Loading...
City Council_Complete Agenda_12/6/2016Joint City Council/SA Meeting December 6, 2016 AS A COURTESY TO OTHERS, PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES A G E N D A CITY OF CORONADO CITY COUNCIL/ THE CITY OF CORONADO ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CORONADO Tuesday, December 6, 2016 Coronado City Hall Council Chamber 1825 Strand Way Coronado, California 92118 CLOSED SESSION SPECIAL MEETING – 3:30 P.M. REGULAR MEETING – 4 P.M. 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. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION 1.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION AUTHORITY:Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) NAME OF CASE:City of Coronado v. San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2016-00000183-CU-WM- CTL 2.COMMUNICATIONS - ORAL: Each person wishing to speak before the City Council on only matters listed on this agenda shall approach the City Council, give their name, and limit their presentation to 3 minutes. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION RECONVENE AND ANNOUNCE ACTION Joint City Council/SA Meeting December 6, 2016 AS A COURTESY TO OTHERS, PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES REGULAR MEETING (SA items are denoted by an *.) – 4 P.M. 1.CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL. 2.INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. *3.MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY: Approval of the minutes of the Regular meeting of November 15, 2016. 4.CEREMONIAL PRESENTATIONS 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 1) 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 Budgets for FY 2016-2017. (Pg 3) Recommendation: Approve the Warrants as certified by the City/Agency Treasurer. c.Acceptance of the Street Preventive Maintenance FY 2016/17 Project and Direction to the City Clerk to File a Notice of Completion. (Pg 69) Recommendation: Accept the Street Preventive Maintenance FY 2016/17 project and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion. d.Acceptance of the Naked Warrior Project, Appropriation of an Additional $3,700, and Direction to the City Clerk to File a Notice of Completion. (Pg 71) Recommendation: Accept the Naked Warrior Project, appropriate an additional $3,700 and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion. e.Acceptance of the Library Media Room and ADA Refurbishment Project and Direction to the City Clerk to File a Notice of Completion. (Pg 73) Recommendation: Accept the Library Media Room and ADA Refurbishment project and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion. Joint City Council/SA Meeting December 6, 2016 AS A COURTESY TO OTHERS, PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES f.Consideration of an Encroachment Permit Regarding Private Improvements (Fence) Within the Public Right-of-Way of Olive Avenue along the Side Yard of 715 Ninth Street. (Pg 75) Recommendation: Deny the encroachment permit. g.Authorization for the City Manager to Execute a Purchase Agreement for an Amount Not to Exceed $400,593 through a Cooperative Purchasing Program for One Dodge Ambulance. (Pg 87) Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase agreement for an amount not to exceed $400,593 for the purchase of one Dodge ambulance, through a cooperative purchasing program. h.Adoption of a Resolution Accepting a Surrendered and Abandoned Vessel Exchange (SAVE) Grant in the Amount of $37,400 from the California Department of Parks and Recreation Division of Boating and Waterways (DBAW). (Pg 89) Recommendation: Adopt “A Resolution Accepting a Surrendered and Abandoned Vessel Exchange (SAVE) Grant in the Amount of $37,400 from the California Department of Parks and Recreation Division of Boating and Waterways (DBAW).” *i.Approval of the Administrative Budget and the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) for Fiscal Year 2017-18 Related to the Successor Agency’s Claim for Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Funds. (Pg 93) Recommendation: Approve the Administrative Budget and the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. j.Filing of the Treasurer’s Reports on Investments for the City and the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency for the City of Coronado for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2016. (Pg 99) Recommendation: Examine the quarterly Reports on Investments and order them filed. k.Results of the Free Summer Shuttle and Silver Strand Shuttle Pilot Project for Summer 2016. (Pg 121) Recommendation: Receive report. l.Summary of Summer 2016 Pilot Project Valet Parking Program. (Pg 127) Recommendation: Receive report. 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 Joint City Council/SA Meeting December 6, 2016 AS A COURTESY TO OTHERS, PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF 10 MINUTES; ANY FURTHER COMMUNICATIONS WILL BE HEARD PRIOR TO THE MEETING ADJOURNMENT) 7. CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: a. City Council Accomplishments of 2016. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. Public Hearing: Consideration of a Request for a Historic Alteration Permit for a Remodel and Addition, Including Zoning Exception Requests Related to Setbacks and Floor Area Ratio, for the Property at 855 Alameda Boulevard and Located in the R-1A (Single Family Residential) Zone. (HAP 2016-09) (Pg 131) Historic Resource Commission Recommendation: Adopt “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado approving the request for Historic Alteration Permit, including zoning exception requests related to setbacks and floor area ratio, for the property addressed as 855 Alameda and located in the R-1A (single family residential) zone.” b. Public Hearing: Adoption of “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado Approving an Amendment to the TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2016/17 through 2020/21.” (Pg 175) Recommendation: Adopt “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado Approving an Amendment to the TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2016/17 through 2020/21.” c. Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Two-Lot Tentative Parcel Map to Allow for Condominium Ownership of Four Residential Units for the Property Addressed as 449-455 E Avenue in the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) Zone (PC 2016-06). (Pg 181) Planning Commission Recommendation: Adopt “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado Approving a Two-lot Tentative Parcel Map to Allow for Condominium Ownership of Four Residential Units for the Property Legally Described as Lot 33 and 34 in Block 123, of Coronado Beach South Island According to Map thereof No. 376, Addressed as 449-455 E Avenue, Coronado, California.” d. Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a One-Lot Tentative Parcel Map to Allow for Condominium Ownership of Three Residential Units for the Property Addressed as 244 B Avenue in the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) Zone (PC 2016-07). (Pg 193) Planning Commission Recommendation: Adopt “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado Approving a One-lot Tentative Parcel Map to Allow for Condominium Ownership of Three Residential Units for the Property Legally Described as the Northerly 12½ Feet of Lot 8 and all of Lot Joint City Council/SA Meeting December 6, 2016 AS A COURTESY TO OTHERS, PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES 9 in Block 151, of Coronado Beach South Island According to Map thereof No. 376, Addressed as 244 B Avenue, Coronado, California.” e.Public Hearing: Second Reading for Adoption of “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Coronado, California Repealing Chapters 44.04, 70.01, 70.05, 70.06, 70.20, 70.25, 70.30, 70.40, 70.50, 70.60, 70.80, 70.100, 70.110, and 70.120 of the Coronado Municipal Code and Adopting New Chapters 70.01, 70.05, 70.06, 70.10, 70.20, 70.25, 70.30, 70.40, 70.50, 70.60, 70.80, 70.90, 70.100, 70.110, 70.120, and 70.130 of the Coronado Municipal Code which Adopt by Reference the Uniform Administrative Code, the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the Uniform Housing Code, and the 2016 California Administrative Code, Building Code, Residential Code, Electric Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, Energy Code, Historic Building Code, Fire Code, Existing Building Code, Green Building Standards, and Referenced Standards Code.” (Pg 205) Recommendation: Hold a public hearing and adopt “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Coronado, California repealing Chapters 44.04, 70.01, 70.05, 70.06, 70.20, 70.25, 70.30, 70.40, 70.50, 70.60, 70.80, 70.100, 70.110, and 70.120 of the Coronado Municipal Code and adopting new Chapters 70.01, 70.05, 70.06, 70.10, 70.20, 70.25, 70.30, 70.40, 70.50, 70.60, 70.80, 70.90, 70.100, 70.110, 70.120, and 70.130 of the Coronado Municipal Code which adopt by reference the Uniform Administrative Code, the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the Uniform Housing Code, and the 2016 California Administrative Code, Building Code, Residential Code, Electric Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, Energy Code, Historic Building Code, Fire Code, Existing Building Code, Green Building Standards, and Referenced Standards Code.” 9.ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS: None. 10.COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS: None. 11.CITY COUNCIL: a.Council Reports on Inter-Agency Committee and Board Assignments. (Questions allowed to clarify but no responses, discussion or action.) (Pg 251) b.Consideration of Reappointment of Two Incumbents, Norman Funk and Akshay Sateesh, to Serve a First, Three-Year Term on the Parks and Recreation Commission. (Pg 257) Recommendation: Reappoint Norman Funk and Akshay Sateesh, each, to a first, three-year term that will expire on January 31, 2020. c.Consideration of Reappointment of One Incumbent, Cauleen Glass, to Serve a Second, Three-Year Term on the Transportation Commission. (Pg 259) Recommendation: Reappoint Cauleen Glass to a second, three-year term that will expire on February 29, 2020. Joint City Council/SA Meeting December 6, 2016 AS A COURTESY TO OTHERS, PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES d.Presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the Year Ending June 30, 2016. (Pg 261) Recommendation: Receive and file the City of Coronado CAFR for the year ending June 30, 2016. e.Discuss Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend Title 2 Chapter 2.02 Section 2.02.030 of the Coronado Municipal Code to Increase Councilmember Compensation by $435.00 Per Month Commencing after the City Council’s Reorganization in 2018; and/or Place a Measure on the November 6, 2018, General Election Ballot Related to Subsequent Index Increases. (Pg 279) Recommendation: Council direction requested. Discuss and consider a two- part change to Councilmember compensation; (1) introduce an ordinance to establish a lump-sum increase of $435.00 per month to take effect after the November 2018 General Election; and (2) if desired, place a measure on the November 6, 2018, ballot to make subsequent indexed adjustments to Councilmember Salary, and direct staff to incorporate the necessary language in any resolution(s) required when calling for the November 2018 General Election. f.Introduction of “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, Removing Section 56.28.010(F), of Chapter 56.28 of Title 56 of the Coronado Municipal Code Regarding Skateboards, Roller Skates and Other Similarly Wheeled Devices and Amending Section 56.28.030 of Chapter 56.28 of Title 56 of the Coronado Municipal Code.” (Pg 289) Recommendation: Introduce “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, removing Section 56.28.010(F), of Chapter 56.28 of Title 56 of the Coronado Municipal Code regarding skateboards, roller skates and other similarly wheeled devices and amending Section 56.28.030 of Chapter 56.28 of Title 56 of the Coronado Municipal Code.” 12.CITY ATTORNEY: No report. 13.COMMUNICATIONS - WRITTEN: a.Consideration of Councilmember Downey’s Request to Agendize City Council Discussion Concerning Reconsidering the Decision to put a Traffic Light at Fourth and Alameda. (Pg 299) 14.ADJOURNMENT A COPY OF THE AGENDA WITH THE BACKGROUND MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK AT CITY HALL, AT THE PUBLIC LIBRARY OR ON OUR WEBSITE AT www.coronado.ca.us Joint City Council/SA Meeting December 6, 2016 AS A COURTESY TO OTHERS, PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES Writings and documents regarding an agenda item on an open session meeting, received after official posting and distributed to the Council for consideration, will be made available for public viewing at the City Clerk’s Office at City Hall, 1825 Strand Way, during normal business hours. Materials submitted for consideration should be forwarded to the City Clerk’s Office at cityclerk@coronado.ca.us. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 328 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 328 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO/ THE CITY OF CORONADO ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CORONADO Coronado City Hall 1825 Strand Way Coronado, CA 92118 Tuesday, November 15, 2016 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Mayor Tanaka called the closed session meeting to order at 2:59 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION 1.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION AUTHORITY: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)Two (2) potential cases Facts and circumstances need not be disclosed pursuant to Government Code Section54956.9(e)(1). Facts and circumstances (pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(e)(3)): A copyof the September 21, 2016, claim against the City of Coronado from Benjamin Baldwin and Andrew Baldwin is available for inspection upon request. 2.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATIONAUTHORITY: Government Code Section 54956.9(a), (d)(1)NAMES OF CASES: a.City of Coronado v. Michael Cohen, et al.Sacramento Superior Court, Case No. 34-2013-80001694-CU-WM-GDS b.Arthur Young v. City of CoronadoSan Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2014-00037469-CU-EI-CTL c.Dr. James Andrew v. City of CoronadoSan Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2015-00037273-CU-PO-CTL Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 329 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 329 d.City of Coronado v. Ford Motor Co., et al. San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2016-00011572-CU-BC-CTL e.Gretchen Wienenga v. City of CoronadoSan Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2016-00024782-CU-PO-CTL f.Harold Wayne Mosley v. City of CoronadoSouthern District of California Court Case No. 16-CV-00065 g.In re. The Joyce A Bennett Trust San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2008-00151644-PR-TR-CTL h.City of Coronado v. San Diego Local Agency Formation CommissionSan Diego Superior Court Case No.37-2016-00000183-CU-WM-CTL 3.COMMUNICATIONS - ORAL: None. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION 3 p.m. RECONVENE AND ANNOUNCE ACTION 3:46 p.m. The Mayor announced there was no reportable action. Mayor Tanaka called the regular meeting to order at 4 pm. 1.ROLL CALL: Present:Councilmembers/Agency Members Bailey, Downey, Sandke, Woiwode and Mayor Tanaka Absent: None Also Present: City Manager/Agency Executive Director Blair King City Attorney/Agency Counsel Johanna Canlas City Clerk Mary Clifford 2.INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Floyd Ross provided theinvocation and Mayor Tanaka led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3.MINUTES: The Council approved the minutes of the Regular meeting of November 1,2016. MSUC (Downey/Woiwode) moved to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council/the City Council Acting as the Successor Agency of November 1, 2016, as submitted. The minutes were so approved. The reading of the minutes in their entirety was unanimously waived. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 330 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 330 AYES: Bailey, Downey, Sandke, Woiwode, Tanaka NAYS: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None 4.CEREMONIAL PRESENTATIONS: 4a. Presentation of Recreation Department Thanksgiving Poster Coloring ContestWinners. Stacy Berman, Recreation Programs Supervisor, provided an introduction to the item as well as a description of the contest. Mayor Tanaka and the City Council assisted with the presentation. Kindergarten and 1st Grade Entries •Councilmember Downey Presents 3rd place winner’s award to Lucy Pierre •Councilmember Woiwode Presents 2nd place winner’s award to Paulina Sanchez •Councilmember Sandke Presents 1st place winner’s award to Sadie Lis 2nd and 3rd Grade Entries •Councilmember Bailey Presents 3rd place winner’s award to Ethan Stewart •Councilmember Downey Presents 2nd place winner’s award to Annika Ickes •Councilmember Woiwode Presents 1st place winner’s award to Gabrielle Canada 4th and 5th Grade Entries •Councilmember Sandke Presents 3rd place winner’s award to Charlotte d-Arabian •Councilmember Bailey Presents 2nd place winner’s award to Shenan Lewis •Councilmember Tanaka Presents 1st place winner’s award to Connor Arit Mayor Tanaka congratulated all the winners and thanked all the children who entered the contest. All 101 entries are currently on display in the Community Center. 