a little limiting there. His third point was about the taking away of the requirement for public

transparency such that the site plans are not available to the public in terms of demolition permit

applicant. She was wondering, since the HRC is present, how they felt about that. She loves the

recommendation very much and can support it wholeheartedly but as a point of a factual

question she just wanted to know if HRC could also support those three changes. Ms. Denny

asked Mr. Ryan as the chair of the HRC but is aware that the HRC hasn‟t discussed these

changes since Mr. Coons just talked about them today. She asked what his gut feeling is for

those changes and whether they are something he could support.

Jon Ryan, Chair, HRC, requested that all 5 members be able to speak. There are four other

commissioners at the meeting. He is not sure where Mr. Coons was going with the interior thing.

He does agree, in many respects, with Councilmember Ovrom that Coronado is unique. It is

interesting to work through staff with a marching order from a Council to the HRC to staff.

HRC is not really talking to the Council. HRC may not have been at the meeting where the issue

came up. They receive an interpretation and then try to put together the workup for the Council.

HRC has been very jealous to stay away from interior. HRC is very much not involved with the

backyard. HRC doesn‟t want to become so draconian that we won‟t have people volunteer their

homes. It is all about property rights. These folks are volunteers. They are volunteering to

participate in the program. The program has some nice benefits and it gives them a nice tax

reduction so they can maintain the home. He would like the other four to come up. He thinks

that HRC has always tried to stay way away from the interior and he is not sure what Mr. Coons

was really speaking to.

Mayor Tanaka said that, having been a former HRC member, he has the luxury of knowing what

they put together and he has some feelings about that. One of them was the term a „designated

interior.‟ Mayor Tanaka agrees with Mr. Ryan that historically the HRC has stayed away from

interiors. But Mr. Coons raised the interesting point that there could be a designating authority

above the City that got involved. His point was that the City could add the term, which doesn‟t

mean that the City is forcing itself to designate interiors, but that possibility is included in the

enforcement. What he has heard Mr. Ryan say is that the HRC‟s marching orders, historically,

from the Council, have been to stay away from the issue of interiors and deal with front façade

mostly and the exterior of the home. Some of the other areas Mr. Coons brought up were areas

that, for whatever reason, the City has avoided. Mayor Tanaka suggested that maybe either,

when we really get into the nuts and bolts of whether the Council is accepting this

recommendation, tweaking it or sending it back, the Council could either just use its authority to

add that if it is appropriate or ask them to consider the points raised by Mr. Coons. He doesn‟t

want to put the entire HRC on the spot.




493

Mr. Ryan added that HRC does its calculations on when there is any kind of modification to the

home they go through a San Diego County Assessor process where the part that was changed

doesn‟t count in the Mills Act. The part that was left is what was used and it is done on a square

foot of the structure basis, not on the land. This is a volunteer, come forward – the

citizen/property owner comes forward to HRC and the City is offering designation of historical

and then perhaps Mills Act. They have never gone near the interior although he supposes that

someone could come forward and volunteer that. He is not sure the City would know how to

police that or how to handle that. He knows that the Del is on a national situation and the

interior was a part of that so that is different.

Councilmember Downey appreciates all the work that has been done as a result of her request.

She is not discounting what was done. She is not sure this is addressing the issue she was most

concerned about in the emails she has received. What she wanted was for everyone to know

whether the house was historic or not. She feels she and Mr. Ovrom are on the same page. She

is open to how this is done and to the years that are done and to which houses are historic but she

just wants people to know if they own their home, can they demolish it if they want to or not? It

isn‟t a hard question but apparently in Coronado it is. That is her problem and she is not sure we

have cracked that nut yet. She was a big proponent of the list along with former Mayor Smisek

so that the City could just be done and over with and all these people on the list have historic

homes. The City got away from the list because there were a lot of people who were afraid that

they weren‟t on the list or they didn‟t want to be on the list. What she was suggesting is that the

City makes it crystal clear to the average person. If she, as an attorney with two law degrees

who does environmental work for a living, can‟t read our regulations and walk down the street

and figure out if a house is historic or not we have a problem. And she can‟t. She is not sure

how we get there. She appreciates all the work and she thinks there is a way to do it here but she

just doesn‟t think we have reached what her goal had been which was to encourage historic

preservation, to reward historic preservation, but not to stop everybody else from doing whatever

they might want to do on a house that we don‟t care about anyway. She thinks Mr. Ovrom is

right. If we open it up to 50 years right now we have really opened up a lot of homes that are

going to have to go through the process. They will be kicked out. She has no doubt that HRC

will say they aren‟t historic but it will delay things. Our current rules, if all we did was change it

to 50, wouldn‟t allow staff the ability to just throw them out. It would have to go before HRC to

then be thrown out very easily. But our rules would require that. That is a lot of staff work if

that is what we are doing. She is leery to do that. She wouldn‟t have a problem with going to

the no age limit if we had something like a survey or a list. She was trying to find some way to

help define that under our definition of notable just so people would know. She is really

appreciative of the City trying to make this work for everyone and to preserve the homes we

want but give an easy out to someone else. She wants people to think about unique situations.

She bought a house over on H Avenue. It had a beautiful, original, one story, Palmer type house.

The previous owners built a nice extension on the back and did it in a way so that she could

probably go in and get the original part termed historic if she wants to. The former owners saw

other houses being knocked down around the City and went and took a bunch of cool old stuff

from the same period and put it in the house. If we go to insides there will be another whole

kettle of worms that she is not sure we are ready to get into. She wants the Council to think

about that. She doesn‟t want us to further complicate our lives as to whether it is historic or not.




494

Mayor Tanaka is more in the undecided camp. He is in general agreement with the

recommendation put together by HRC. The last Mayor did have a preference towards a list. His

preference was for a system where you had some degree of certainty. You were either on the list

and had to deal with the consequences or you weren‟t. He thinks the Council made a deliberate

action to move away from that. He thinks it was too controversial to put a list together. He

referred to Ms. Denny‟s comment about how much effort went into making the list. The City

has never asked a commission to do more volunteer work than the City did in putting that list

together. He thinks the City did a good thing by moving away from it. The reason we moved

away from the list to the 75 year part is because 75 years was already the standard the City had

been using ever since it began its program. It was a reasonable delineator where someone would

know if they weren‟t 75 they wouldn‟t trigger a review process for a demo permit. He thinks, as

a standard, it is reasonable. For him the only question today is whether or not the City wants to

change that standard from 75 to 50 years. One of the interesting things is that we all would like

this program to be as voluntary as possible. We would all like scenarios where people apply for

designation and the City then evaluates whether it meets the standards or not. If a 45 year old

home wanted to apply it could. For his money, the issue about age only comes down to the

demolition permit part and how the City wants to create a trigger and how onerous the City

wants that trigger to be. That doesn‟t mean 50 years is necessarily onerous but obviously,

mathematically, it triggers more homes for review. His initial response would be that he is not

sure that 50 years is a fair standard to trigger so many reviews. The one olive branch he held out

on that issue is the group that will suffer from that the most, if there is an uptick in the number of

demolition reviews, would be HRC. So, if HRC voted 5-0 to change the standard to 50 he

assumes they were aware of this. He hasn‟t made up his mind on that but he tends to lean

towards where Mr. Ovrom and Ms. Downey are coming from that 75 years is an easier standard

to maintain and use going forward. He doesn‟t think there are a huge number of homes that the

City would be wishing we had a 50 year standard for. The Delawie home is the only one that is

brought up as a perpetual example that our current rules didn‟t give the City the trigger it would

have wanted to have had a demolition review. But that really is the exception to the rule. He

would need a little more convincing that the City ought to move to 50 years. The last thing he

talked about is how onerous it would be if the City went to 50 years. How many people are

really being inconvenienced if HRC really has the sophistication to look at the criteria and

determine easily that a home is not historic?

Councilmember Woiwode had a couple of questions. One has to do with the notice required in

doing something like this. Is there anything that requires that the City notify people who would

be affected by going from 75 to 50 years?

Ms. Canlas explained that there was a public hearing notice that was published in the Eagle

Journal and that satisfies the legal requirement for any change in the Code. That was met.

Mr. Woiwode feels it may satisfy the letter of the law but it doesn‟t make any sense to him to put

something in the fine print in the Eagle Journal and say everyone in town knows about it. He

would like to see the Council delay the decision on the age until more people are aware of this

discussion because he thinks it is true that it is a surprise to a lot of people. He thinks the criteria

that have been set up that are described are wonderful. He thinks the execution of criteria A

through E are exactly what the Council asked for when it brought up this discussion and what he

feels is very helpful in making determinations that come before the Council. F is still




495

unpopulated because we don‟t know how the historic district will work out. So the big

controversy comes down to the age and he is struck by the fact that people say to look at all these

other cities and the fact that no one else has 75 years. That is true but most of the municipalities

don‟t have 50 years either for demo review. What they have is survey, survey, survey, triggers

CEQA, survey, survey, survey. There are not very many of the demo reviews that are triggered

by an age determination. He has spent a lot of time in Berkeley and they have no requirement

for age for designation but the only ones that trigger demo review are demos that trigger CEQA.

It seems to him that when we are talking about 75 years or 50 years we aren‟t really talking

about the designation of historical but we are talking about the demo review. He doesn‟t know

why we want to couple those two. If we want to go to 0 for the age requirement for historic

designation that is fine with him as long as the demo review doesn‟t become an onerous process

at City Hall. He is on board with everything that has been said and thinks that we all are trying

to get to the same place here. What we are struggling with is the decision not to do survey. He

would be really happy to have it say Coronado – none and demo review said survey. He thinks

that would be perfect. In the absence of that, if it said 75 years or survey, maybe the City could

have list of the ones that are not yet 75. He is moving in the direction of saying that there needs

to be a little bit more discussion. The designation application should be decoupled from the

demo review. They are not the same criteria and they shouldn‟t be. The City should figure out

how to approach those things with more public input than it has had so far. He is moving in the

direction of moving for the alternative which is to approve all of the things in here with the

exception of historic district and with the exception of the age to be determined as a later agenda

item.

Ms. Denny could also support recommending the HRC fully in their recommendations, actually

authorizing them. She is ready to vote for a change to 50 years because it is persuasive to her the

arguments that were given but if her colleagues would like to wait on that she would not

begrudge them that opportunity.

Ms. Downey doesn‟t want to do anything that touches historic districts yet.

MSUC (Woiwode/Ovrom) moved that the City Council: 1) adopt A RESOLTUION

OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO

ADOPTING HISTORIC DESIGNATION CRITERIA GUIDELINES

FOR THE CITY OF CORONADO. The Resolution was read by

Title, the reading in its entirety unanimously waived and adopted by

Council as RESOLUTION NO. 8505; 2) introduce AN ORDINANCE

OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO,

CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 84.10 REGARDING

HISTORIC RESOURCE CODE AND CHAPTER 84.20

REGARDING HISTORIC RESOURCE ALTERATION AND

DEMOLITION PERMITS. The Ordinance was read by Title, the

reading in its entirety unanimously waived and placed by the City

Council on FIRST READING; 3) defer the change of the age

threshold for historic designation and demolition review referenced in

the attached Historic Designation Criteria Guidelines and Historic

Resource Code from 75 to 50 years until public outreach has been

undertaken; and 4) defer the change to the language of Criterion F




496

related to Historic Districts referenced in the attached Historic

Designation Criteria Guidelines and Historic Resource Code until the

complete Historic District ordinance is returned to City Council for

review.

Ms. Canlas wanted Mr. Woiwode to clarify if he is not intending to make any proposal as to the

designation criteria guidelines because it is a separate item right now.

Mr. Woiwode did correct his motion to reflect inclusion of #1 in the alternative recommendation.

The second still stands.

City Manager Blair King feels staff may need some time to caucus. It can be assumed, based on

the discussion, that within the guidelines, the age requirement would default to the 75 years and

not the 50 years that are within that. So the change, pursuant to the motion, is that the guidelines

are being adopted, excluding the 50 year limit that is contained within the guidelines.

Mr. Woiwode responded that is correct because, as described under #2 or #3, until public

outreach has been undertaken.

Ms. Denny observed that it seems like the Council is punting a little bit here. She is hopeful that

the Council will get to the HRC recommendation more fully and get some support for their

excellent recommendation in the future.

Mr. Ovrom has a desire to be more definitive about who is on the list and who is not on the list

and then to absolutely get to the place where we have a list and we use the list.

Mr. Woiwode considers that a part of the discussion about age. That is a necessary part of the

determination of that age criteria. He is not changing the motion. His understanding is that the

Council would be open to the discussion of the use of a list.

Ms. Denny clarified that by a list we mean similar to a survey as is listed on page 177. This is

invested with a kind of authority that would help make decisions for when a demolition is

requested and so forth whether CEQA is triggered or not. She pointed out that on page 179 there

is an email from Jon Ryan, Chair of the HRC that reflect his thoughts. There is so much of it

that she would like to highlight because it is excellent. In particular she highlighted one of the

lines in one of the final paragraphs. “The HRC was established 10 years ago to preserve and

protect our history and village atmosphere.” She highlighted this for the public. The HRC is not

a limited special interest group but instead works for all of Coronado and we all love to live here

and move here and enjoy the village atmosphere and that is really what the HRC is protecting.

That guides here whenever she reviews recommendations from the HRC.

Mayor Tanaka understands that what we are saying is that we agree with the bulk of the HRC

recommendation but the main areas that are being sent back to give more time to think about it

and make sure the public has heard about this issue and is ready to weigh in if they want to is

whether or not to change the age from 75 to 50, specifically what the designation criteria will be

for historic districts and whether or not there is even the potential to move away from 75 or 50 to

a survey or a list method.




497

Ms. Downey commented that, for the benefit of those who don‟t have knowledge of what

occurred in the past, there was a semi-official survey that identified historic properties but it was

not complete. Then the HRC spent many, many hours attempting to update that list because

some properties were not on the list and some didn‟t have good explanations, but it was a list that

produced hundreds of homes. At the time, everyone shook their heads and felt that the public

didn‟t know there would be that many homes that were historic. For lots of reasons the City

Council voted not to adopt that list and went to this standard. She feels that Mr. Woiwode said

something that is very important. She has no problem with any home being declared historic so

it is not the age thing. The question is what triggers when you have to go before the Board

before you want to do an alteration or a demo and she likes the idea of decoupling those and

using a possible survey list or whatever the City wants to call it that would trigger so that you

can‟t go and just pull a permit or pull an alteration permit or a demo permit if you are on the list.

She thinks this is a little bit better and thinks there is a difference. She doesn‟t think the City is

saying that you can‟t be historic if you aren‟t on the list or that you couldn‟t put yourself in.

Mayor Tanaka thinks that the hard part isn‟t whether to decouple an age requirement from

whether something is historic from a demolition permit. You could very easily say that there is

no age requirement for voluntary designation. The harder issue is what standard will be used to

deny someone a demo permit. That is always going to be the hard part. When we discuss 75 or

50 year issue that really is the heart of the discussion. The City has written an ordinance in a

way where if you voluntarily apply and your house is 56 years of age you could still be

designated historic. The real question is what if you had a 48 year old house that was made by

Frank Lloyd Wright there would be a whole different standard there and there would be a

community issue about whether or not to allow that house to get a demo permit. He thinks it is

understood, as a consensus, that is why the Council is pulling out the age part and that is why the

issue of whether or not a survey should be used is at least part of what might come back into this

discussion. He doesn‟t think there is consensus on whether or not we are actually going to

switch from 75 to 50 or to a survey but we are just saying we are going to take more time on that.