5.CONSENT CALENDAR: The City Council approved, adopted and/or accepted as one item of business Consent Agenda Items 5a through 5f with the addition of Items 11b and 13a. Councilmember Sandke suggested the addition of Item 11b and 13a. MSUC (Sandke/Woiwode) moved that the City Council approve the Consent Calendar Items 5a through 5f with the addition of Item 11b - Introduce the Adoption of Various California Building Codes by Reference, Specifically Introduction of “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Coronado, California Repealing Chapters 44.04, 70.01, 70.05, 70.06, 70.20, 70.25, 70.30, 70.40, 70.50, 70.60, 70.80, 70.100, 70.110, and 70.120 of the Coronado Municipal Code and Adopting New Chapters 70.01, 70.05, 70.06, 70.10, 70.20, 70.25, 70.30, 70.40, 70.50, 70.60, 70.80, Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 331 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 331 70.90, 70.100, 70.110, 70.120, and 70.130 of the Coronado Municipal Code which Adopt by Reference the Uniform Administrative Code, the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the Uniform Housing Code, and the 2016 California Administrative Code, Building Code, Residential Code, Electric Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, Energy Code, Historic Building Code, Fire Code, Existing Building Code, Green Building Standards, and Referenced Standards Code” and 13a - Consideration of Request from Councilmember Woiwode to Agendize City Council Discussion Concerning the Level of City Council Compensation and a Process for Setting It. AYES: Bailey, Downey, Sandke, Woiwode, Tanaka NAYS: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: Sandke 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 Approve that the Warrants, as Certified by the City/Agency Treasurer, are all Correct, Just, and Conform to the Approved Budget for FY 2016-2017. The City Council approved payment of City warrant Nos. 10116212 thru 10116439 and City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado warrant Nos. 90005603 thru 90005603. The City Council approved the warrants as certified by the City/Agency Treasurer. 5c. Authorization for the City Manager to Execute a Cooperative Purchase Agreement for an Amount Not to Exceed $90,000 for the Purchase of One Ford Explorer The City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a purchase agreement for a fully outfitted Ford Explorer in an amount not to exceed $90,000 through a cooperative purchasing program. 5d. Annual Review of the 2017 Local Appointments List Regarding Upcoming Vacancies on Local Boards, Commissions, and Committees. The City Council reviewed the 2017 Local Appointments List and authorized the City Clerk to post said list at the Coronado Library in compliance with Government Code sections 54970-54974 (the Maddy Act). 5e. Approve the Orange Avenue Corridor Street Light Poles Holiday Banner Designs as Recommended by the Cultural Arts Commission. The City Council approved the holiday banner designs for installation on the Orange Avenue median from First Street through Avenida de las Arenas from late November through early January 2017. 5f. Cancel the January 3, 2017, City Council Meeting. The City Council canceled the January 3, 2017, City Council meeting. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 332 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 332 6.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: a.Kate Carinder, Cultural Arts Commission, announced the Coronado Community Readwhich is a collaborative effort between the CAC and the Public Library. In February, theyhope the whole community will read The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, an epic true story of a woman whose immortal cell line has changed modern medicine more so than anyone else in history yet few people know her name.b.Rita Sarich, Coronado MainStreet, reminded everyone and the Council that next Saturday,November 26, is the national event, Shop Small. It is where we celebrate our local,independent businesses and we hope that everyone will go out and shop that particular day and support our local independent businesses. Coronado MainStreet is a neighborhood champion.c.Mayor Tanaka congratulated Richard Bailey on winning the election to be the next Mayor.He also congratulated Whitney Benzian and Mike Donovan on being elected to be the nextmembers of the City Council. He reminded the public that the transition meeting for the City Council where we reorganize will be December 20. 7.CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: 7a. Community Development Agency Dissolution Report. City Manager Blair King commented that this has been a significant effort and has consumed a great deal of staff time and resources and quite a bit of the Council’s attention over the last five and a half years. He is presenting this to the Council as there is no certificate that we will receive to say that it is over. This is his opportunity to say what we have done and how this has happened. He acknowledged the work that staff has done on this, Rachel Hurst, Rhonda Huth and Administrative Services under both Leslie Suelter and Jim Krueger and a significant amount of time and effort was put in by our City Attorney. There was one very important piece that she gave advice regarding that basically resulted in $64 million. In 1985, the City of Coronado took advantage of a section of state law, the Health and Safety Code, which allowed a greater percentage of property taxes currently paid to be retained by the City to expend for public benefit, specifically for the building of public facilities. It did not result in any tax increases but allowed a revenue stream to flow to the City that would not have flown if not for taking this action. In 1986, the City and School District entered into an agreement where two-thirds of the tax increment flowed to the School District. The School District, with that money, rebuilt almost all the school facilities within Coronado. Between 1990 and 2011, tax increment was used to construct public facilities including the Public Services building, the Glorietta Bay Master Plan, the Community Center, City Hall, Library, Lifeguard Services building, Yacht Club Promenade, the Marina building, the Animal Care facility, and it funded the Village Theater rehabilitation and the School District was built. It was the golden heyday of construction of public facilities in Coronado. He doubts Coronado will ever see a time like this again with the number of public facilities that were built. It has significantly improved Coronado. In 2011, after Governor Brown was elected to his third term as governor, he proposed legislation which was adopted, AB 1X26 and AB 1X27. The proposed legislative plan of AB 1X26 was to terminate all redevelopment agencies in the state. AB 1X27 would allow cities to pay the state money in order to keep their redevelopment agencies. The Council progressed towards paying the money necessary. However, in 2012, the Supreme Court found that 1X27 was unconstitutional. AB 1X26 was constitutional. That resulted in this 5½ year effort that he is referring to. The General Fund Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 333 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 333 of the City was placed at risk. Many facilities were placed at risk. Many accomplishments of the City were placed at risk. Over these 5½ years, through a combination of legislative advocacy, meet and conferring, and legal action, we have been reasonably successful in meeting our objectives. The final objective, by year 2036, the City will realize $64 million paid in principle and interest, which we thought was going to be lost as recently as three years ago. The City set out to, in the most effective and efficient manner possible, address the legislative mandate of terminating the former community development agency. We understood the law. We wanted to comply and do that in an efficient way. But we wanted to retain ownership technically and continue the trust obligation of the Coronado Marina. There was a time that we thought we were going to have to turn the Marina over to the state of California. That was contained in the law. We continue to retain our ownership of the Marina. We had stranded Marina funds of $1.4 million that we thought we were going to have to give back. We accomplished retaining those funds. There was a final amount of money that we wanted to provide to CUSD of $2.6 million. We were able to provide that to CUSD. We have had two agreements with Sharp Coronado Hospital and we thought both of those would be terminated. He is pleased to report that the owner participation agreement of $16.5 million was able to survive and also our purchase agreement with Sharp Coronado of $28 million was able to be kept. We have been able to hold the affordable housing assets that the City developed. We were able to retain $5.8 million that was the catalyst for the Council to initiate litigation when that money was demanded back by the State. The City’s position was that was General Fund money. Finally, we had a series of loans, about $35 million in principle, that the state said could not be paid back. We have been successful and they will be paid back. The total amount of that will be $64 million by the year 2036. It is his intention, in the first quarter of 2017, to discuss with the Council as to how it feels that money should be programmed and the uses of that money. The Council will see $11.2 million in the financial statements for the year ending June 30, 2017, that was not there on July 1, 2016. When we retired the CDA’s bond debt finally, we desired to accelerate our repayments to the General Fund loans. We were not successful in doing that. That was the subject that we refer to as Coronado II. We did not receive a favorable decision on that. This was an extraordinary 5½ year effort that resulted in us achieving the objectives the Council set forward. We enjoyed the benefits of the tax increment. We have successfully unwound that. We are now in a glide path to 2036 and, for the most part, the heavy lifting is now over. Mayor Tanaka thanked Mr. King for accomplishing so much in that period of time. Those were also Mr. King’s first 5½ years on the job. None of the Council members wanted to see redevelopment go away because it had done so many positive things in Coronado and as the City Manager mentioned, those were not new dollars that had to be spent but were dollars that had already been paid in property tax that were retained locally and spent on local projects. We were very fortunate to have people in the 1980s who had the vision to make the redevelopment plan that Coronado used happen. We were very fortunate to have School Board members and City Council members and Mayors over those years come up with a wise plan for what facilities to rebuild and basically every public facility in Coronado was rebuilt with redevelopment money. We also were fortunate to have Council members and mayors in the past that were willing to loan City dollars in the moment to get cheaper construction costs and to get those projects built in the moment and on time. We were willing to risk losing that money in the form of loans but we did not want to lose that money. He thanked not just City staff but our legal teams who were successful at proving that Coronado knows how to do paperwork and that we did it in a way where $35 million of principle Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 334 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 334 will be paid back between now and 2036 and we were willing to get those things paid off early but the state wants to pay us an extra $25 million in interest. 8.PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8a. Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a One-Lot Tentative Subdivision Map to Allow for Condominium Ownership of Five Residential Units for the Property Addressed as 1014 Fifth Street in the R-4/OACSP (Multiple Family Residential/Orange Avenue Corridor Specific Plan) Zone (PC 2016-08). Peter Fait, Associate Planner, provided the report. Mayor Tanaka opened the public hearing and seeing no one wishing to speak on the item, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Sandke/Downey) moved that the City Council adopt A RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE-LOT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TO ALLOW FOR CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP OF FIVE RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY ADDRESSED AS 1014 FIFTH STREET IN THE R-4/OACSP (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL/ORANGE AVENUE CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN) ZONE (PC 2016-08). The Resolution was read by title, the reading in its entirety unanimously waived and adopted by City Council as RESOLUTION NO. 8831. AYES: Bailey, Downey, Sandke, Woiwode, Tanaka NAYS: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None 8b. Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a One-Lot Tentative Parcel Map to Allow for Condominium Ownership of Two Residential Units for the Property Addressed as 900 G Avenue in the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) Zone (PC 2016-09). Peter Fait, Associate Planner, provided the report. Mayor Tanaka opened the public hearing and seeing no one wishing to speak on the item, the public hearing was closed. MSC (Tanaka/Woiwode) moved that the City Council adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO APPROVING A ONE-LOT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO ALLOW FOR CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP OF TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT C, OF THE RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 11 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE, IN BLOCK 33, OF CORONADO BEACH SOUTH ISLAND ACCORDING TO MAP 1656, ADDRESSED AS 900 G AVENUE, CORONADO, CALIFORNIA. The Resolution was read by title, the reading in its entirety Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 335 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 335 unanimously waived and adopted by City Council as RESOLUTION NO. 8832. AYES: Bailey, Downey, Woiwode, Tanaka NAYS: Sandke ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None 8c. Public Hearing: Consideration of an Environmental Impact Report and Request for Approval of a Coastal Permit for a Proposed Public Restroom Adjoining the Cul-de-Sac at the Southwesterly End of Avenida del Sol (CP 2016-01; IS 2013-05 South Beach Restroom Project). City Manager Blair King introduced the individuals who will present this item. Bill Cecil, Capital Projects Manager; Mark Teague, PlaceWorks; Jesse Brown, Senior Planner; Special Legal Counsel Michael Hogan have all worked on this item. Mr. Cecil will be discussing the South Beach Restroom and the needs for one, the criteria we used to locate the restroom, and he will present the building design as well as photo simulations both on the ground and from the Shores tower. We determined there was a need for a restroom at South Beach based on the fact that we have both visitors and residents of over three million people expected each year. We have reports from the Shores former property manager that there have been individuals trying to use the Shores restrooms or, worse yet, the landscape to relieve themselves. Of concern, of course, was water quality issues of people using the ocean as a restroom and, in 2014, we installed a portable restroom near the proposed location and we have had between 350 and 900 uses per day when the restroom was in use. The beach is broken up into three areas. We have North Beach where we have a restroom that we constructed a number of years ago, Central Beach restroom which was reconstructed earlier this year, and South Beach, which is the area we are discussing today. The proposed location is at Avenida del Sol. The criteria we used for locating this was that the City had ownership of the property. There is public and private parking. The Hotel Del has the private parking and there is public parking on Avenida del Sol and Highway 75. There is infrastructure available at Avenida del Sol – we have water, sewer and power. It is most central to South Beach. It will also allow visitors to be able to see that there is a restroom at this location as it is visible from the beach. It adds convenient access for our staff to be able to service the building. We will come in at 6 a.m. to open it, service the building, and at 10 or 11 p.m. close it. Being at the end of the cul-de-sac, the police have visibility to this so that we can monitor any activity going on there and it is located at the widest part of the beach. He showed the site plan. It is located at the extension of Avenida del Sol. Back in 2012, Mayor Tanaka requested that the size of the restroom be reduced and that was done. There are three single accommodation restrooms with one ADA restroom and a storage facility. The single accommodation restroom allows for individuals to be able to open the door. It is the most secure type restroom. You can visually look inside and make sure that there is no one else inside. This also allows someone who has a young child of the opposite sex of the parent who cannot enter a large restroom but can go into the unisex restroom with a parent monitoring just outside. We have two outdoor sinks and two outdoor showers. The outdoor sinks allow for faster Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 336 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 336 throughput so that we can make the building smaller. There is a handicap ramp to go into the patio area. He showed the existing stairs and the stairs that would go down to the existing beach. He showed the section of the building showing the existing Avenida del Sol. The building is proposed to be located at the top of the stairs at approximately 10’.6” elevation. There is a sea wall 3’6” above the patio area that