Mr. Ovrom fully agrees with the comments that the City needs to back and get more input. His

suggestion is that the City Manager go back to two groups or tries to form two groups

specifically. One is to go back to the realtors and ask them about disclosure and what the impact

of something like that is so that there is no question in the mind of the sellers or the buyers. The

second one is find a group of 20 people who fall into that category of 50 to 75 that have not

heard about this and bring them in to hear what they think.

Ms. Denny wanted to point out two things for the record. The first one is that the public might or

might not be aware of how the program works. She would say 99% of the time in Coronado, our

historic preservation program is, in fact, voluntary. It works very well. There are no issues. In

fact, it is just very successful. She would say it is an unqualified success. As in any town, in

Coronado there is a small percentage of battles that ensue over demolition and so forth that she

thinks we can count on one hand the number of times that has happened and still have fingers left

over in Coronado. She doesn‟t want the public to think it is some exaggerated threat, the historic

resources program, because it is not. It works very well. In another agenda item the Council

will be talking about how historically designated homes that apply for a Mills contract, if

accepted, actually help the property revenue, increase property revenues and heritage tourism to




498

our town. She wants the public to be reassured that for the large, large, overwhelming majority,

99% of the time the historic resources program works wonderfully in Coronado. She thanked the

HRC members and staff for all they do. She also clarified for the record the characterization that

was made about the list having hundreds and hundreds of potential homes that were found in

Coronado to be historic she believes it is somewhere in the area of perhaps, potentially 200

homes.

Ms. Downey interjected that it was 600.

Ms. Denny will definitely speak with the HRC members again. That was her understanding that

this is not an exaggerated amount and just being on the list doesn‟t mean that you are an historic

resource but it just sort of gives a presumption of wanting to look into it. She just says this with

regard to speaking to anyone who might share the Mayor‟s hesitancy towards a list or a survey.

Mr. King wants stated that he is hearing two motions. The one motion that was made was to

adopt the resolution, excluding the age criteria, introduce the ordinance, again excluding the age

criteria and the historic district, and to postpone the discussion on the age in the historic district.

He believes the second motion someone may want to entertain is to direct staff how the Council

would want staff to proceed with publicizing or seeking input.

Mayor Tanaka wants to deal with the motion on the table.

Ms. Denny added that while the list was long what she meant to say was that the agreement

among historic preservationists in town was that at most a small percentage of the list might be

considered historic.


NAYS: None

ABSTAINING: None

ABSENT: None

Mayor Tanaka moved on to discuss Mr. King‟s recommendation for a second motion. He shares

Mr. Ovrom‟s reluctance in that the City wants to make sure the public is informed and aware that

this discussion is going to take place. He thinks that is a large part of why this is being

postponed. He thinks a month would give staff enough time to make publicize this with more

than just small print in the back of the Eagle. He hears consensus by the Council that it wants

staff to put forward a strong effort to make sure that the public is aware that the Council will be

discussing this.

Ms. Denny feels that is reasonable but wants to know if the controller of the agenda feels the

same about one month.

Mayor Tanaka wants to know if the Council thinks that is reasonable first. The other council

members indicated their agreement. Mr. King firmed that staff doesn‟t have a problem with a

month.




499

9. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS: None.

10. COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS: None.

11. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS:

11a. Council Reports on Inter-Agency Committee and Board Assignments.

11b. Report from the Historic Resource Commission Regarding a Change to the

Mills Act Program to Reduce the Mills Act Agreement Waiting List and Direction to Staff

Regarding the Processing of Mills Act Agreements in 2011 (HP 2011-03 City of Coronado). Tricia Olsen, Associate Planner, provided the staff report. Ms. Olsen explained that the rental

value has to be either inflated or deflated to adjust the restricted value under the Mills Act. That

particular aspect of the formula is the only aspect of the formula that cities can work with in

order to manipulate the restricted value under the Mills Act.

Councilmember Ovrom referred to the rental value of $8,950 per month as listed on page 184 of

the staff report. He thinks that seems a little high for a $1.5 million property.

Ms. Olsen agreed that it would be inflated in order to achieve that restricted Mills Act value.

Mr. Ovrom continued by saying that if it were not that, as that number goes down, then the rental

value goes down.

Ms. Olsen explained that the restricted Mills Act value would go down to $335,176 which is the

Mills Act value under the current methodology. Say, for example, that it is a rented property and

it is renting for $3,000 per month then you would just use that normal rental value. But, for our

purposes, for the 50% savings methodology, you are inflating that rental value to achieve a

different restricted Mills Act value.

Ms. Downey clarified that if the City didn‟t do anything right now and left the code the way it is

but said we are going to stop inflating values and we will actually use the value of what it is

worth with the economy we would wind up giving someone who was waiting for Mills Act less

money and less benefit in taxes. Their taxes wouldn‟t be lowered as much if we used the true

rental value as opposed to the inflated one.

Ms. Olsen corrected that the City currently uses the true rental value. The existing Mills Act

methodology uses the current rental value that a property would rent for if it were rented.

Mr. Ovrom followed up by saying that in comparison to value of property Coronado rents are

less than somewhere else. It seems to him that you can rent a place in Coronado a lot cheaper

than you can buy one and pay the payments on it. Is that a deflator of what the value is?

Ms. Olsen said that since the beginning of August staff consulted with three different real estate

agents in town and had them provide rental values for every property that is on the waiting list.




500

Staff then took an average. Whether or not those rental values are lower or higher than what you

would see in say, Carlsbad, she is not sure but they are accurate in terms of what is seen in

Coronado.

Ms. Olsen continued with the staff report.

Councilmember Denny commented about the item she supplied to staff to distribute to the

Council and the public after the agenda had been distributed. It is the International Real Estate

Review 2008 article by Professor Andrew Narwold, an economics professor at the University of

San Diego. In that report he mentions that historic preservation programs that work well can

add, using his economic and mathematic methodology that is very sound, can add a 16%

increase in housing value in a city. She was hoping staff received that and had a chance to look

at that.

Ms. Olsen is familiar with the study.

Ms. Denny added that Professor Narwold will probably be speaking again at a Speak Out

Coronado community meeting. He has already spoken at one of those meetings and was very

well received. She would love to introduce him to any staff member who is interested in

speaking with him directly.

Bruce Coons, Executive Director, Save Our Heritage Organization, provided some additional

information. They ran this through their attorney to see what issues might come up. They agree

that Coronado‟s system needs to have more of an inclusionary ability to make it more viable. He

really thinks that raising the cap is probably the best thing. They did come up with a number of

concerns. The concerns are based on the Williamson Act. The valuations that are put out for

that prepare rental value on the use and are a very supportable scenario. If you go away from

this and go to an arbitrary number that is negotiated it is not supportable and is probably subject

to challenge by other property owners. He thinks there is an inequity between the current people

on the list, current people who have the Mills Act, and the people who would be coming in the

future and that sets up another chance where a property owner in the future could challenge why

he only gets 50% and others get 77%. Then the City will back off and say it is a negotiated value

but there is no basis to say that is really a fair rental value for a property. Fair rental is what the

fair rental value is and so it is unsupportable by the facts. Once again he thinks that going down

this road has a whole lot of problems. There should be more attention given to raising the cap.

This is not an impartial process. It is not a process that has a degree of impartiality and this goes

back again to the defensibility of the decisions.

Susie Vetter commented that her property at The Monterey had been on the waiting list for about

four years. She was a part of the last two HRC meetings and agreed with their recommendation

in that those who have been waiting for so long, to have the game changed midstream, would be

not right. When you consider and look at these lists she is number 10 on the list. The exceptions

that have been made in the last couple of years in 2009, approving $67,000 and in 2010 going

away from the $15,000 to contracts of approximately $50,000 – if it is the Council‟s intention to

try to eliminate these 28 homes off of the list that have been approved – if the Council were to




501

take the first 9 on the list instead of just the first 7, that amount is about $60,000 and then the

City could get rid of #10 in a heartbeat. #10 is about $67,000 in and of itself as it is 15 units.

She hopes the City Council goes in the direction that is fair to the community of people waiting.

Jon Ryan, Chair, HRC, thinks he is speaking with some consensus of the team. HRC has been

an element for the City for approximately 11 years. The net property tax stream, which is after

the State and the County and everyone else gets their hands on the City‟s property tax, was at

roughly $8 million in 2000 and were at roughly $20 million coming out of last year. From a

business model or any kind of a business number sense that is pretty good considering what has

happened to the economy and what has happened to all the other communities trying to sell real

estate. That kind of says that the blue study that talks about the halo effect, whether or not you

want to buy that one, this certainly hasn‟t hurt the City. What is being talked about is not

expense but rather a foregone future income stream and that stream is doing well. We are at 16

years wait right now so if someone comes to the City trying to volunteer and HRC is

representing the City it is a little restrictive. If we go to the 50 we go to 10. HRC debated as

best it could. His opinion is that the City could do this in 18 months to 2 years, kill the backlog

and move to 50%. He thinks that HRC all intellectually agreed that because the City‟s prices are

so high and they are going up because of the value of the atmosphere in the community that the

HRC could offer a 50% and it would be workable. Most reasonable people would say that is

pretty good. Then they discussed whether or not they could recommend to the Council to go

immediately to 50 and all the people on the waiting list would get it sooner but they, as a public

entity, were offering and inducing and they were volunteering so the City is kind of into

something with those people. Then HRC agreed that the best solution might be to agree with the

50% going forward but those who are already accepted have to be given the original deal. While

he wanted to do this in two years, others wanted four. He thinks that would be reasonable. HRC

needs the Council‟s support because it is representing the City‟s element and he thinks they are

at a point where it needs some adult help to get it back on track.

Dave Gillingham thinks of the Mills Act is an incentive program. He would encourage the City

to do whatever it can to enhance the Mills Act in Coronado. Specifically he doesn‟t think it

would be appropriate to change the deal for the people who are already on the list. He thinks that

the City should try to clear that list out expeditiously. It doesn‟t seem like a ton of money when

compared with some other things the City spends money on. He doesn‟t understand why we

can‟t just call it 50% and why we have to contrive a rental value to come up with some

arbitrary…He thinks it should be incentive and that the City should clear out the list. He asked

the Council to consider having some sort of trigger in any modified ordinance that says if the

waiting list gets beyond x number of years (3, 4 or 5) that the process be reviewed. It just is

ludicrous to him that there is a program with a wait time of 16 years.

Mayor Tanaka agrees with the recommendation. He pointed out that there is a history to the

Mills Act in Coronado in that when it was first started there was a $5,000 cap. The City wasn‟t

going to approve contracts that would cause City revenue to go down more than $5,000. In the

first years of the program there were only a few Mills Act contracts approved and only a few

added each year. This Council has been very progressive, or generous, in changing that rule.

Last year there were 35 homes on the list and the Council made a point of processing 7. The

year before it did the same thing. So he thinks this group has honored its commitment and agree

that it shouldn‟t take a lifetime to get on the list and then to receive a Mills Act agreement. He




502

thinks that the Council is on track to fulfill that promise. If there are 28 homes and 7 a year are

done, in four years the backlog will be cleared. The more difficult issue is that the 28th

home

won‟t be the last home to apply for the Mills Act. The problem doesn‟t go away except for the

current 28 on the list. People bring up the financial health of the City a lot and there has never

been a Council member who hasn‟t been proud of the financial vitality of the City‟s bottom line.

It is important to look at what the Mills Act. On page 184 of the agenda it shows the current

methodology. Everyone has to admit that what makes the Mills Act great is that it is a very large

tax savings and when you are handing out a tax savings on an annual basis that is anywhere from

60 to 80% in savings, that is a lot of money. Something else that he thinks is relevant that people

don‟t bring up is the topic of the next agenda item about the City‟s revenues and expenditures.

The City‟s revenues are a little bit higher than expected and the expenditures are a little bit

lower. Once again, the City made the taxpayer more money than had been budgeted for. There

is one area where the City hasn‟t made a lot of extra money for the taxpayers. The number one

revenue source is property tax. The actual number for how much property tax the City collected

last year was $20,399,700. That is only an increase over last years‟ property tax revenue by

$11,340. Historically, when Coronado has had a surplus of $2 or $3 or $6 million that has gone

put into the General Fund. The biggest reason the City has been able to build its reserve up is

because of property tax revenue. By just adding the seven homes the City is talking about today

will have negate that small increase in property tax revenue over last year. The City‟s assessed

valuations are strong but the worst thing a council can do is leave a future city council, in 10 or

20 years, with fewer homes to be able to bank those surpluses on. Again, the two biggest tax

sources are property tax and hotel tax. Every council that has realized a surplus of $3 to $5

million has done it with a combination of those two revenue sources. The more homes the City

Council puts in the Mills Act, the more are zeroed out and will not contribute to what the City

counts on to keep its property tax revenues going up. If you go back to a house that has an

assessed valuation of $350,000 and it stays at that valuation for as long as the home is in the

Mills Act that is a home that a council in 20 years will never be able to realize any revenue gains

out of. He thinks it is a good idea that the Council be prudent when considering changes to the

Mills Act program. The happy news he has to offer is that he does think the City needs to honor

its commitment to the 28 homes on the list. He doesn‟t think it would be appropriate to change

the rules on them because the City hasn‟t been able to give them any faster service but the least it

can do is honor the terms and conditions when those 28 entered the program. He thinks the

Council has steered a prudent course by adding 7 properties a year to the program because if

there is something that changes in the City‟s financial picture he thinks that a future Council

should have that ability to make a decision if it needs to. Lastly, he does support the cap. He

thinks a 50% reduction in property taxes is more than ample to be a good incentive to maintain a

house. He is not sure the public realizes the extent of the current benefit.

Councilmember Ovrom appreciates Mayor Tanaka‟s admonition. He pointed out the other side

of that $11,000. When he thinks of what the high priorities of the City are he thinks of police,

fire, sewer, streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, storm drains, etc. Those are things that the City

absolutely has to support. So when the Mayor points out this one thing that is being given away

forever, he thinks it is a very prudent consideration to say yes that the City would like to do it,

but it is a concern to him that the City is giving away future revenue. He thinks he can support

the suggestion is to limit the tax savings to 50% for Mills Act contracts because even though

some people think this is THE tool to incentivize historic preservation he thinks it is just one of

the tools. To some people, particularly those in some of the older houses that are still pre prop




503

13, other options may be a bigger incentive than this one. His enthusiasm is tempered for the

Mills Act. That doesn‟t mean he doesn‟t want to continue to do it because he wouldn‟t have

voted for it originally if he didn‟t want to support this kind of stuff. He cautions, as the Mayor

does, that the City continue to look out to in the future and not try to bind a future council.

Councilmember Downey feels that this is a very tough issue. She believes in historic

preservation as a voluntary program. The only way to gain participation is to offer incentives.

One incentive that Mr. Ryan pointed out was the ability to received zoning variations, which she

feels is a great value. The realtors can tell you how much that is worth. She is open to what her

colleagues have to say because she would very much like to get rid of the backlog. She wants to

reward the people that voluntarily came to this program and she is fine with going to 50% for

future Mills Act contracts. She worries about a couple of properties that we all love and would

be heartbroken over if anything happened to them. The current owners have no intention of

tearing them down, but they also haven‟t applied for historic preservation. She doesn‟t know

how to deal with that but is raising it as an issue. She is okay with the suggestions for the

backlog. She voted with the Council to do as many as it could every year to try to get rid of the

backlog but she is just not sure how happy we are going to be in the future if these really

valuable homes that the community sees as part of our true fabric aren‟t going to be able to

benefit.