extends down 23’ into the bay point formation. The next slide showed if the Hotel Del Master Plan proceeds when Avenida del Sol is raised and in this particular case the street elevation is above the patio area and the stairs would go down to the restroom and the ramp would also go down. This is the section with Avenida del Sol showing in the raised location. This is to improve water quality so that any storm water, instead of going to the ocean, would go to the storm drains. The building is a concrete masonry core with stone veneer. The stone veneer is similar to our restrooms at North and Central Beaches. It is also to match the riprap that is adjoining the facility. The roof is a concrete roof and the sea wall is concrete, both colored to match the beach sand. He showed some photo simulations from various locations. Councilmember Downey asked where the trailer is that we use now on the photo shown. Mr. Cecil explained that it is off the picture and he showed where it is relative to the picture. Mr. Teague explained that PlaceWorks prepared the environmental document that is before the Council this afternoon. The purpose of the California Environmental Quality Act is to provide information to the decision makers and to the public on the probable environmental impacts of your proposed action on the environment. The idea is to identify any potential impacts, come up with ideas to help address those impacts, provide public opportunity to comment, to address those comments, and to look at alternatives to anything that may have caused an impact on the environment. The City of Coronado has its own CEQA guidelines that involves preparing an Initial Study and NOP (Notice of Preparation) and public hearings at various stages along the way to allow the public and the City representatives to have input at each point in the process. The flow chart the Council has before it shows that the Draft EIR and the Final EIR were both prepared and presented to the Design Review Commission and to the Planning Commission who have both recommended it to the Council this evening for approval. In order to take action on the project that would involve anything other than denial, you would first need to certify the EIR. When we go about preparing an environmental document, we first look to see if there are impacts we can immediately dismiss as not being significant or as having no impact by virtue of not simply applying to the project or the location or that you may have existing rules, policies, permits that would significantly address any impacts that might come from them. We do that as part of the Initial Study and the Notice of Preparation and, as you can see on the slide, a good number of these impacts have already been addressed or are not impacts and were excluded from the EIR as part of the process that he showed previously. There were two impacts that stuck out that we did evaluate in the EIR. Those are aesthetics and construction noise associated with the project. In terms of aesthetics, there are a number of visual simulations that are included in the EIR. This shows the existing and the proposed with the current location of the roadway. He showed what would occur once the roadway is raised and consistent with the Coronado plan. He showed another view looking south and east of the project. As you can see, the visual simulation and a view looking north showing the sand colored roof. The EIR concluded that the aesthetic impact of the project was less than significant as designed and did not include any mitigation measures. For the public, mitigation measures are those conditions that get placed on a project that either impact how they are constructed or how it is operated in order to Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 337 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 337 address an environmental impact. In terms of construction, there was the potential for the construction process to exceed the City’s noise standards. Therefore, a mitigation measure is included in the EIR that restricts when and how things will be constructed consistent with the City’s guidelines. This would only occur during construction. Once the construction is complete, there will be no noise or vibration impact from the project itself. As he indicated at the beginning of his presentation, one of the purposes of CEQA is to provide the public an opportunity to comment. We did receive comments. We also responded to those comments in the Final EIR and the response to comments and also to additional comments that we received during the public process. This should be part of your package. Lots of people bring up comments on an EIR. Many of them are not CEQA comments, meaning they don’t really impact the project on the environment. They are project comments and they are provided for the Council’s consideration. Generally, CEQA does not apply to an environment’s impact on the project itself. It applies specifically to the project’s impact on the environment. Things that are happening now in the environment; the case that brought that to everyone’s attention was an earthquake case in the Bay area. The issue was that the fault line was there and the project knew about it. That is not the issue. The issue would be if the project was creating a different fault or exacerbating that problem. In that context that is how we responded to the comments that are included in your packet. Councilmember Downey is not sure if she should ask of this speaker or we can wait and ask for Mrs. Canlas to answer it. Mr. Teague mentioned the fact that there were some comments made that really weren’t the effect of the project on the environment but the other way around and the same thing is true – there was an allegation that we were violating our own Section 86.74.030 which says that permanent buildings should have a setback from the eroding beach sufficient to assure the development will not require mitigation measures to protect the development from the natural erosion process during the economic lifetime of the structures. The response to that comment was correct and it said that there is no mitigation relating to erosion because we have issues that we dealt with by putting the sea wall but it wasn’t erosion. Can you confirm that? Mr. Teague explained that they did not address that specific issue. We do have technical expertise in the audience that can as well. Mr. King would like to run through the presentation. That is something we do want to put on the record. Mr. Brown spoke about the Coastal Permit, public comments, and what the staff recommendation on this project is. Going over some background, the City Council has discussed the need for a restroom facility at South Beach for a number of years and included the project in the City’s Capital Improvement Program in 2010. In March 2011, the City Council affirmed the project as part of the CIP. A conceptual design was prepared in 2011 and public workshops were held in late 2011 and early 2012. In February 2012, the Council selected the Avenida del Sol site as the preferred location for the restroom as it was on property controlled by the City, had visibility from both the beach and the public right-of-way, and had easy access to existing utilities. The City Council also requested that the footprint of the facility be reduced. In 2013 the City Council directed staff to prepare an Initial Study which led to the preparation of an EIR in 2015. The EIR has been completed in compliance with all applicable laws and is legally defensible. In September, the City’s Design Review Commission (DRC) held a public hearing on this item and voted unanimously to recommend certification of the EIR and voted 3-1 to recommend approval of the restroom design. Last month, the City’s Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 4- Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 338 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 338 1 to recommend certification of the EIR and approval of the Coastal Permit to the City Council. Now the project is before the City Council seeking final approval. The project is located within the Coastal Commission’s appeal jurisdiction and not the Coastal Commission’s direct jurisdiction. This means that a Coastal Permit is to be reviewed for consistency with the City’s adopted Local Coastal Program (LCP) which is how the City administers the Coastal Act. Staff has found that the South Beach Restroom project is in conformance with the City’s adopted LCP as it furthers various action programs and adopted policies included in the LCP. It is clear that the project is consistent with these two specific action programs as it would serve people recreating and visiting the South Beach area, specifically action program A1D is exactly what this project is – construction of additional restroom facilities on City controlled beaches. The South Beach Restroom is also consistent with adopted policies E1, E4 and E5. E1 requires new development to assure coastal stability and neither create nor contribute to erosion and E4 requires any new permanent structure to be setback from an eroding beach coastline to ensure development will not be threatened by natural erosion. This was confirmed in the Wave Run Up Study addendum, which explained FEMA guideline recommendations to locate structures landward of areas subject to erosion and shows how the sheet pile wave barrier will address the potential for flooding from the 100-year storm event. Additionally, the sheet pile wall and mount foundation as recommended in the geotechnical investigation prepared for the project will assure the structural integrity and will not significantly contribute to erosion or geologic instability. E5 requires that shoreline structures not result in potentially substantial adverse change in the physical conditions of the area which this project was found not to do. The project is also consistent with policies H2 and H4. H2 requires development to be designed to safeguard existing public views to and along the coast and be visually compatible with the surrounding area. This was done by reducing the original size of the restroom from six stalls and three sinks down to four stalls and two sinks, by placing the structure perpendicular to the Avenida del Sol right-of-way to safeguard views to and along the ocean, and by using rock veneer similar to the existing City restrooms on the beach as well as the adjacent riprap and design elements on the adjacent Coronado Shores buildings. Section 5.1.4 of the draft EIR includes a view impact analysis which analyzes the proposed project’s impacts on public views of the ocean and it was determined that the restroom facility would not substantially block public views of the ocean. H4 calls for the City to provide for an environmental design review process which it does and it was satisfied by going to the DRC in September of this year. Staff has received one letter that is not included in your packets from Planning Commissioner Harry DeNardi. It was received after the packets were prepared. His letter raised concerns related to parking requirements for a beach restroom, public access and prescriptive rights, landscaping requirements, and says the project includes a shoreline protection device and is not setback from an eroding beach. Regarding parking, a restroom is an amenity and not a trip or parking generating use. Two other restrooms have been constructed on the beach in Coronado with no parking requirements and we are treating this proposed restroom the same. No parking is required. Regarding prescriptive rights, they do not apply to public property which this is and public access to the beach is maintained. Regarding the project site requiring 15% landscaping, staff disagrees that landscaping is required and it was not required for the other two beach restrooms in Coronado; however, landscaping can consist of natural areas and hardscape so the project would exceed 15% landscaping even though it is not required. And regarding the belief that the project includes a shoreline projecting device and is not setback from an eroding beach, staff would like to note that the project was designed in consultation with a coastal engineer who has designed other similar Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 339 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 339 beach facilities in Coronado and throughout the San Diego region that have been approved by the Coastal Commission. The sheet pile wave deflector is part of the structure and is not a shoreline protection device as it is not intended to protect the shoreline but rather the building. Also, it is set back as far as possible on the beach within the existing rock riprap that was designed properly. All public comments received on this project have been responded to in the Final EIR and the staff report, the staff report attachments, and in this presentation. With that, staff recommends that the City Council consider the information in the EIR, review the project for consistency with the City’s adopted LCP, and adopt a resolution certifying the EIR, adopting a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, adopting the findings of fact, approving the Coastal Permit, approving the exterior design, and directing staff to file a Notice of Determination. Councilmember Downey wanted to clarify, based on some of the comments that were in Mr. DeNardi’s letter about how we are interpreting our own LCP and how this project does indeed fit that, can she just ask that those be confirmed or should she go through the letter so each can be addressed separately? City Attorney Johanna Canlas responded that, as Mr. Brown pointed out, we are of the opinion that it conforms with our certified LCP for a variety of reasons including the policy and part of the presentation in this particular case the landscaping is not required because this is not in fact a zoned area but, however, even if it is not, we can meet those landscaping requirements because hardscape, as Mr. Brown pointed out, actually would qualify for it. Additionally, there has been a question regarding prescriptive rights. As staff noted, prescriptive rights, state law says, do not apply against a public entity. In this particular case, this is actually a public owned area so the public cannot get prescription on a publicly owned property already. The last one is whether or not a bluff retention device is actually being built. We are fortunate that we actually got our LCP certified many decades ago and part of that also includes conditions that would normally apply throughout the state of California. Bluff erosion is not an issue in the City of Coronado. We do not have bluffs. We don’t have eroding bluffs. We have wide sandy beaches. In this particular case, that particular section that the commenter presented is not applicable because we are not proposing sea walls or bluff retention devices to prevent erosion from the bluff. What we have is a design feature to make sure that the facility that is being constructed is not inundated with water in the event that the weather or the condition requires it. That is what we have and she believes Mr. Brown has presented that and if there are additional questions, she is available. Ms. Downey wanted to clarify for the record there was a concern that we were unaware of the Attorney General’s implied dedication of prescriptive rights manual and she addressed it by saying that would not apply to ours. She thinks it was the other way around. For those who do not know what this is, the Coastal Commission encourages other jurisdictions as well as their own to investigate so that it is possible that private land could be taken for a public use to access beaches. The example you hear about is Barbra Streisand’s home up in Malibu. She has all this front. Does the public really have the right to cross her land because they have been doing it for generations? That is kind of the impetus of that. The argument from Mr. DeNardi and whoever else has raised it is maybe we should have looked at another alternative other than public land and basically tried to take the Shores property and put a restroom on it. It would be either the Shores or the Hotel Del. Those are the only two private ownerships there and look at that as an alternative. We decided as part of the project description that as the public entity attempting to make this new facility, we have the right to choose that we were going to limit it to publicly owned property. Is that correct? Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 340 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 340 Ms. Canlas concurred. Way back in 2011 or 2012 that issue was before the Council with a variety of different alternatives that were presented and at the time the goal was to have it somewhere where the City actually controls the property. In this particular case, she does believe there is also some communication that had come back and forth throughout the design review, the Planning Commission and for the Council that there is assertion that is not public land. She pointed out to the Council and it is part of the staff report, that in California, the City can accept property through the Subdivision Map Act and that is how the City actually obtained ownership in this particular case. It was part of the Subdivision Map Act dating back in 1969, 1970 and all the references are in the staff report but if there should be any questions, she is available to answer them. Ms. Downey also stated that one of the alternatives that was suggested by some of the commenters actually resulted in staff looking at an additional alternative and it is the alternative that was added in the Final EIR and she just wanted to go through, for the public, it actually looked at relocating the restroom closer to the Hotel Del, closer to the Paseo, and the Coastal Commission alluded that there were other alternatives we could have looked at. She just wants to go on the record that one of the reasons that alternative was found not to be superior – one of the questions is that we chose one but there was an environmentally superior option and she just wanted to confirm that it was found not to be environmentally superior for two reasons. One – it had all the same problems any of the locations would but it also had additional visual impacts because it was going to affect a nationally registered landmark, the Hotel Del, by the view that people had of the Del. In other words, for visual issues, we had two issues. We had looking at the view of the water what are the problems and it is the same no matter where it is on any of our beaches but in that location it had a worse impact on view because then it interfered when boats or ships or anybody else is looking from the ocean forward to impact the view of the Hotel Del. Is that correct? Ms. Canlas concurred. Mayor Tanaka opened the public hearing. Josh Chatten-Brown, attorney with Chatten Brown & Carstens which represents Coronado Shores Homeowners’ Association #2, is here today to explain why the City Council must reject this project and force the City to go back to the drawing board. Our comment letters as well as the technical report from Dr. Revell, an expert on coastal geomorphology, are in the record and are available to the Council. A whole host of problems are identified there. Today, he really wants to simplify things and just focus on one discrete issue and that is the issue that Councilmember Downey has raised. He directed attention to page 99 of the agenda because that provides the specific language that is at issue here. Toward the top of the page on page 99, the adopted LCP policy #2E4 requires that any structure be set back from an eroding beach coastline a distance sufficient to assure that the development will not be threatened by natural erosion processes during the lifetime of the structure without requiring shoreline protection structures. What he has heard today in defense of this by the City is that this is just to protect the shore. But if you look at Coronado Municipal Code Section 86.74.030 which has the same requirement, it phrases it slightly differently. What it says is that structures, “…shall be setback from an eroding beach or coastline a distance sufficient to assure that the development will not require mitigation measures to protect the development from the natural erosion process during the economic lifetime of the structure.” That is to protect the development. The City’s claim that this is not about protecting the development is belied by that Municipal Code section. He directed attention to page 268 of the EIR where the City acknowledges the use of a mitigation measure, here a sea wall, on three of the four sides of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 341 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 341 project, and that is to protect the development from the erosion process. The City says, “…to ensure that the proposed facility can withstand strong waves and scouring, the proposed facility needs to be designed with a sea wall.” This is a clear violation of the LCP and the Municipal Code. The defense that he heard today from the City is that it was designed in consultation with an engineer who has designed other locations is irrelevant in terms of the legality of this project. Whether others committed an illegal act is really irrelevant. These are not wide sandy beaches as the City representative claimed. These are narrow beaches that the City has acknowledged are, in fact, eroding. Tom Whittington commented that over four and a half years ago in this Council Chamber he was promised that he would get title work on this particular project. He is the nut who is saying that this is not public land. There hasn’t been any proof. Someone said he needed to prove that it would be public land. In 1963, when Larry Lawrence bought the Del and all of the land, he owned everything. In 1966, when Del Shores came in, there were deals cut back and forth and when Avenida del Sol was dedicated to public use, it was dedicated on an angle. A part of it is there and there are deeds which show that there was a particular grant to the City of Coronado. There is a quick claim deed from Lawrence required by the development. No developer like Lawrence is going to give the end of Avenida del Sol. He (Mr. Whittington) has lived in La Sierra for 15 years. He has asked for this title work. He has asked for it several times. Finally, on Thursday of last week, he got a call from Randall Sjoblom who said that he would like to speak on the subject. They spoke yesterday and Mr. Sjoblom explained that the entire project in which a lot of work has gone on, and he (Mr. Whittington) is in favor of a restroom but he is not in favor of putting it where the City is trying to put it as it is absolutely the wrong place. You have a lot of technical issues that he will get into in a few seconds. First, there is a fairly decent probability the City does not own the property. Second, the manner in which this property has moved through the process – the procedures have been correct but the process itself has not been kosher. Avenida del Sol was the only site looked at and it violates the Coastal Permit requirements. To his understanding, the municipality needs to follow its own regulations; for example, the setback requirements – you are putting this thing right in the ocean – that is a violation. Fourth, under recreation and visitor services, you have got to prove there is no less environmentally damaging alternative. You haven’t done that. Fifth, all of your notices have been defective. He spoke to Mr. Brown on occasion today and he says you have not notified everyone in the Shores. You have got to do that or you have not followed your own requirements. Sixth, you have a parking issue. At 7:30 a.m. this morning there were three parking spots available on Avenida del Sol. You are going to put a 20 ft. tall facility at the end of Avenida del Sol. He’d like to adopt everything that Harry DeNardi said and he would like to suggest that if you want to have a facility here in less than about three years that you stop the process, you put some people on a committee from the Shores and you sit down and you solve the problem instead of trying to jam it on a piece of property that it is not. He is in the process of finding out about the ownership of that particular piece of property because the City did not do it. He will report when he comes up with that. If you want to save yourself several pieces of appeal litigation. you will step back from this for a couple of months and put this stuff together. He thinks they have done a terrible job of putting it together. Rich Brady congratulated Mr. Bailey and thanked Ms. Downey for running a great campaign. It is nice to have a nice civil campaign. In consideration of a bathroom to serve the South Beach, he thinks it is very important to be sure to separate the issue of whether the bathroom is needed from the issue of where it is to be located. He thinks most people in the actual village of Coronado and even in the Shores, which many people have never considered to be part of the village, think having Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 342 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 342 a bathroom there is needed and probably wanted. That is not the issue. And it is not simply a NIMBY thing. The issue is where it should be located. This proposal locates the bathroom on the sand where it will cost over $1 million with the high probability that it will be flooded, sea wall or not, then be backed up and closed, causing environmental nightmares and untold expense. Who can forget last winter when we lost three out of four palm trees on the Paseo walkway to beach erosion from the waves and had to deal with the daily cost to the City of a bulldozer moving the sand around to protect against the raging ocean while the proposed location of the bathroom at that time was under water. To skip this nightmare, the bathroom should go in the logical location where the public already has access – the public parking lot at the end of Avenida de las Arenas, south of the proposed location a couple of hundred yards. The location has obviously already been blessed by the Coastal Commission, already has electricity and drainage installed, and would be built behind the existing sea wall that would protect it from the ocean. This is so logical that it is the location first sought out by the City in 2009 but was abandoned when the Shores said the consent would never be given. Whatever body that may be no one knows because there is no body in Coronado Shores that is like a government of all the things. Each unit is separate, each building. His proposal is simple and he thinks the Council owes it to all citizens of Coronado to try this one more time. It is to simply request that the Council continue this motion for a little longer to see if there is any new and creative way to get approval for the bathroom to be built in the public parking lot. This is a big deal of a vote and one which we will live with for a very long time so we can’t get it wrong. If the parking lot option is not pursued and the motion as proposed is approved today, there is a 100% guarantee that the decision will be appealed to the Coastal Commission, costing many more thousands of hours and dollars by the affected Shores buildings and the City, and causing unnecessary and further divisiveness in a very tight knit community. Mayor Tanaka closed the public hearing. Mayor Tanaka thanked staff and the public for all the work that has gone into this project. He drew the Council’s attention to the last page of the staff report on page 103. The staff recommendation has six parts. The first part is to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for a proposed public restroom. The second recommendation is to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. The third is to adopt the required findings of fact pertaining to the Final EIR. The fourth is to direct staff to file a Notice of Determination. The fifth is to approve the exterior design for the South Beach Restroom and the sixth is to approve the Coastal Permit for the South Beach Restroom project. Part of the presentation today showed that this project has not been rushed. It has been discussed for at least years if not a half a decade or so, maybe closer to a decade. Anyone who has done any work in the public knows that no matter what you do some elements of the public are not going to support a project and if you don’t support a project, then you are going to support ways to stop, slow down, reexamine, re-discuss, throw another committee, throw another committee after another committee, so those are certainly options Council members can consider. He will not be supportive of any such decision. He is supportive of all six of the staff’s recommendations. He supports those recommendations because, again, years of study have gone into this. Years worth of different professionals have been employed by the City to make sure that this process has been done by the book and he does believe it has been. He has talked about this at every one of the meetings we have had and he has talked about it and has had the same position each time that we need to more forward with this project and that it has been properly studied and plumbed and so Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 343 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 343 on. He is very confident that if this project moves forward and is built that it has been designed properly and it will hold up to Mother Nature. He is ready to move forward. Councilmember Woiwode asked to see the picture of the cross section of the current road and the restroom. This told him a lot. It is to the point raised by Mr. Brady. For that restroom to flood, the road has to flood. The road has to flood before the restroom will flood and, in fact, probably basements and garages in the Shores would flood. That hasn’t happened since 1984 or some timeframe like that. So much has been put on whether or not this thing is in a defensible position and this picture just told him the answer to that. He thinks it is probably as well as we can do in that whole area, regardless of whether we move it closer to the Del or farther from the Del. That, to him, answered the question of the vulnerability of the structure. All the rest of the stuff the Mayor addressed very well and he is fully supportive of going forward with all six of these recommendations. Councilmember Sandke thinks the need for this is clear. He was on the beach this morning with Corey and a couple of his surf students and he looked at the waves at high tide and talked to Corey and anecdotally Corey said he wanted it built. Councilmember Sandke thinks the extensive evidence of the use of the portable restroom tells us that the need is clear. The location is central to the unserviced location areas of the South Beach area. In his view, no parking requirement exists for the structure because it is servicing people who are already there. The City does have ownership. He respects the opinion that differs with that and should the threat of litigation adjudicate that he imagines that the City’s view will be vindicated. It is a great looking building. He thinks it fits in very nicely with the area. The comments from the Coastal Commission were heeded. The building was turned perpendicular to limit the views. He thinks the stonework is awesome. He doesn’t personally buy the view that hardscape is landscaping and so if we incorporated some sort of rooftop sandy, beachy, landscaping to help with storm water or something else that would not bum him out. He thinks it is a great building. Public access is maintained and that is the most important edict of the Coastal Commission. The building, frankly, does need protection. It is on the beach and the sea wall is critical to the lifetime of the project which is a 40- or 50-year lifetime. In terms of discussing with City staff about that, this building meets that need. It is a solid project. He will support it. Councilmember Downey wants to go over a couple of different attacks people from the audience have made on this. She has no doubt we will be in court so she will be real clear about it. We are here to approve a CEQA process. For anyone to suggest that this was jammed in, this started back in 2008. Staff had wanted the discussion that we really did need the restroom for that one part of the beach because we were named America’s Finest Beach and we were seeing an increase of beachgoers. The question was whether we move that up on the CIP list. There was thought that maybe there really wasn’t a need. As she is wont to do, she started a petition. She went to the beach for folks that were on the beach, went to restaurants around the area, and she took it to service club meetings. She had people that were right there on the beach and folks that weren’t. The vast majority of people that signed the petition were Coronado residents, although there were some visitors, and not a one of the people on the beach said that they didn’t think we needed a restroom. She thinks that, as the Mayor pointed out, there isn’t a disagreement that we need some restroom facilities at that portion of the beach and if we had any doubt, because the process took so long we decided to try the portable restrooms and they were overwhelmed with use. One of the things we found out is there is a big need for surfers so she is not surprised that is who Mr. Sandke Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 344 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 344 came into because when we removed them, those were the people who called the City and said they wanted them back and those are mostly our residents. In terms of the CEQA process, she is convinced that as the policy makers that said we have a need that needs to be filled and we are going to investigate how to do it, we made the right call. Then, because it took so long, we tried one of the alternatives to have temporary facilities. If you had a chance to read the Draft or Final EIR, what you found out was that they aren’t sufficient to solve the need for a couple of reasons. One, because of the issues when you build anything by the sea and problems with mechanics and metal buildings, they rusted and did not last nearly half the life expectancy because of the location and the salt air. The costs were going to be substantially more than a permanent restroom but even if cost wasn’t an issue, and as a fiscally responsible person it is an issue for her, because of the problems the restrooms were unavailable more often than if we had made a permanent restroom. So when you are analyzing options that is why that option doesn’t work. In the salt air environment, it is not feasible to accommodate what we need in that location. Additionally, by placing it in a parking area, it is taking away parking. As Mr. DeNardi’s letter and other people have alleged, there is a need for parking to go to the beach. She agrees there is no need necessarily for parking for this restroom. She doesn’t think people are going to leave anywhere else in the world to come and park and use that restroom. She is pretty darn sure that is not true. But, if we have to have facilities either in the alternative private property parking lot the Shores owns or that area on the street, all of that would take parking away and one of the things if not the most important thing that we have dealt with at the Coastal Commission’s concerns is that people have access to the beach, including parking. That is why neither of those alternatives are superior. That is the point we are here deciding as we approve this CEQA document. What was the best solution? So far the alternatives we have looked at aren’t environmentally superior but additionally, not only are they not environmentally superior, none of them had a significant impact. One of the issues you look at is whether there is any one that doesn’t have an impact so we should choose that one over an alternative that has an impact. None of them had a significant impact that was unmitigatable. The only mitigation necessary was the noise from the temporary construction on the alternative we are hopefully going to be selecting. When you go through the CEQA process, the alternative that we have now as the preferred one seems to be the best on all accounts. She wants to clarify that we have looked at alternatives our staff came up with, we looked at alternatives suggested by other people, and this is the best one. There is nothing under CEQA that says we have to keep looking at more or that someone else has a better idea after the process and we have to go back and look. That is not what CEQA requires. CEQA says if you are a policy maker, you determine a need for a project and then you look at options. We have done that. We are hopefully going to select the best one. She wants to talk about the LCP challenges. A couple of issues concerned her so she actually did the research Mr. DeNardi suggested we didn’t do. She looked at our LCP and she looked at what the Attorney General’s manual was. None of that was relevant. Do we meet our own LCP? We are the ones that are telling you we are. We are the decision makers that review the evidence in front of us and tells you it is consistent with our LCP. It can get appealed and she has no doubt it will to the Coastal Commission but when they are looking at it, they have to look at it with the same lens we do. This is what the plan says and the plan clearly says that additional restrooms are encouraged, not just allowed, but encouraged because when we got it approved years ago they wanted us to put another restroom. That is the best part about it because that is recreational beach amenities. If we want people to come to the beach and stay at the beach, they need healthy safe restrooms. The concern that it is causing erosion which is a violation of our LCP – it doesn’t. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 345 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 345 There are three things to understand about it. Erosion is, as our attorney said, the concern when it is eroding a bluff so that if we keep building it up natural things won’t be able to evolve and we will lose beachfront. That is not what is happening here. The beach isn’t going anywhere. The only thing that seawall is doing is stopping flooding of the facility. It is not doing anything to prevent natural erosion so that in 50 years climate change is going to cause the City of Coronado to have new oceanfront that is further up. She wants to be clear about that. We are not in violation of our LCP. Finally, it is obviously up to the Coastal Commission if it gets appealed whether they approve it but, at this point, they have previously approved this exact type of a sea wall under these exact rules under our LCP. Our LCP was in place when they approved our Lifeguard facilities. If they were to turn around now and say they are not appropriate, she would have a tough time seeing how they could argue that. Additionally, the way we have drafted it, the concern is whether it is a long time thing. Would it be like the bluffs up in Solana Beach where we are trying to forestall things. The life expectancy of this building is only going to be decades. It is not being built at the moment to last a hundred years. If there is concern that we are somehow using this to forestall eventual climate change that is not true. The Coastal Commission can review the appeal but at this point she thinks we would survive the challenge based on the wording in our LCP. She appreciates all the input and she will say that a couple of years ago when she first pushed this and we got it added to the CIP people joked that would be her legacy – she would be the bathroom woman. She likes to think of it as we have one of the best cities in the world with the best facilities and we are just maintaining those so it is healthy and accessible for our residents and the visitors to come and enjoy our facilities. She will be happy to make the motion to approve the staff report but she wants to recommend that what we are doing is we are finding that the South Beach restroom will not result in any significant and unavoidable adverse impacts, construction noise will be less than significant after implementation of mitigation measures, the project is consistent with the City’s LCP and Coronado Municipal Code Chapters 86.70, 86.74 and 86.76, and the exterior design meets the City’s design review standards. MSUC (Downey/Bailey) moved that the City Council adopt the staff recommendations to adopt A RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A PROPOPSED PUBLIC RESTROOM (SOUTH BEACH RESTROOM) ADJOINING THE CUL-DE-SAC AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY END OF AVENIDA DEL SOL; ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; ADOPT FINDINGS OF FACT; APPROVE A COASTAL PEMRIT; APPROVE THE EXTERIOR DESIGN; AND DIRECT STAFF TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION. The Resolution was read by title, the reading in its entirety unanimously waived and adopted by City Council as RESOLUTION NO. 8833. Councilmember Bailey hasn’t always been a big proponent of this project. In fact, he has voted against it in the past. The reason he hasn’t been a big proponent of the project is because if we experience similar conditions in the future as what we saw this past winter, the usage might not really justify the expense. That was a conversation that Council had a couple of years ago. The Council decided to move forward with this decision and this process. Whether or not this is a good business case versus whether or not we are meeting the requirements of the CEQA review process are two separate issues. He is confident after reviewing this report that we have adequately addressed all of those. The comment was made earlier by one of the speakers that perhaps the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 346 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 346 Shores would be willing to take another crack at this and might be willing to have a conversation among themselves and come back to the City and allow us to use the parking lot. He would encourage them to go ahead and do that but he doesn’t think it makes sense for the City to hold this up at this point. AYES: Bailey, Downey, Sandke, Woiwode, Tanaka NAYS: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None 9.ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS: None 10.COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS: 10a. Report from the Port Commissioner Concerning Port Activities. Port Commissioner Garry Bonelli reported that there was a great Veterans’ Day weekend in Coronado. He thanked the Council for its leadership and for staff’s hard work and the Cultural Arts Commission for putting the “First Ashore Naked Warrior” statue down there. A couple of months ago, the City did talk about sea level rise and the City Manager reached out to the Port and the Port CEO has gotten a letter back to Mr. King talking about starting a working group in January of all the cities, the subject matter experts, and all the stakeholders around the Bay on the subject of sea level rise. We are integrating that discussion into our overall master planning process over the next year and a half. Hopefully, we will be able to come back at some future date and give some idea of what is being said in Coronado, what the other four cities around the Bay are doing as well as what the subject matter experts and stakeholders are saying. He touched on a couple of projects and gave a strategic view based on a discussion he had with the City Manager. Down at Grand Caribe Island North that project is now completed. The dry boat storage is on both the north and south side of Grand Caribe Boulevard. There was a final walk through with the tenant and a representative of the CCHOA on September 14 to confirm the project completion and compliance met all the project conditions. The completed project was subsequently approved by the Port ministerially on September 19 and the premises are currently open for operation. However, he was just down there again today and there is nothing down there. There is a cyclone fence that looks like it is hurting. Once the landscaping takes hopefully it will look a little better but there is no boat storage down there now and he thinks the tenant had envisioned a summer business and we are out of summer. We might not see anything down there until next summer. The northerly end of the project has been saved so there are view corridors for the Coronado Cays Yacht Club and for the homeowners down there. That lease is for about five years. It is being reviewed annually and will be mostly a summer business for dry boat storage. He spoke about the Coronado Yacht Club. An issue close to his heart and Mr. Sandke’s is that the leadership has submitted a detailed project description to the Port along with how the temporary clubhouse will be functioning during the redevelopment process. The Port is processing an addendum to the EIR pursuant to CEQA and an appealable Coastal Development Permit pursuant to the Coastal Act. The Port anticipates the issuance of a CDP by March. Then it falls back to the City of Coronado who will consider issuing a building permit. The goal, for him, as the City’s Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 347 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 347 Port Commissioner, is to get this started and under construction during calendar year 2017. It has been a long process and he is going to come back to that eventually. Another long project has been the vacant pad next to the Il Forniao restaurant. The Port Development Services team retained a CEQA and project management consultant on October 18 for the preparation of a supplemental EIR and pursuant to CEQA and a non-appealable CDP pursuant to the Coastal Act. It is anticipated that CEQA and the CA documents will take approximately 15 months to complete. The timeline may be adjusted due to the findings of the CEQA Initial Study. As envisioned, they looked at putting up a shell building that would be leased to one or two tenants in a restaurant-type facility. Overall about 7,500 square feet inside, about 4,000 square feet outside seating. Construction, once we get to that point, will take about eight to ten months. Lastly, if you look around the Bay, over the next five to fifteen to twenty years the total side of the face of the Bay on that side of the Bay is changing. Hopefully, it is changing for the better. We have got a $1 billion redevelopment of Harbor Island where the rental cars used to be. We have the 70 acres of the Embarcadero from essentially the USS Midway Museum project south underway with Gafcon and a $1.2 billion project. Those two projects will be dwarfed by what we are doing down in Chula Vista and the South Bay with a 135-acre project that is going to be a convention center, hotel and a mixed use project. What he worries about and what he expressed to the City Manager is we have those three major projects going, we have major studies to optimize the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal as well as double the capacity down at the National City Marine Terminal so a lot of talent, time and resources are being sucked into a lot of projects on that side of the Bay. He thinks his job for Coronado is to make sure that when we need the attention we get the attention and we get the subject matter experts. That is something he is going to keep in the back of his mind over the next year. Lastly, as a matter of course and a matter of history, the Port elects a new chairman every year. Starting in 2017, the senior member on the Board of Port Commissioners, Dukie Valderrama from National City, will take over as Chairman of the Port Commissioners. Admiral Bonelli was elected as the secretary. Councilmember Sandke thanked Admiral Bonelli profusely for his effort on behalf of the Yacht Club. He turned to the Grand Caribe project. The driveways for that particular opening in the fences have eaten up probably 20 parking places and it is a pretty impacted place for parking, particularly during special events. Is there any way to incorporate some sort of temporary signage or temporary parking where they leave one driveway accessible to the boat yard but at the same time, since there aren’t any boats there, sign it so that people can realize that they are able to use that parking? Admiral Bonelli will look into that but he worries about having two exits and entrances for fire. Even though there is nothing down there right now, the Fire Department might say we need two ways to get in and two ways to get out. Mr. Sandke commented that right now it is de facto being used as parking. Mayor Tanaka thanked Admiral Bonelli for his efforts on the “Naked Warrior” statue. The work he did to help make sure that project came off and on time was impressive. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 348 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 348 11.CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS: 11a. Council Reports on Inter-Agency Committee and Board Assignments. MayorTanaka requested that reports be submitted in writing or given verbally at the next meeting. 11b. Introduce the Adoption of Various California Building Codes by Reference, Specifically Introduction of “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Coronado, California Repealing Chapters 44.04, 70.01, 70.05, 70.06, 70.20, 70.25, 70.30, 70.40, 70.50, 70.60, 70.80, 70.100, 70.110, and 70.120 of the Coronado Municipal Code and Adopting New Chapters 70.01, 70.05, 70.06, 70.10, 70.20, 70.25, 70.30, 70.40, 70.50, 70.60, 70.80, 70.90, 70.100, 70.110, 70.120, and 70.130 of the Coronado Municipal Code which Adopt by Reference the Uniform Administrative Code, the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the Uniform Housing Code, and the 2016 California Administrative Code, Building Code, Residential Code, Electric Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, Energy Code, Historic Building Code, Fire Code, Existing Building Code, Green Building Standards, and Referenced Standards Code.” Under Consent, the City Council introduced AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA REPEALING CHAPTERS 44.04, 70.01, 70.05, 70.06, 70.20, 70.25, 70.30, 70.40, 70.50, 70.60, 70.80, 70.100, 70.110, AND 70.120 OF THE CORONADO MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING NEW CHAPTERS 70.01, 70.05, 70.06, 70.10, 70.20, 70.25, 70.30, 70.40, 70.50, 70.60, 70.80, 70.90, 70.100, 70.110, 70.120, AND 70.130 OF THE CORONADO MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH ADOPT BY REFERENCE THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, AND THE 2016 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, BUILDING CODE, RESIDENTIAL CODE, ELECTRIC CODE, MECHANICAL CODE, PLUMBING CODE, ENERGY CODE, HISTORIC BUILDING CODE, FIRE CODE, EXISTING BUILDING CODE, GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS, AND REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE. The Ordinance was read by title, the reading in its entirety unanimously waived and placed by the City Council on FIRST READING. 