Mayor Tanaka pointed out that there isn‟t even a 50% cap yet and those homes have had a

decade to consider coming in. He thinks that when someone owns a $10 million home their

considerations are bigger than just what the property tax savings will be, particularly if you talk

about property like Crown Manor. A previous council approved that for the program and it had

9 lots underneath it. That was the reason the City gave back $65,000 or so in annual revenue

because it meant less density and was the savior of a particular resource. The resource owner has

to want to be a partner. Even if the Mills Act formula wasn‟t changed, those people have chosen

not to be a partner for economic reasons.

Ms. Downey is open to what the rest of the Council wants. She likes the idea and appreciates

Mr. Woiwode having the City go down this road to look at ways to get rid of the backlog. She is

just concerned as there are some homes that she worries what this will do to.

Councilmember Woiwode feels that all of the considerations expressed so far point him toward

supporting the motion to approve the recommendation in the staff report.

MSC (Woiwode/Tanaka) moved that the City Council approve the Mills

Act applications already received using the existing methodology and

to expedite the approval of the Mills Act applications already received

such as those already waiting that are „on target‟ for approval within

the next four years. The reason for that change is that he would like

each council, each year, to not feel that they are stuck with the

agreement from the previous year depending on what happens with

the budget. The City Council also directed that the new methodology

be applied; limiting the property tax savings to 50%, for Mills Act

applications received after the City Council adopts the resolution

implementing this change to the program.

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the 4



504

Councilmember Denny feels that this is such an important topic for our town that affects

everybody. She wanted to respond to those who may be asking why they should even care about

the Mills Act by saying that everyone should care about the Mills Act because it is the tool, the

incentive that preserves our village atmosphere. That is the number one thing that people point

to in terms of quality of life. She would agree with those speakers who said that the Mills Act is

very important. It preserves our village atmosphere, the reason why we are attracted to come and

live here, the reasons why we want to come back here if we have to move away for any reason,

the reason why people really want to not only live on our island but also visit our island for

reasons of heritage tourism. It is really a very important incentive to keep our village

atmosphere so that is why we should all care about it. Staff asked for the Council‟s direction on

how to proceed. She wanted to go on the record as saying that she was not part of the majority

that wanted to tweak the Mills Act so she wasn‟t voting to come back with a recommendation for

changing the Mills Act. Having said that, she appreciates all the work that HRC did to

accommodate the wishes of the majority of City Council to reduce the backlog by putting on a

cap. She thinks that what they have come forward with by changing the cap took a lot of work

and it was very professionally done. She spoke with Senator Mills himself about this agenda

item. He was very concerned, again, knowing that the HRC is trying to accommodate the

majority vote by coming up with an idea he still, like her, had reservations because it sounds like,

as was mentioned earlier, it could be legally indefensible. When you do the fallback position of

negotiating with a homeowner you are really opening up liability for the City and he thought it

was a bad idea and it sounds like it could be illegal if the fallback position is the negotiation.

Someone mentioned about how the City could be fair to the community. She thinks the City can

be fair to the community by doing what they look to the City to do. They ask of her, as she

receives a lot of contact from the public, and they are really concerned about the dwindling and

diminishing village atmosphere. There was a gentleman present who said that it is really sad that

he doesn‟t hear Council talking much about the village atmosphere anymore. She talks about it a

lot. What he meant is that it doesn‟t seem like such a focus as it used to be. She thinks he

speaks for just hundreds and hundreds of people. She knows they find her at events and when

she walks door to door speaking with them. It is a real big concern. She thinks it is not fair to

the community to have a 16 year wait list and having 28 homes on the list is a significant

backlog considering we are a small town. Again, she appreciates the HRC‟s hard work in trying

to reduce that backlog based on the input given by a majority of Council. She thinks it all comes

down to your viewpoint and if you think our City is already built out, which is what the

overwhelming majority of residents say to her, you wouldn‟t really expect a large increase in

property taxes. She referred to Mayor Tanaka‟s comment that there was only around $11,000

increase in property tax from last year to this year. For a built out, small beach town that is just

fine. She thinks we are doing just great. As Mr. Ryan pointed out in his letter on page 2005, the

actual property tax income has increased from approximately $8 million to $20 million in the last

10 years so we managed to find ways to increase our property tax revenue. Mr. Ryan also

pointed out that Del Mar and Coronado are unique in their ability to increase property tax

revenue, where many cities in this dreadful economy are not doing so. So for a built out small

beach community in a bad economy she doesn‟t think that it is at all not admirable to have an

increase such as we did in our property tax revenue. That is really the rub of the two different

viewpoints, for the benefit of the public, that you are seeing on Council. Is it the business of this

City government to, or as one Council member said several meetings ago, is development the

bread and butter business of Coronado? If you think that is the engine that is churning us, you




505

would tend to want to put a cap on the Mills Act and you would be fearful of the tax reduction.

But if you are not, and she happens to think that the business of our government is not

development, she thinks the business of our government is to provide services that the people

expect in a timely manner. In that regard she agrees with Mr. Ovrom that the public wants

police, fire, and public works and they want their roads working. So we are not really in the

business to develop in Coronado. She does not find any residents that feel that is our bread and

butter business. That is a culture of special, narrow interests and it does seem to her to be the

prevailing culture in her two years of experience at City Hall. She disagrees with that and has

been on record as saying that several times. She thinks the worst thing we could do, to echo the

provocative statement Mayor Tanaka made, is to lose our historic resources to the point where

we have the kind of town that we don‟t even want to live in anymore and nobody wants to come

and visit and our heritage tourism dollars are dwindling and our property values are dwindling

and we look around and we just look like any other city in southern California. We have such a

wealth of history and we have such a unique history that is touched upon by the development of

the Hotel Del and our island as a resort community and the fact that we are near military

installations as we celebrate the centennial of Naval aviation which is such a big part of our

history – we are so unique and we need to preserve these resources that fit that criteria that we

spoke about at another agenda item. She referred to when Ms. Downey talked about the few

valuable homes that we want to preserve. She thinks the majority of the folks in Coronado really

love our small beach cottages. That is a part of Coronado, too. We might look at one or two big

homes and think that they really define us and in some ways they do. They are really special

homes. But we have quite a few beach cottages that are just getting knocked down and scraped

to put up homes that look beautiful but they really don‟t reflect Coronado or what Coronado is

and they take away our history. In that regard she would differ from Ms. Downey in terms of

what homes we should protect. She agrees with the public that we should protect all the historic

homes, especially the beach cottages in addition to the larger homes. For that reason she thinks

that any cap is wrong and she just wants to go on record for saying that again and kind of laying

that out for the public that might not have been following along with this issue as it is winding its

way through Council over the past two years that she has been actively involved and prior years

that she has been following it as a resident. Even though she doesn‟t live in an historic home

herself she really loves our historic homes and hopes one day to own one because of that halo

effect that Mr. Ryan mentioned. The halo effect is what is talked about in the Historic

Designation and Residential Property Values article. It was written in 2008 by Professor

Andrew Narwold and others in the International Real Estate Review. She has blue sheeted this.