11c. Authorization to Proceed with a Cultural Arts Planning Process and Approval of an Appropriation of $120,000 from the Cultural Arts Commission Fund Balance for the Proposed City of Coronado Arts and Culture Strategic Plan. Bill Lowman, Cultural Arts Commissioner, provided the report. Mayor Tanaka invited public comment. Floyd Ross, Coronado Promenade Concerts, commented that they would like to associate themselves with this proposal and hope that it is voted on favorably by the Council. Mayor Tanaka thinks it is important to note that this request comes from the CAC and they took the time to raise money so he thinks it would be pretty mean of the City Council to ask them to raise money and not let them spend it in a way that is consistent with what the CAC and CAC Board wants. Obviously, he can say no if he thinks there was something improper going on but he doesn’t think that is the case so he is happy to support this request. We have received communication from one former commissioner and one of the basis points for that former Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 349 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 349 commissioner to object to the request is that she contends that this dollar amount, $120,000, is way too high. Something he would suggest is that the whole point of an RFP is to see what the market is and not to predetermine that the market is $120,000 for this. He appreciates that some reference points have been made to Laguna Beach and Encinitas but he is willing to support this request as someone who does not spend a lot of time studying what this type of RFP would go for. Councilmember Sandke appreciates the time Mr. Lowman has spent meeting with each Council member and talking about the project. He thinks this Council has been very supportive overall of the arts in Coronado and the development of this program and we certainly recognize the hard work that Ms. Purvis and the volunteers put in. He shares the same concern as far as numbers go. When he met with Mr. Lowman, the number of $75,000 was discussed and it has ballooned a little bit. They obviously have a vision and Mr. Lowman spoke in his remarks about some staff additions to help get this thing off the ground and running. That may be included in that number. He would be supportive of it and he knows that the Council gets another chance to see this when the RFP comes out so he is willing to press this forward. Councilmember Woiwode feels there are a couple of things in here as the recommendation is written and he is happy to support the development of a strategic plan and he believes $120,000 is not a very large amount for a study that is going to wind up taking well over a year. He is curious about the process. The way this is written is a process to include contracting for the services of cultural planning professionals. Would the RFP development be something that the City Council approves or is that something that would be handled administratively? City Manager Blair King commented that they want to be clear that neither the CAC nor any other City advisory body or board can enter into a contract and bind the City. In this particular case, the CAC is not asking that they enter into a contract. They are asking, quite frankly, that the Council authorize him to seek a process. There are two touch points with the Council. Often, but not always, we will bring back the solicitation itself and we also may bring back a list of consultants. Normally we do that if there is some vagueness in what the solicitation is or if there may be some controversy in the solicitation or in who is being solicited. This is not a bid. It is a professional Qualification Proposal. Basically, we are looking for the most qualified person. Depending on Council direction, at this point in time he was not thinking about bringing the actual solicitation back to the Council. However, it would be normal and standard, prior to entering into the contract, that staff would bring back the list of the proposers and a recommendation based upon who the selected consultant might be. That is what he would expect would occur in this particular case. If the Council would like to see the solicitation, we certainly can do that and bring that back for Council approval. We have done that more often than not but not entirely all the time. Councilmember Bailey asked if Mr. King could remind the Council what the process was like when we created the new City website. The Council gave direction that it was something it wanted done and he thought staff brought back the solicitation and then we went forward. Mr. King explained that the genesis of an idea came from the CAC and they are asking if this would be an appropriate project for them. This is beyond the City Manager’s signature authority so we are looking for direction from the Council that this would be appropriate. In the case of the website that would be an example where the solicitation, where we are describing what we wanted the qualifications of the proposers to be, how we would score that – another example would have been the concessionaire for the golf pro. We brought back what we were looking for, how we Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 350 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 350 were going to score that so the Council could weigh that out. What was more important to that and what scoring factor would be higher, lower, etc. were things staff was looking for. This solicitation has not been developed. We have not developed the model scope of work. We haven’t developed the scoring criteria and how we would evaluate and rate or rank the proposers based on qualifications. He pointed out that the difference between a professional-based solicitation and a bid is that we are not bound to pick the lowest bidder. A public works project with the California Contracting Code says we are required to pick the lowest bidder but here we are more obligated to pick who we believe to be the most qualified professional proposer. Councilmember Downey appreciates meeting with Mr. Lowman and Ms. Purvis and others on this issue. She will be supportive but she wants to clarify some issues. When we started doing the 125th celebration, a lot of organizations, including the Women’s Club, donated a lot of money to put on those projects because we were told they needed the money. Now it turns out we have lots of money left over so that kind of makes her sad. She wanted to clarify that the leftover money is the City’s. It is General Fund money. She thinks there is some confusion here that maybe the amount was set because that is how much money was left over in their fund. She wanted to clarify there is no ‘their fund.’ There is a General Fund. All the money is the City’s money. She is happy if that is the amount to give that out of the General Fund. She is not suggesting she wouldn’t pay that but she wants to make sure everyone knows that there is no doubt that it is the City and we have had conversations in the past that we have great non-profits that do things like Friends of the Library or, in this case, our own commission but to clarify for everyone it is the City doing this and so, as was pointed out, if we approve this and we develop a strategic plan, it is for the City of Coronado and it would be because the City Council is suggesting as a policy that it would like to do that. Both during her meetings and in her conversations out in the public, the question to her was why the CAC is doing it and not the City. She wanted to clarify that when she votes in favor, it is because she thinks the City would benefit from this and we are happy to pay whatever we decide ultimately to pay for this. She will be interested to see the scope, not that she wants the Council to approve it, because she is trying to figure out and agrees that there are a lot more artists out there of all different types than maybe we know so is the goal that we want to encourage more? She is not sure what we are going to do with that end product as a City. We established the CAC because we knew there were a lot of art activities going on but there was nobody helping to oversee it. The “Three on Thursdays” is a great example of what we had hoped would happen and it is happening. She is curious if the ultimate end is to get more artists or more visitors to those artists. Mayor Tanaka thinks that is part of the study – to focus the planning so that we know what those next steps might be and to talk about it. Mr. Bailey commented that the reason he asked the City Manager about the process relating to the website was because he wanted to make sure that we as a Council, not as a community, knew that our website needed to be updated but we didn’t necessarily have our arms wrapped around what that actually meant. By bringing the solicitation back in front of the City Council before moving forward really allowed him to go line by line to see that it made sense and because it was a pretty extensive project when people would ask him what the City was going to get for that amount of money, he could point to that document and explain what the City was going to get. Unless Mr. Lowman and Ms. Purvis want to walk with him around the City for the next couple of years while this is underway and answer those questions, he thinks it might make sense to, as far as a process goes, approve this today but ask City staff to bring back that solicitation so that we have more specific items that we could point to. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 351 City Council of the City of Coronado/the City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado of November 15, 2016 351 Mayor Tanaka doesn’t see a flaw with that. When there is a little bit of vagueness, as Mr. King said, then it probably behooves the Council to bring those sorts of details back for another review. Mr. Woiwode commented that all the City commissions and committees are advisory to the City Council. It seems to him, to answer Mr. Bailey’s question, the goal of the strategic plan would be to come back to the Council with recommendations to the City Council for actions and expenditures it might take in the future. He thinks putting it in that context in his own processing he does see some merit in bringing the RFP back to the Council. MSUC (Woiwode/Bailey) moved that the City Council authorize staff and the Cultural Arts Commission to proceed with developing an RFP for Strategic Planning with the goal of developing recommendations to the City Council. AYES: Bailey, Downey, Sandke, Woiwode, Tanaka NAYS: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None 12. CITY ATTORNEY: No report. 13. COMMUNICATIONS - WRITTEN: 13a. Consideration of Request from Councilmember Woiwode to Agendize City Council Discussion Concerning the Level of City Council Compensation and a Process for Setting It. Under Consent, the City Council approved the request. 14. ADJOURNMENT: The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 6:05 p.m. Approved: (Date), 2016 ______________________________ Casey Tanaka, Mayor City of Coronado Attest: ______________________________ Mary L. Clifford, CMC City Clerk 12/06/16 APPROVAL OF READING BY TITLE AND WAIVER OF READING IN FULL OF ORDINANCES ON THIS AGENDA The City Council waives the reading of the full text of every ordinance contained in this agenda and approves the reading of the ordinance title only. 1 5a THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 3 5 b 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 8 5 9 6 0 6 1 6 2 6 3 6 4 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 8 12/06/16 ACCEPTANCE OF THE STREET PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE FY 2016/17 PROJECT AND DIRECTION TO THE CITY CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Street Preventive Maintenance FY 2016/17 project and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion. FISCAL IMPACT: As identified in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for FY 16/17, the budget for this project is $534,000 from the HUTA or Highway User Tax Fund Account (206376-9783-17SLURRY). The total project cost, including design, construction, testing, inspection, and other miscellaneous expenses, is $285,477 as shown below. The original budget was based on available HUTA funds; the remaining balance of $248,523.50 is available for appropriation in Fund 206 for the next slurry seal project. PROJECT BUDGET ANALYSIS ITEM BUDGET Project Budget Actual Costs Contract $534,000 $255,200 Project Contingency/Miscellaneous $22,058 Inspection/Testing $8,219 Total Project Costs $285,477 Balance, CIP project budget $248,523 CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: Approving a Notice of Completion is a ministerial action. Ministerial decisions involve the use of fixed standards or objective measure, removing personal subjective judgment in deciding whether or how the project should be carried out. PUBLIC NOTICE: None required. BACKGROUND: Every year, as part of the annual street preventive maintenance program, the City slurry seals approximately one-seventh of the City streets on a rotating basis. Slurry seal is a preventive maintenance treatment that consists of a thin layer of asphalt and sand mixture applied to the road surface which extends the life of the road by protecting it from oxidation. Slurry sealing rejuvenates or revitalizes old bituminous-wearing surfaces and makes slippery surfaces “nonskid.” Pavement markings are also repainted, improving visibility at night. The following areas were slurry sealed as part of this year’s project: •Acacia Way •Alder Street •Carob Way •Encino Row 69 5c 12/06/16 • First Street • Marina Avenue • Pine Court • Pine Street • Strand Way • Tolita Avenue • Balboa Avenue • Cabrillo Avenue • G Avenue (from Ocean Boulevard to Tenth Street) • Tenth Street (from Alameda Boulevard to Pine Street) • Ocean Drive (from Coronado Avenue to Ocean Court) • Parking lot at the municipal golf course (2000 Visalia Row) • Bayshore bike path (from Fiddler’s Cove to Coronado Cays entrance) ANALYSIS: American Asphalt South, Inc. was issued the Notice to Proceed on September 19, 2016. The project was substantially completed in accordance with the project plans and specifications on November 3, 2016. Recording of the Notice of Completion is an important step in finalizing the construction contract. It is a written notice that is issued by the owner of the project to notify concerned parties that all the work has been completed and triggers the time period for filing of mechanics’ liens and stop notices to 30 days. Final retention payment is not made to the contractor until the 30-day period to file liens and stop notices has lapsed. Submitted by Engineering & Project Development/Katzenstein \\Chfile2\all\All Departments\Staff Reports - Drafts\2016 Meetings\12-06 Meeting SR Due Nov. 21\FINAL NOC - St. Prev. Maint -ew edits.doc CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PS R/G BK TR JK JNC MLC NA EW NA NA NA NA NA 70 12/06/16 ACCEPTANCE OF THE NAKED WARRIOR PROJECT, APPROPRIATION OF AN ADDITIONAL $3,700, AND DIRECTION TO THE CITY CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Naked Warrior Project, appropriate an additional $3,700 and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion. FISCAL IMPACT: Fifty thousand dollars was funded for the Naked Warrior Project (Account Number 400710-9774-17008) in the CIP 2016/17 budget. An additional $20,500 was appropriated when the project was awarded by the City Council. To complete the close out, an additional $3,700 is requested. PROJECT BUDGET CIP FY 16/17 $50,000 Additional Appropriation(when project was awarded) $20,500 Total $70,500 Design $24,493 Construction Costs (bid) $40,000 Construction Changes $2,657 Additional Consultant Construction Administration $3,200 Testing and Inspection $3,460 Miscellaneous $390 Total Expenses $74,200 Requested Amount $3,700 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: Class 31 CEQA Guidelines Section 5331 provides for exemptions to Historic Resource Restoration and Rehabilitation projects that involve maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historic resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a resource. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION REVIEW: The project was approved administratively by Coastal Commission staff on April 29, 2016. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: Approving a Notice of Completion is a ministerial action. Ministerial decisions involve the use of fixed standards or objective measures, removing personal subjective judgment in deciding whether or how the project should be carried out. PUBLIC NOTICE: None required. BACKGROUND: The National Navy UDT-SEAL Museum offered to grant the City Council a statue in honor of the Navy Special Warfare and its long history and relationship with the City of Coronado. The sculptor, by world-renowned artist Seward Johnson, depicts a combat swimmer of the U.S. Navy’s 71 5d 12/06/16 Underwater Demolition Teams (UDT) during World War II. While the statue itself was donated, the City was responsible for the cost of developing the site and affixing the sculpture to a permanent base. On April 19, 2016, the Council approved accepting the statue and directed staff to prepare construction plans and documents for a site in Glorietta Bay Park. On July 19, 2016, the Council awarded the project to Urban Corps of San Diego. The project was substantially completed on November 2, 2016, and dedicated at a ceremony on Veterans Day, November 11. ANALYSIS: The project was substantially completed in accordance with the project plans and specifications by the beneficial use date noted above. Recording of the Notice of Completion is an important step in finalizing the construction contract. It is a written notice issued by the owner of the project to notify concerned parties that all the work has been completed and it triggers the time period for filing of mechanics’ liens and stop notices to 30 days. Final retention payment is not made to the contractor until the 30-day period to file liens and stop notices has lapsed. This action will allow the contract between Urban Corps and the City to be closed and retention to be paid. Submitted by Public Services & Engineering/Cecil N:\All Departments\Staff Reports - Drafts\2016 Meetings\12-06 Meeting SR Due Nov. 21\FINAL NOC - Naked Warrior.doc CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR JK JNC MLC NA EW NA NA NA NA NA 72 12/06/16 ACCEPTANCE OF THE LIBRARY MEDIA ROOM AND ADA REFURBISHMENT PROJECT AND DIRECTION TO THE CITY CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Library Media Room and ADA Refurbishment project and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion. FISCAL IMPACT: This project was identified in the FY 2015/16 CIP budget with a budget of $100,000 (Account No. 400710-9868-16011). PROJECT BUDGET Appropriated Funds FY 15/16 CIP $100,000.00 Construction Costs (bid) $71,893.00 Building Permit $747.40 Advertising $150.00 Total Construction $72,790.40 Furniture (purchase order issued) $5,236.73 Computer Equipment (to be purchased) $18,000.00 Total Expenses $96,027.13 Remaining Balance of Appropriation $3,972.87 CEQA: The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA based on Class 1, Section 15301(a) (repair or maintenance of an existing structure, minor alteration of existing public structures or facility not expanding uses). CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: Approving a Notice of Completion is a ministerial action. Ministerial decisions involve the use of fixed standards or objective measures, removing personal subjective judgment in deciding whether or how the project should be carried out. PUBLIC NOTICE: None required. BACKGROUND: The expansion of electronic media in the areas of digital photography, 3-D printing, scanning, and graphics has opened up prospects for learning new skills. These skills can be applied to personal growth ranging from hobbies to career enhancement. The media room offers the opportunity of expanding library resources not currently available to the public. The City Council directed staff to bid the project at its January 5, 2016, meeting. Bids were opened and the Council awarded the project on May 17, 2016. Construction was substantially complete on November 17, 2016. 