She encourages everyone to take a look at this because what he does is really the answer to

historic preservationists everywhere. He has quantified, using mathematical models, sound

mathematical economic principles, that a 16% increase in housing value happens in cities where

there is a working Mills Act program and a viable historic preservation program. She won‟t go

into the report too much but she wanted to say that it is good, it is sound and there is no way to

take issue with this. She can‟t see intellectually, academically, on a gut feeling level, looking at

it from a common sense viewpoint, every angle, if you look at this and read this report it will

speak to you because what it says is, and what he even said when he came and was a host at one

of her Speak Out Coronado community meetings, is that the halo effect affects the property

values for all the homes in the area. So what does that mean to you? You are a property owner

that doesn‟t have a historic house in an area where there are historic homes, which would be

Coronado; your property value still stays strong so your worth when you are looking at your

financial balance sheet you can look at a strong value for your property. It is not tanking. That




506

is how it helps you. It also helps the City in terms of property tax revenues because we stay

strong and we don‟t decline in our property tax revenues even in a bad economy which we are in

now. It is really exceptional and extraordinary. And many people who do the math and who

look at this and do the research think that it is because we have a historic resources inventory.

What is really at risk now is losing that inventory. So our property tax revenues, while in the

short term it seems like we are foregoing something, we really aren‟t because it really isn‟t

costing us any cash value up front because what we are looking at instead is, the term is used

incorrectly, lost revenue in the future should a home be scraped and built up and additional

property taxes are extracted or given to the City. Your own personal property net worth stays

strong which is a great thing. That is if you have a historic home or if you don‟t have a historic

home this program helps you. The second thing is that it helps the City too when we have

additional revenue to do wonderful things for you if we have some degree of heritage tourism.

What that means is that it is the kind of place that people want to come and visit and spend their

dollars and their time. We aren‟t going to have that if we get rid of our historic resources

inventory and we are at risk for doing that if we don‟t have a valid incentive. She thinks that the

best incentive would be to remove the cap because it wouldn‟t really be any money lost that we

have whatsoever but it is just future tax revenues. Again, you would be focusing on that if you

are thinking that the bread and butter business of our town is development. If you are not

focusing on that you will find that we can just afford to do the things we can afford to do and so

she has no problems with removing the cap and she doesn‟t think she could support,

unfortunately while her support for the HRC is strong and unwavering, on something like this

she really can‟t support it.

Ms. Downey comment that she wanted to put this all in perspective. A city the size of the Los

Angeles, per the blue sheeted article, was reported as only designating 200 Mills Act homes.

When we are talking about the budget impacts of the Mills Act in Coronado; that puts this in

perspective.


NAYS: Denny

ABSTAINING: None

ABSENT: None

The City Council went into recess at 5:52 pm.

The City Council resumed at 6:00 pm.

11c. Interim Financial Report for Year Ending June 30, 2011. Leslie Suelter,

Director of Administrative Services, provided the staff report.

Councilmember Denny asked a Ms. Suelter to explain a little bit more about the $19 million

committed or assigned for the public.

Ms. Suelter responded that the committed amount is approximately $10 million. That means that

those funds can only be used for very specific and limited purposes. In order to use the




507

committed funds the City Council must approve those specific purposes. The purpose of these

reserve funds is to respond to a major disaster or major economic fallout. The assigned fund

balance, about $9 million, is set aside for a specific purpose and they can be used for that specific

purpose without staff having to come back to Council. But those are replenished all the time.

The remainder of the assigned fund balance is for cash flow purposes.

Ms. Denny also asked when the City‟s annual audit should begin.

Ms. Suelter explained that there are deadlines to prepare schedules and things for the auditors

that are due by October 18th

. The auditors will be in Coronado early in November to do their

field work.

Ms. Denny said that the reason she asked this question is because the majority of the Council,

with a 4-1 vote, authorized the tunnel audit. She knows that the auditor said it would be difficult

to do the City audit and the tunnel audit side by side. She asked if that has changed or if he has

taken on any other people? She is getting lots of requests from the public about when the tunnel

audit will begin.

Ms. Suelter commented that it is as much a burden on staff as it is on the auditor. City staff

cannot do both at the same time. They are labor intensive processes even in the production and

gathering of the documents. Staff has been doing some of that, pulling documents and making

sure they are available because many of the documents were off site in storage. Part of the

problem for staff is that they have been told not to schedule the audit until they actually have the

letter in hand. When the letter is in hand staff will contact the auditors post haste.

Ms. Denny explained for the public that the letter the City is waiting for is from the Federal

Highways Authority that it is okay to start the tunnel audit because the tunnel project is officially

over, even though the City has had telephonic affirmation.

Jon Ryan asked who the auditors are and whether they are a government entity or a civilian CPA

firm.

City Manager Blair King responded that a private CPA firm, Lance Soll & Lundghard is under

contract to the City to conduct the audit. Rich Kikuchi is the principal that handles Coronado‟s

account. It is the City‟s objective to provide information according to generally accepted

accounting principles. The Governmental Finance Officers‟ Association provides the standards

for audits for government owned nonprofit entities and it is a competitive bid normally offered

for a set term.

Mayor Tanaka pointed out that one of the nice things about serving on the City Council is that

staff routinely comes back to the Council with good news. At the bottom of page 209 the main

highlight of this particular update is that the City‟s revenues exceeded expenditures by $2.5

million. There are a number of areas where the City saw its expectations exceeded by the reality

of either higher returns, more revenue, or once again City staff has shown a real talent for

minimizing expenses. He pointed out earlier that one area where the City did not see greater

revenues than anticipated was in property tax revenue. It was seen in the hotel tax. Frequently

we bring up the fact that around 2007 our TOT revenue hit a high of about $10 million and the




508

last few years we have been hovering somewhere between $7 and $8 million. Last year we came

in at about $8.3 million when $7.8 was budgeted for. We are starting to see those good signs.

He thinks one step that staff highlighted that is important to note is that the General Fund balance

went from $41 to $37 million. There was that one time pension side fund issue to deal with. He

is sure all the Council members are very pleased to see, yet again, how well staff has run the City

in terms of its budget.

Councilmember Ovrom echoed that and pointed out that when we started on this budget there

was some frustration on the part of some people. The fact that the City had budgeted a $640,000

negative and then midyear that reduced to slightly under $500,000. This harkened him back to

his days on the School Board when they used to do this all the time. There was always a

negative budget and more always came in and less always went out. He thanked the City

Manager for doing the same thing here.

Councilmember Denny recognizes Mr. Ovrom‟s experience with budgeting but she really

wanted to commend City staff for bringing in a balanced budget for the first time and not having

an operating deficit in our budget. This shows good financial discipline and it is something that

is expected by the public for sure, especially in these financial times. If anyone can work budget

its budget, it is Coronado. She thanked staff for all their hard work.

Councilmember Downey has been on City Council for 6 ½ years and has lived in Coronado for

20 years. There was only one year in those entire 20 years that the City did not have a balanced

budget. She doesn‟t want the public to think that the City routinely approves a non balanced

budget. In the worst financial crisis that has hit the country since the Great Depression Coronado

had to go into reserves for less than $1 million and that is because the City budgets the right way.

We always assume expenses will be more and revenues will be less. Every time staff proves that

they can do it. She just wanted to commend staff and wants to make sure that the public knows

that Coronado does not routinely approve unbalanced budgets.

MSUC (Downey/Ovrom) moved that the City Council receive the interim financial

report for the year ending June 30, 2011.

Ms. Denny commented that in the two years she has been on Council neither budget has been

balanced. There have been operating deficits of $120,000 and then around $640,000. Obviously

she knows the public understands where she is coming from but she wanted to make it clear, on

the record that staff was very happy with their accomplishment of a balanced budget that was

passed this past year. She is very proud of staff too. She thinks this is a really good change

because financial discipline is necessary and having a negative budget to present to the people is

really not something that is expected in Coronado and it has been done routinely in the past.

Ms. Downey requested that Ms. Denny stop using the word „routinely.‟

MSUC (Downey/Ovrom) moved that the City Council call the question.


NAYS: None

ABSTAINING: None

ABSENT: None




509

11d. Annual Review of the City Investment Policy and Approval of Clerical

Revisions for FY 2011-12. Leslie Suelter, Director of Administrative Services, introduced this

item and introduced Nancy Jones, Managing Director, and Sarah Meacham from PFM Asset

Management. PFM Asset Management advises the City on investments.

Mayor Tanaka asked for some clarification of an issue that came up earlier this year about using

commercial paper. He asked if the City has purchased any commercial paper.

Ms. Meacham replied that it is in the policy now. The City has not utilized commercial paper as

an investment for the portfolio because the City is currently utilizing LAIF, the State Investment

Pool run by the State Treasurer‟s Office and that pool has offered yields in excess of commercial

paper yields. It hasn‟t made sense as a short term alternative to LAIF at this time or in the past

year or so. When the time comes that it does, staff will present that investment recommendation

to the City‟s finance staff and they can choose to utilize it at that time.

Councilmember Denny referred to page 219 and 220 and the addition of Government Code

Section 53.600.3. Would this also be considered a clerical change because the cross outs seem a

little more specific than the code section? Taxpayers aren‟t losing anything in this change?

Ms. Jones explained that this is just a change in the standard of prudence. This is actually

tightening the standard.

Ms. Denny asked to replace the word „will‟ with „shall‟ on page 220. She had the same request

for „shall‟ to be substituted for „will‟ on page 221 where it says, “All brokers or investment

advisors dealing with the City will be required to disclose any fees paid or received in connection

with the purchase of said securities.” She thinks it would be stronger if that said “shall” also.

Still on page 221, under section 8, Authorized Financial Dealers and Institutions, it reads “Proof

of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) certification, trading resolution, proof of

State of California registration, personal resume, certification of having read the City‟s

investment policy and depository contracts.” This is what any entity contracted with to help the

City with investing must provide to our treasurer. She noticed what is taken out is “National

Security Dealers certification” and she asked why.

Ms. Meacham explained that the National Security Dealers had a name change.

Ms. Denny referred to page 224, section 11 regarding diversification. It says, “The City will

diversify its investments by security type and institution. With the exception of U.S. Treasury

securities and authorized pools, not more than 33% of the market value of the City‟s total

investment portfolio will be invested in a single security, U.S. Government agency, or with a

single financial institution.” She asked why the words „market value of the‟ were added to the

paragraph.

Ms. Meacham responded that the words were added because the reports that they provide to the

City are based on market value and they just wanted it to be more specific.




510

Ms. Denny pointed out that the taxpayer is not losing anything with this deminimus change. On

page 225, Section 14, Reporting, it reads, “The Treasurer is charged with the responsibility of

preparing a quarterly report to the City Council. This report will include quarterly performance,

a list of the current investments, and transactions which occurred during each month of the

quarter over the quarter.” Ms. Denny again suggested the use of the word „shall‟ in place of

„will‟. She feels that this is better reporting and she wanted to point that out for the public.

Ms. Meacham explained that quarterly performance is already being provided in the current

reports but they just, again, wanted to make it more specific. During each month of the quarter is

to address a government code issue and they feel this wording makes it more specific.

Ms. Denny turned to Section 15, Investment Policy Review, which reads, “When the City has

funds on deposit with the State or County Pool or other local government investment pools, the

Treasurer shall review annually the written investment policy of such pools. Documentation

shall also be reviewed…” She asked for examples of other local government investment pools.

Ms. Meacham explained that a county pool is considered a local government investment pool.

There are other pools such as the California Asset Management Program and Cal Trust which are

local government investment pools.

Councilmember Downey referred to page 219 of Attachment B. She confirmed for the rest of

the Council that this isn‟t a legal document. This is our City policy. No one signed anything tin

order to implement this document but the consultant worked with the City Treasurer to

implement this document. „Shall‟ is used because legal documents need the word shall. „Will‟ is

talking about policy.

Ms. Denny doesn‟t feel that anything that has been said requires a response.

MSUC (Woiwode/Downey) moved the staff recommendation that the City Council

review and approve the recommended changes to the investment

policy.


NAYS: None

ABSTAINING: None

ABSENT: None

11e. Consideration of Request from Councilmember Downey Regarding

Adoption of Revised City Council Policy #2, Request by Member of City Council or Mayor

to Place an Item on a City Council Agenda. Councilmember Downey explained the purpose

of her request. This came up a couple of weeks ago and it is just a clarification. Any Council

member has the right to put something on the agenda but this is an attempt to make sure that

what goes on the agenda is appropriate to go out for the public. This also makes it a little bit

easier for staff when they are putting together the Council packages to try to figure out what

should be in open session or closed session and it protects everyone else from one Council

member accidentally or intentionally waiving attorney client privilege. This makes clear two




511

things. First, the question that the Council has dealt with off and on for the last couple of years

when someone wants to put something on the agenda is whether it should it be acted upon at that

meeting or does it come back on a future agenda so that the public has notice that it is a topic the

City Council will act on and to allow staff to prepare a report. The second thing is that this

allows the City Attorney to make sure that whatever is being put into the agenda packet should

be public knowledge and that there is not a waiver of attorney client privilege. Those are the two

goals intended with this amendment. The suggested policy changes were tweaked a little bit

based on recommendations from the City Manager. She is open to suggestions for improvement.

Mayor Tanaka has two small suggestions. On page 233, under item 2 it reads “…by any

member of the City Council or the Mayor.” He would suggest putting, “…by any member of the

City Council, including the Mayor.” In the same section, paragraph “a” begins with, “…The

single page request…” He would change that to “A single page request…” Otherwise he is

happy to support this.

Councilmember Woiwode also referred to paragraph “a”. He thinks the last sentence, “The

request need not be written in the ultimate legal form necessary to take action on the matter at the

next city council meeting.” It is not needed unless it somehow gives guidance to staff.

Mayor Tanaka would rather leave that sentence as is. It is meant for the five Council members

and they will understand the context.

Councilmember Denny understands, based on the earlier request to put this matter on the consent

agenda, that there is support to pass this change in the policy. She wants to go on record, and has

touched on it a little bit in various discussions here on City Council over the past two years, as

saying that there is one thing that she could support in the change, which would be the change in

the date from Wednesday to Tuesday. She always tries to find ways to agree with Council

members but she just can‟t agree with this. The original policy is, on its plain language, fine and

working very well and is 120 words. This new policy is 330 words and she thinks it really

represents why people complain about their government and mistrust their government and think

that their government is not working for them. This is a very tedious change and is completely

unnecessary. She referred to page 229 to show why she won‟t be supporting this. The first thing

was the background which says that Council Policy #2 was written to accommodate the diversity

of the City‟s citizens. That goal of accommodating the citizens, not the Council members, is not

served by this change in policy because it makes the access to government and transparency less

or weaker. She thinks the change violates the actual purpose of the policy. The second thing

mentioned on page 229 is that the current policy is ambiguous. It is not. It is in really plain

language, on its face, quite clear and subject to the best interpretation, for the most transparency,

for the people of Coronado. When it says that under the current policy there is no ability for the

City Attorney to ensure that the information is appropriate for an open session Council packet,

that is an untrue, not true, statement. There are really two fail safes that make sure that the things

that go on the open public agenda are something that can properly be on an agenda. She can‟t

speak to the time before she got on City Council but she can speak to the past two years she has

been on City Council and absolutely, positively nothing has gone on the open agenda that can‟t

be disclosed to the public. It might make some people uncomfortable that it is going on the

agenda but the goal is not the comfort or the political preservation of any one of us Council

members. The goal of the policy is to make sure that the people have direct access to their




512

government and can get things on the agenda and actually acted upon by their government in a

reasonable time and in a reasonable fashion. The first fail safe to make sure that the things that

go on the agenda are proper and are not privileged would be the City Manager. Any city

manager that she can think of would most definitely know what is proper for the agenda and

what is not. In our City of Coronado the final say of what goes on the agenda is our City

Manager. It is not any one of the Council members. It is not the Mayor. It is the City Manager.

The second fail safe is the City Attorney. Her understanding is that, especially now, the City

Attorney has even more lead time to look at our agenda items as we put them on than she has had

in the past. That is something that is very good and should make the public feel good about that.

The system is working. It is not broken and it is a false argument to say that something might

get on the agenda that is privileged or that the people couldn‟t look at or that they are not

allowed to see because we have both the City Manager and the City Attorney who has been and

always will be looking to make sure what is put on the agenda is proper. In addition, City

Council members like herself will say to the City Manager, “Let‟s make sure this is proper for

the agenda.” She has said this in the past because she doesn‟t want to violate any privilege. She

thinks this is really an attack on our City Manager and City Attorney and their professionalism

by saying that something might get on the agenda that shouldn‟t be exposed to the public. That

is a misplaced attack. She is very sorry for that. She thinks they both have been doing an

excellent job of putting proper things on the agenda. Current Policy #2 states, “Generally, a

Staff report will not be prepared for the item.” This gives flexibility in the current policy that is

lacking in the new proposed policy because sometimes we just don‟t want to occupy our staff

time with reports when issues are so clear and can be decided on in a reasonable, timely fashion

here on City Council. The new proposed policy is too narrow and inflexible. For the

recommendation portion it says, “Policy #2 be rewritten to allow any council member to bring a

one page request that an item be placed on a FUTURE city council agenda for action.” This

makes her chuckle because you just have to go case by case with your issue. It is an artificial

attempt to narrow or to dumb down requests from Council that are put on the agenda by limiting

them and narrowing them onto the agenda and she would hate to hamper any of her colleagues

here or future council members to a one page report. It is unnecessarily narrow. It goes on to

say, “However City Council would not be able to take action until AFTER it has been agendized

at a subsequent meeting with a full staff report.” Just so the public knows what is going on she

always feels like sometimes the agenda item should be acted on in one step and sometimes it will

take two steps. It is more of a case by case decision with intelligent and professional council

members. She doesn‟t think we should take away the flexibility of deciding on an agenda item

in one step without a staff report, an onerous and burdensome staff report. In that regard the new

policy is too inflexible. Moving down it says, “This two tier voting procedure would 1) insure

no legally protected evidence would be introduced in open session…” Again this makes her

chuckle because this is a false argument. We already have two fail safes in the City Manager

and the City Attorney who ensure, in fact, that no legally protected evidence would ever be

introduced in open session.

Mayor Tanaka asked if Ms. Denny would yield the floor to take a question.

Ms. Denny refused to yield for a question. The proposed language continues, “…2) give

direction to staff to research an issue important to council and give options on costs/benefits…”

She is always a proponent of cost benefit analysis but the issue needn‟t be important to Council.

That is not the point. We don‟t need political cover in our policy. It should be important to the




513

people of Coronado, not Council. She thinks that might have been a Freudian slip to say that

only issues important to Council be put on the agenda. It is incorrect. It needs to be important to

the people of Coronado. Our own personal tastes as elected officials don‟t dictate what goes on

the agenda. We need to have a working government for our City citizens. That is what is

important. She summarized by saying that she can‟t vote for the proposed policy. The reason is

because it is too narrow. It is too inflexible. It hampers and burdens staff. It ties the hands of

Council members who would like to put more than one page on their agenda item and she just

thinks that is overall less professional than the plain language policy we currently have. She

can‟t support it.

Councilmember Ovrom doesn‟t agree that the old policy is working fine. He considers it to be

ambiguous and it is necessary to change it. He brings history into this because as long as he has

been associated with the Council the intent that was followed by past Councils was simply to

place a relatively short description of what the Council person wanted the Council to discuss at

the next or some meeting beyond that. The answer was either a yes or a no. Having been the

recipient of some yeses and some no‟s that is the way it worked. The fact that this is being

abused for whatever purpose, the tightening of it so that what the requirement is here is that in

fact what a Council person or the Mayor puts on is simply a request to consider a subject and a

relatively short description of why. Then the Council can vote on that and say that they want

staff and attorney time. If the answer is “yes”, that gives staff an opportunity prepare a proper

report. If the Council says “no” it is not a waste of their time. Having been on both sides of that

argument he has no problem and he is in favor of changing this policy simply to tighten it down.

This clarification is the way he is used to these requests being handled and that is the way he

thinks the system was originally meant to work. Recently it hasn‟t been done that way and he

would like to go back to the way he thinks it should be.

MSC (Woiwode/Ovrom) moved that the City Council adopt the revised City

Council Policy #2 as requested by Councilmember Downey, with minor wording

clarifications on item 2 as provided by Mayor Tanaka and Councilmember Woiwode.

Ms. Downey wanted to clarify a couple of things. There are two issues. One is exactly what Mr.

Ovrom said. She was just trying to make sure it was clear on the record how this all worked.

Also, she thinks there is a misconception. If there is something important to the City it is the

City Manager‟s job and City staff‟s job to bring it to the Council‟s attention. This specific City

Council policy is in the off chance that they have missed something and that a Council member

finds some issue based on dealings with constituents. It is not regarding a matter of urgency

where the only way something can get done or something be protected is if a Council member

must rush in and get it done immediately. If it is a very urgent matter, the City Manager can put

it on the agenda any time he wants to. He doesn‟t need to wait two weeks. As a matter of fact

he can call an emergency session if he needs to. The amendment to the policy does not cause a

delay in serving the public; it only serves to clarify some things. Regarding the discussion of

transparency, everyone‟s favorite buzz word today, Ms. Downey wants to make clear that this

does not take away transparency at all. As a matter of fact, what it does is allow enough public

notice so that if there is an issue where the Council votes to expend City resources on, then the

public has a chance to get the information and get involved with time to do research and time to

come back and tell the Council if they care whether the City Council takes this issue up. If one

of the City Council members thought it was important but the City Manager or staff didn‟t,




514

maybe the Council member is wrong and so maybe the public ought to have the opportunity to

weigh in. Those are the reasons she thinks this is important. She thinks this gives the right

amount of time for that to happen.

Ms. Denny wanted to go on the record again as saying transparency is not just a buzz word. It is

and always was a requirement of city government and while, in the past, it has been very popular

and bandied about from time to time it is very serious and the idea of making the city

government more transparent to the public and more accessible to the public has always been a

legal requirement. It has just been talked about lately as a buzz word but it has always, always

been there and it is our duty to provide transparency to the people of Coronado.


NAYS: Denny

ABSTAINING: None

ABSENT: None

12. CITY ATTORNEY: No report.

13. COMMUNICATIONS - WRITTEN: None.

The City Council recessed to Closed Session at 6:49 pm.

14. CLOSED SESSION:

a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -- EXISTING LITIGATION AUTHORITY: Government Code Section 54956.9(a)

NAME OF CASE: James Blinn v. City of Coronado

WCAB No.: ADJ7678591

b. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – INITIATION OF

LITIGATION AUTHORITY: Government Code Section 54956.9(c)

(1) One Potential Case

c. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION

AUTHORITY: Government Code Section 54956.9(a)

NAMES OF CASES:

1. Mark Gosselin, Trustee of the Mark Gosselin Trust v. City of Coronado;

City Council of the City of Coronado

San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2011-00083872-CU-WM-CTL




515

2. City of Coronado v. Mark Gosselin, Trustee of the Mark Gosselin Trust


3. City of Coronado v. Ron Boucher, et al.


15. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:07 p.m.

Approved: (Date), 2011

______________________________

Casey Tanaka, Mayor

City of Coronado

Attest:

______________________________

Linda K. Hascup, CMC

City Clerk


2


4


6


84


88


90


92


96


106


108


110


112


114


116


118


120


122


124


128


136


140

141

lhascup

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT A


142

143

lhascup

Typewritten Text

ATTACHMENT B


144


146

regular meeting city of coronado city … · 2015. 12. 4. · coronado, california . tuesday,...

Documents