73 5e 12/06/16 ANALYSIS: The project was substantially completed in accordance with the project plans and specifications by the beneficial use date noted above. Recording of the Notice of Completion is an important step in finalizing the construction contract. It is a written notice issued by the owner of the project to notify concerned parties that all the work has been completed and it triggers the time period for filing of mechanics’ liens and stop notices to 30 days. Final retention payment is not made to the contractor until the 30-day period to file liens and stop notices has lapsed. This action will allow the contract between Grace Construction and the City to be closed and retention to be paid. Submitted by Public Services & Engineering/Cecil N:\All Departments\Staff Reports - Drafts\2016 Meetings\12-06 Meeting SR Due Nov. 21\NOC - Library Media Room.doc CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR JK JNC MLC NA EW NA NA NA NA NA 74 12/06/16 CONSIDERATION OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT REGARDING PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS (FENCE) WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF OLIVE AVENUE ALONG THE SIDE YARD OF 715 NINTH STREET RECOMMENDATION: Deny the encroachment permit. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The applicant has paid the City a standard encroachment permit application fee of $400. If approved, the applicant will be required to pay an additional $400 as penalty for applying for the permit after construction was completed (in accordance with Coronado Municipal Code Section 52.10.110 (D)) and maintain the encroachment at their expense. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: Coronado Municipal Code Section 52.08.030 requires City Council approval for structures built over the public right-of-way (i.e., encroachments). Such approval is an administrative action of the City Council. Administrative decisions, sometimes called “quasi-judicial” or “quasi-adjudicative” decisions, involve the application of existing laws or policies to a given set of facts. Courts give less deference to decision makers in administrative mandate actions. The court will inquire (a) whether the City has proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction, (b) whether there was a fair hearing, (c) whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion. PUBLIC NOTICE: A notice of the encroachment application, including a sketch of the encroachment, was sent to property owners and residents within a three-hundred-foot (300') radius of the address. BACKGROUND: On August 1, 2016, City staff met with Mr. and Mrs. John Collins, the homeowners of 715 Ninth Street, at their request, to determine whether their newly constructed brick patio and three-foot (3') tall white vinyl picket fence was encroaching on the public right-of-way. The patio and fence were built along the side of the property fronting Olive Avenue where the right-of-way line is located nineteen feet (19') behind the top of curb. Upon inspection, the patio and fence were found to extend approximately four feet (4') inside the public right-of-way, roughly 15' behind the top of curb on Olive Avenue). The homeowners stated they believed the right-of-way line was located only sixteen feet (16') behind the top of curb and that the City must have changed its location. When asked for options on how to rectify the situation, staff informed them that they could either remove the portion of the improvements within the public right-of-way or apply for an encroachment permit but that there was no guarantee such a permit would be approved by the City Council. Mr. and Mrs. Collins ultimately applied for an encroachment permit on September 28, 2016, after paying the application fee. ANALYSIS: The property at 715 Ninth Street is a triangular corner lot with frontage on Ninth Street and Olive Avenue. As previously noted, the public right-of-way on Olive Avenue extends nineteen feet (19') behind the top of curb along Olive Avenue and accommodates a seven-foot six-inch (7'-6") wide parkway, a six-foot (6') wide sidewalk, and a five-foot six-inch (5'-6") wide space between the sidewalk and the property line. The fence along the perimeter of the newly constructed patio is situated approximately one foot (1') behind the sidewalk. 75 5f 12/06/16 An assessment of the other properties on Olive Avenue in the vicinity of 715 Ninth Street revealed that no other property owners were afforded an encroachment permit allowing their fence or wall to encroach into the right-of-way. A review of the City’s files for this property identified several documents related to the patio and fence in question. City records show the homeowners received a Stop Work Notice from the Community Development Department on June 17, 2016, directing them to stop the installation of a fence and pavers until the proper permits had been obtained. A Notice of Violation was later delivered on August 9, 2016, noting that construction without a permit is a violation of the Municipal Code. A second Notice of Violation was delivered on September 22, 2016. There does not appear to be any reason why the improvements in question were constructed within the public right-of-way other than to create additional usable space for the property. Picket fences of similar height and design have been previously approved for installation within the public right-of-way; however, the introduction of picket-style fencing immediately adjacent to the sidewalk has also resulted in the denial of encroachment permits as the fences have been considered a hazard, exposing pedestrians and bicyclists to the potential risk of being snagged (purses, handlebars, etc.) by the pickets. If approved, in accordance with typical conditions applied to encroachment permits, the homeowner would be required to modify their homeowners’ insurance policy to name the City as an additionally insured and the City would have the right to direct the homeowner to remove the fence at any time, should it be deemed a hazard. Considering the hazards that a picket fence can present when in close proximity to a sidewalk, staff recommends denial of the encroachment permit as currently proposed. As a result, the homeowners would be directed to remove all the patio improvements (pavers and fence) from the public right-of-way. ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve an encroachment permit with an additional condition that the fence be modified to an alternative design that would not present a snagging hazard to bicyclists or pedestrians, and require that the applicant pay twice the typical fee in accordance with Coronado Municipal Code Section 52.10.110 (D). 2) Approve the encroachment permit, subject to standard conditions, and require that the applicant pay twice the typical fee in accordance with Coronado Municipal Code Section 52.10.110 (D). Submitted by Public Services & Engineering/Katzenstein Attachments: 1) Photo – Pre-work Conditions 2) Stop Work Notice dated 06/17/16 3) Notice of Violation dated 08/09/16 4) Notice of Violation dated 09/22/16 5) Photo – Construction Completed I:\EN\Permits\Encroachment Permits\2016\E1610-006 (715 Ninth St)\SR161108 - Existing Fence Encroachment at 715 Ninth St.doc CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR JK JNC MLC NA EW NA NA NA NA NA 76 12/06/16 Figure 1: Pre-work conditions. 77 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 78 12/06/16 Figure 2: Copy of Stop Work Notice document. 79 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 80 12/06/16 Figure 3: Copy of Notice of Violation document dated August 9, 2016. 81 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 82 12/06/16 Figure 4: Copy of Notice of Violation document dated September 22, 2016. 83 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 84 12/06/16 Figure 5: Construction completed. 85 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 86 12/06/16 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $400,593 THROUGH A COOPERATIVE PURCHASING PROGRAM FOR ONE DODGE AMBULANCE RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase agreement for an amount not to exceed $400,593 for the purchase of one Dodge ambulance, through a cooperative purchasing program. This vehicle is programmed for replacement in the current FY 2016-17 Vehicle and Equipment Replacement (VER) Fund 135. FISCAL IMPACT: The replacement of this 2002 ambulance was programmed in the FY 2016-17 VER budget. The cost for the ambulance, including outfitting, is a total of $400,593, which is $593 more than the budgeted amount. There are sufficient savings from prior vehicle purchases to cover the overage of $593. The table below details the amounts budgeted for the ambulance and its outfitting costs. VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT (VER) FUND 135 # Proposed Vehicle or Equipment Budgeted FY 2016-17 Vehicle Cost Outfitting Costs Total Cost Cooperative Purchase Agreement Source & Contract No. 1 Dodge Ambulance, (Unit 5391R) $ 400,000 $ 301,113 $ 99,480 $ 400,593 City of Newport Beach (Contract # 16-24) CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: Awarding a contract is an administrative decision not affecting a fundamental vested right. When an administrative decision does not affect a fundamental vested right, the courts will give greater weight to the City Council in any challenge of the decision to award the contract. PUBLIC NOTICE: No public notice is required. BACKGROUND: Coronado Municipal Code Section 8.04.060 requires the approval of the City Council for the purchase of goods, supplies and/or equipment above $30,000. The Municipal Code has a provision for purchases of supplies and equipment to be accomplished through cooperative purchasing (CMC § 8.04.070). Cooperative purchasing is a national- and State-approved tool used by government agencies to join with other jurisdictions to buy similar products. When purchasing cooperatively, a “lead agency” is the central purchaser for several jurisdictions. Because these contracts tend to be for purchases of large quantities, the lead agencies are able to negotiate for lower unit costs. Staff will be able to purchase the proposed ambulance cooperatively, at competitive pricing, from an existing contract between the City of Newport Beach and Leader Ambulance (contract #16-24). ANALYSIS: Ambulance (Unit 5391R): The FY 2016-17 VER Fund 135 includes $400,000 to replace one Fire Services ambulance. The existing ambulance, which is used as a front line vehicle, is 14 years old and in need of replacement. Per City policy, the life cycle of an ambulance is fourteen years; a unit is expected to be used as a front line vehicle for seven years, and as a reserve unit for seven years. The ambulance being replaced is currently used as a front line vehicle despite its age, due to the City’s primary ambulance being out of commission, and the secondary rig being less functional from an operations perspective. 87 5g 12/06/16 ALTERNATIVE: The City Council could choose to not authorize the purchase of the ambulance described above, and could recommend that staff use the Request for Bids (RFB) process instead. Submitted by Public Services & Engineering/Maurer CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR JK JNC MLC NA NA MB NA NA CMM NA 88 12/06/16 ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A SURRENDERED AND ABANDONED VESSEL EXCHANGE (SAVE) GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,400 FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS (DBAW) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt “A Resolution Accepting a Surrendered and Abandoned Vessel Exchange (SAVE) Grant in the Amount of $37,400 from the California Department of Parks and Recreation Division of Boating and Waterways (DBAW).” FISCAL IMPACT: The City will receive a $37,400 grant. A ten percent cash or in-kind match is required. Acceptable matches include removal, storage, demolition and administration fees. The grant revenue will be posted to the Public Services General Fund (account 100-5925). CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: The authorizations to accept grant funds and to appropriate the funds for use in the fiscal year are legislative actions. Legislative actions involve the exercise of discretion governed by considerations of public welfare, in which case the City Council is deemed to have “paramount authority” in such decisions. PUBLIC NOTICE: None required. CEQA: Not a project as defined under CEQA. BACKGROUND: The California Department of Parks and Recreation Division of Boating and Waterways (DBAW) enacted the Abandoned Watercraft Abatement Fund (AWAF) and Vessel Turn-In Program (VTIP) in 1998 and 2010, respectively. AWAF provides funding for public agencies to remove, store, and dispose of abandoned, wrecked, or dismantled vessels or any other partially submerged objects that pose a substantial hazard to navigation, from navigable waterways or adjacent public property, or private property with the landowner’s consent. The VTIP allows boat owners to surrender unwanted recreational vessels to participating local agencies. On January 1, 2016, the DBAW combined these two programs under the Surrendered and Abandoned Vessel Exchange (SAVE) program to give public agencies the convenience of applying for one grant and the flexibility to use funding for both purposes. ANALYSIS: Occasionally, abandoned recreational vessels become beached in Coronado as a result of poor seamanship, weather events, and unlawful operations, especially vessels anchored in the Zuniga Shoal that break free and drift toward and land on the City beach. These abandoned, derelict vessels pose a safety hazard to beach visitors, as well as become a public nuisance. Most of the vessels are not seaworthy and the owners often do not have insurance or the resources to properly care for the vessels or arrange for their removal once aground. During the 2015-2016 fiscal year, the City expended an estimated $23,000 in unbudgeted funds to address abandoned, adrift vessels. The City recently received notice from DBAW of being awarded a SAVE grant in the amount of $37,400. The grant will reduce the overall costs sustained to the City from the storage, removal and disposal of abandoned vessels. The SAVE grant also encourages coordination with other public entities and jurisdictions to mitigate the impacts of abandoned vessels to the area. 89 5h 12/06/16 ALTERNATIVE: The City Council could decide not to accept the grant funds and not authorize the City Manager to execute the grant agreement. Submitted by Office of the City Manager/Ritter/Albrecht. Attachment: Resolution CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR NA JNC MLC NA NA MB NA JF CMM NA 90 12/06/16 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A SURRENDERED AND ABANDONED VESSEL EXCHANGE (SAVE) GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,400 FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS (DBAW) WHEREAS, the City of Coronado follows Harbors and Navigation Code and San Diego Unified Port District Code to identify abandoned vessels and proceed with their removal; and WHEREAS, City of Coronado Police and Lifeguards are authorized to respond to and safely mitigate any potential damage caused by adrift vessels and marine debris; and WHEREAS, given its location near the Zuniga Jetty, Coronado beach is subject to abandoned vessels which break free as a result of poor seamanship, weather events, and unlawful operations and become beached, posing a hazard to public safety; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation Division of Boating and Waterways (DBAW) is authorized to provide Surrendered and Abandoned Vessel Exchange (SAVE) grants to qualified public agencies for the purpose of removing, reducing and preventing abandoned vessels and various marine debris. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Coronado City Council accepts a SAVE grant in the amount of $37,400 from the DBAW to reduce the overall cost of the removal, storage and disposal of abandoned vessels to the City; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the City of Coronado all grant documents including, but not limited to, agreements, amendments and requests for payment necessary to secure the grant funds and implement the approved grant project. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, this 6th day of December 2016, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ___________________________________ Casey Tanaka, Mayor City of Coronado ATTEST: __________________________________ Mary L. Clifford, CMC City Clerk 91 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 92 12/06/16 APPROVAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET AND THE RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE (ROPS) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 RELATED TO THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY’S CLAIM FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROPERTY TAX TRUST FUNDS RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Administrative Budget and the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT: The ROPS 17-18 lists all of the former Community Development Agency (CDA) obligations, including bonded debt, contract obligations, and the administrative costs due during the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. The approval of the ROPS 17-18 is the Successor Agency’s claim for the continued receipt of funds from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) in the upcoming period. The total RPTTF available is estimated to be approximately $21.3M. The total amount of enforceable obligations listed is approximately $14 M. In Fiscal Year 2017-18 the General Fund will receive $2,780,754 from this source as loan repayments. This will be available for appropriation in Fiscal Year 2017-18. The City’s administrative efforts to manage the Successor Agency and the implementation of the dissolution process are paid by an “administrative allowance” which is 3% of the amount of RPTTF received in the preceding year, but no less than $250,000 per fiscal year unless the permissible maximum annual administrative costs are less than $250,000. The amount estimated for FY 2017-18 is approximately $564,300. SUCCESSOR AGENCY AUTHORITY: Senate Bill 107 (SB 107) requires the Successor Agency to submit the Oversight Board approved annual ROPS for Fiscal Year 2017-18 to the State Department of Finance (DOF) and the San Diego County Auditor and Controller (CAC) on a DOF-approved form pursuant to instructions provided by the DOF no later than February 1, 2017. ROPS 17-18 is subject to DOF review. The DOF may modify, eliminate and/or approve ROPS entries. PUBLIC NOTICE: None required. BACKGROUND: On September 22, 2015, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill No. 107 (SB 107). SB 107 terminated the preparation of the six-month schedule of payments called the ROPS as of December 31, 2015, and requires yearly ROPS reporting for each fiscal year. The City Council, acting as the Board of the Successor Agency, is required to approve the ROPS. Once approved by the City Council, the ROPS will be submitted for approval to the Oversight Board. SB 107 redefined administrative cost allowance in Health and Safety Code Section 34177.3(b) to mean the maximum amount of administrative costs (approximately $614,100) that may be paid by a successor agency from the RPTTF funds in a fiscal year. Beginning on July 1, 2016, and for every fiscal year thereafter, the administrative cost allowance was set at a maximum of three percent (3%) of the actual RPTTF funds available to the Successor Agency by the CAC in the preceding fiscal year for payment of approved enforceable obligations, reduced by the Successor Agency’s administrative cost allowance and any loan repayments made to the City under Health and Safety Code Section 34191.4(b) during the preceding fiscal year. 93 5i 12/06/16 ANALYSIS: The Department of Finance (DOF) had not released the ROPS template prior to preparation of the staff report. It is mandatory that the payment request be submitted on the DOF provided template. Staff has prepared a draft ROPS 17-18 for July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018, which will be distributed once the template is made available. The ROPS template will be blue sheeted and provided to Council the day of the meeting. The following list highlights noteworthy items on the ROPS 17-18:  Bond payments and fees scheduled during the period are reflected in items 1 through 8 for FY 2017-18. The total amount paid for these line items is $9,912,229.  Items 11 through 19 are the re-entered into loans between the City of Coronado and the Successor Agency to the former Community Development Agency. The total amount paid for these line items annually is $2,780,754.  Item 30 is the administrative expenses of the Successor Agency for FY 17-18 estimated to be approximately $564,300  Item 46 represents property tax reimbursement payment to Five Star Theatres, Inc. based upon the terms of the Participation Agreement and is estimated to be approximately $40,000.  Item 51 is for legal expenses related to the ongoing affordable housing lawsuit, if an appeal is filed, and $5,000 is allocated.  Item 64 is the Acquisition of Real Property Agreement between the former Community Development Agency and the Coronado Hospital Foundation (CHF) that was entered into on January 9, 2009, for the purpose of preserving the availability of quality health care within the Coronado community. Pursuant to the 2009 Acquisition Agreement, the former CDA agreed to acquire the Hospital Property for $20 million over a 15-year period. The annual undivided interest increments are $1,338,938 plus escrow fees. The enforceable obligations amount due during the coming fiscal year is $14 million. The projected amount of RPTTF that will be available on June 1, 2017, and December 2, 2017, for payment on the ROPS 17-18 is approximately $21.3M, which would be more than sufficient to pay all enforceable obligations listed in ROPS 17-18. This leaves an estimated amount of $7.3 million that will be provided to the State. Successor Agency Administrative Budget for FY 2017-18 Account Title 7/1/17 to 6/30/18 Accounting/Auditing Services $ 10,000 Legal Services $ 20,000 Reimburse City for Personnel Services $ 534,300 TOTAL $ 564,300 94 12/06/16 The Administrative Budget and ROPS 17-18 must be submitted to the DOF and the CAC no later than February 1, 2017. A copy of the draft ROPS 17-18 and the Administrative Budget will be posted on the City’s website. SB 107 gives the DOF until April 15, 2017, to make a determination of the enforceable obligations listed on ROPS 17-18. Within five business days of the DOF’s determination, the Successor Agency may request additional review and a meet and confer over any disputed items, except for those items which are the subject of litigation disputing the DOF’s previous or related determination. Submitted by Administrative Services Krueger/Huth Attachment 1: Loan Repayment Schedule N:\All Departments\CDASA\Staff Reports\12.06.16\SR-Approval of Admin Budget ROPS 17-18.doc CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR JK JNC MLC RAH N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 95 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 96 Attachment 1 Fiscal Year Amounts FY 2017 (1) 11,229,907.60 FY 2018 2,780,754.44 FY 2019 2,780,754.44 FY 2020 2,780,754.44 FY 2021 2,780,754.44 FY 2022 2,780,754.44 FY 2023 2,780,754.44 FY 2024 2,780,754.44 FY 2025 2,780,754.44 FY 2026 2,780,754.44 FY 2027 2,780,754.44 FY 2028 2,780,754.44 FY 2029 2,780,754.44 FY 2030 2,780,754.44 FY 2031 2,780,754.44 FY 2032 2,780,754.44 FY 2033 2,780,754.44 FY 2034 2,780,754.44 FY 2035 2,780,754.44 FY 2036 2,780,754.44 Total 64,064,241.96 (1) Includes $8.5M retained in Trust Fund from prior years LOAN REPAYMENT SCHEDULE 97 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 98 12/6/2016 FILING OF THE TREASURER’S REPORTS ON INVESTMENTS FOR THE CITY AND THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE CITY OF CORONADO FOR THE QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: Examine the quarterly Reports on Investments and order them filed. FISCAL IMPACT: The City receives funds from many sources, which it invests according to the City of Coronado Investment Policy. All investments are made with the primary objectives of safety, liquidity and yield, in that order. The funds of the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency are also invested according to the City of Coronado Investment Policy. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: Information item only. PUBLIC NOTICE: Not required. BACKGROUND: In compliance with the City’s Investment Policy, staff prepares an investment report and presents this to the City Council for review following the close of each quarter. The report presents investments for both the City and the Successor Agency portfolios. Combined, these two portfolios total approximately $129.5 million in cash and investments as of September 30, 2016. ANALYSIS: This report covers the period July 1, 2016 through September 30, 2016. Attached is a summary that identifies all investments. This report also highlights annual investment earnings relative to budget. City cash, investments and the percentage of total are as follows: Name Book Value % of Total 49,903,126$ 41.9% 4,652,290 3.9% 175,464 0.1% 57,672,399 48.4% 250,000 0.2% 2,816,258 2.4% 3,755,000 3.1% Total 119,224,537$ OPEB Trust Investment Portfolio - PARS Local Agency Investment Fund, General Fund Local Agency Investment Fund, Harpst Municipal Bonds, Harpst Federal Agency Securities Certificates of Deposit - San Diego Private Bank Cash in Bank - Union Bank Overall, City investment earnings for the period July 1, 2016 through September 30, 2016, were $214,093, equivalent to 51% of the fiscal year budget projection of $421,000. Investment returns on Treasuries and Federal Agency obligations required by the City’s conservative investment policy continue to average 0.72% annually, across all managed portfolios. The investment performance for Fiscal Year 2016-17 is above budgeted projections primarily because the budget projection was prepared on a very conservative basis. The amount available 99 5j 12/6/2016 for investment has grown as a result of higher than expected property tax and other General Fund revenue. The following schedule shows a comparison between book value of investments, market value of investments, and year-to-date earnings for the current period, July through September 2016, and the same period of last Fiscal Year. Book value of Investments Market Value of Investments YTD Investments Earnings July-September FY 2015-16 97,305,586 97,557,204 128,938 July-September FY 2016-17 119,224,537 119,702,533 214,093 Successor Agency cash, investments and the percentages of the total are as follows: Name Book Value % of Total Local Agency Investment Fund 6,787,243$ 66.1% Bond Proceeds invested with CAMP 179,470 1.7% Fiscal Agent Holdings 3,002,993 29.3% Cash in Bank at Union Bank 296,886 2.9% Total 10,266,592$ Earnings for the Community Development Successor Agency July 1, 2016 through September 30, 2016, were $33,657. All earnings are applied toward payment of enforceable obligations in subsequent periods. Attached is an investment summary for the City and Successor Agency. The review includes information on market conditions and a discussion of the City’s portfolio performance. The attached detailed monthly reports for July, August and September list individual securities held by the City, their market values, and the trades/transactions that occurred. ALTERNATIVE: None. Submitted by Administrative Services/Krueger, Treasurer Attachments: City of Coronado Quarterly Treasurer’s Report The City of Coronado Acting as the Successor Agency to the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado Treasurer’s Report I:\STFRPT\Budget & Finance\City and CDA Treas Rpt SEP16.doc CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR JK JNC MLC NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100 1 0 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 102 JOHN CHIANG TREASURER STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10/17/16 0.65 0.65 168 10/18/16 0.65 0.65 167 10/19/16 0.65 0.65 166 10/20/16 0.65 0.65 164 10/21/16 0.66 0.65 165 10/22/16 0.66 0.65 165 10/23/16 0.66 0.65 165 10/24/16 0.66 0.65 164 10/25/16 0.66 0.65 168 10/26/16 0.66 0.65 167 10/27/16 0.66 0.65 171 10/28/16 0.66 0.65 172 10/29/16 0.66 0.65 172 Oct 2016 0.654% 10/30/16 0.66 0.65 172 Sep 2016 0.634% 10/31/16 0.67 0.65 163 Aug 2016 0.614% 11/01/16 0.66 0.66 170 11/02/16 0.67 0.66 173 11/03/16 0.67 0.66 174 11/04/16 0.67 0.66 173 11/05/16 0.67 0.66 173 11/06/16 0.67 0.66 173 11/07/16 0.67 0.66 173 11/08/16 0.67 0.66 176 11/09/16 0.67 0.66 176 11/10/16 0.68 0.66 180 11/11/16 0.68 0.66 180 11/12/16 0.68 0.66 180 11/13/16 0.68 0.66 180 11/14/16 0.68 0.66 176 11/15/16 0.68 0.66 177 11/16/16 0.68 0.66 181 11/16/2016Based on data available as of Quarter to Date: Average Life: View Prior Month Daily Rates PMIA Average Monthly Effective YieldsEffective Yields 0.61% *Daily yield does not reflect capital gains or losses 165 PMIA Performance Report LAIF Performance Report Date Daily Yield* Quarter to Date Yield Average Maturity (in days)Apportionment Rate:0.60% Quarter Ending 09/30/16 .00001651908048883 1.000306032 Earnings Ratio: Fair Value Factor: Daily:0.65% Treasuries 45.05% Mortgages 0.07% Agencies 11.41% Certificates of Deposit/Bank Notes 16.48% Time Deposits 7.39% Commercial Paper 9.57% Loans 10.03% Pooled Money Investment Account Portfolio Composition 10/31/16 $70.4 billion 103 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Fo r q u e s t i o n s a b o u t y o u r a c c o u n t s : Lo c a l : 2 1 3 2 3 6 7 0 7 0 In - S t a t e : 8 0 0 3 5 8 8 7 7 1 Na t i o n a l : 8 0 0 6 3 4 1 1 0 0 ST A T E M E N T F O R T H E P E R I O D S E P T E M B E R 1 , 2 0 1 6 T O S E P T E M B E R 3 0 , 2 0 1 6 CI T Y O F C O R O N A D O - U n i n c o r p o r a t e d A s s n Ac c o u n t N u m b e r : W B B - 0 1 2 3 0 0 EN V # C E B C D C Z F B B F P H C Q _ B B B B B UN I O N B A N C I N V E S T M E N T S E R V I C E S PO B O X 5 1 3 1 0 0 LO S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 5 1 - 1 1 0 0 CI T Y O F C O R O N A D O AT T : A D M I N I S T R A T I V E S E R V I C E S 18 2 5 S T R A N D W A Y CO R O N A D O C A 9 2 1 1 8 IN S T I T U T I O N A L S A L E S S P E C I A L I S T MA R K M O R R I S S E Y RR # : 3 0 7 UN I O N B A N C I N V E S T M E N T S E R V I C E S MN _ C E B C D C Z F B B F P H C Q _ B B B B B 2 0 1 6 0 9 3 0 Ac c o u n t c a r r i e d w i t h N a t i o n a l F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s L L C , M e m b e r NY S E , S I P C Pa g e 1 o f 1 0 TO T A L V A L U E O F Y O U R P O R T F O L I O $1 7 1 , 5 6 3 . 3 0 CH A N G E I N V A L U E O F Y O U R P O R T F O L I O $ m i l l i o n s 20 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 C U R R E N T 0. 0 0 0 1. 0 0 0 2. 0 0 0 3. 0 0 0 4. 0 0 0 Ch a n g e I n V a l u e O f Y o u r P o r t f o l i o i n f o r m a t i o n c a n b e f o u n d i n M i s c e l l a n e o u s F o o t n o t e s a t t h e e n d o f t h i s s t a t e m e n t . 111 St a t e m e n t f o r t h e P e r i o d S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 6 t o S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 1 6 CI T Y O F C O R O N A D O - U n i n c o r p o r a t e d A s s n Ac c o u n t N u m b e r : W B B - 0 1 2 3 0 0 Pa g e 2 o f 1 0 Ac c o u n t O v e r v i e w UN I O N B A N C I N V E S T M E N T S E R V I C E S MN _ C E B C D C Z F B B F P H C Q _ B B B B B 2 0 1 6 0 9 3 0 Ac c o u n t c a r r i e d w i t h N a t i o n a l F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s L L C , M e m b e r NY S E , S I P C Pa g e 2 o f 1 0 CH A N G E I N A C C O U N T V A L U E Cu r r e n t P e r i o d Ye a r - t o - D a t e BE G I N N I N G V A L U E $2 3 2 , 0 0 1 . 6 0 $6 3 1 , 1 0 6 . 2 0 Ad d i t i o n s a n d W i t h d r a w a l s ($ 6 3 , 7 6 5 . 6 3 ) ($ 4 7 5 , 1 5 6 . 2 6 ) In c o m e $3 , 7 6 5 . 6 3 $2 0 , 1 5 6 . 2 6 Ta x e s , F e e s a n d E x p e n s e s $0 . 0 0 $0 . 0 0 Ch a n g e i n I n v e s t m e n t V a l u e ($ 4 3 8 . 3 0 ) ($ 4 , 5 4 2 . 9 0 ) EN D I N G V A L U E ( A S O F 0 9 / 3 0 / 1 6 ) $1 7 1 , 5 6 3 . 3 0 $1 7 1 , 5 6 3 . 3 0 To t a l A c c r u e d I n t e r e s t $6 6 0 . 9 4 En d i n g V a l u e w i t h A c c r u e d I n t e r e s t $1 7 2 , 2 2 4 . 2 4 Re f e r t o M i s c e l l a n e o u s F o o t n o t e s f o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n o n C h a n g e i n I n v e s t m e n t V a l u e . AC C O U N T A L L O C A T I O N Mu n i c i p a l B o n d s 1 0 0 . 0 % Pe r c e n t Pr i o r P e r i o d C u r r e n t P e r i o d Mu n i c i p a l B o n d s 10 0 . 0 % $ 2 3 2 , 0 0 1 . 6 0 $1 7 1 , 5 6 3 . 3 0 TO T A L 10 0 . 0 % $ 2 3 2 , 0 0 1 . 6 0 $1 7 1 , 5 6 3 . 3 0 Ac c o u n t A l l o c a t i o n sh o w s t h e p e r c e n t a g e t h a t e a c h a s s e t c l a s s r e p r e s e n t s o f y o u r t o t a l a c c o u n t v a l u e . A c c o u n t Al l o c a t i o n f o r e q u i t i e s , f i x e d i n c o m e , a n d o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s m a y i n c l u d e m u t u a l f u n d s a n d m a y b e n e t o f s h o r t po s i t i o n s . N F S h a s m a d e a s s u m p t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g h o w c e r t a i n m u t u a l f u n d s a r e a l l o c a t e d . C l o s e d - e n d m u t u a l f u n d s an d E x c h a n g e T r a d e d P r o d u c t s ( E T P s ) l i s t e d o n a n e x c h a n g e m a y b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e e q u i t y a l l o c a t i o n . T h e c h a r t ma y n o t r e f l e c t y o u r a c t u a l p o r t f o l i o a l l o c a t i o n . C o n s u l t y o u r b r o k e r / d e a l e r p r i o r t o m a k i n g i n v e s t m e n t d e c i s i o n s . IN C O M E NO N - T A X A B L E Cu r r e n t P e r i o d Y e a r - t o - D a t e Mu n i T a x E x e m p t I n t e r e s t $3 , 7 6 5 . 6 3 $ 2 0 , 1 5 6 . 2 6 TO T A L N O N - T A X A B L E $3 , 7 6 5 . 6 3 $2 0 , 1 5 6 . 2 6 TO T A L I N C O M E $ 3 , 7 6 5 . 6 3 $ 2 0 , 1 5 6 . 2 6 Ta x a b l e i n c o m e i s d e t e r m i n e d b a s e d o n i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o N F S a t t h e t i m e t h e s t a t e m e n t w a s pr e p a r e d , a n d i s s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e . F i n a l i n f o r m a t i o n o n t a x a t i o n o f i n t e r e s t a n d d i v i d e n d s i s a v a i l a b l e on F o r m 1 0 9 9 - D i v , w h i c h i s m a i l e d i n F e b r u a r y o f t h e s u b s e q u e n t y e a r . 112 St a t e m e n t f o r t h e P e r i o d S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 6 t o S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 1 6 CI T Y O F C O R O N A D O - U n i n c o r p o r a t e d A s s n Ac c o u n t N u m b e r : W B B - 0 1 2 3 0 0 Pa g e 3 o f 1 0 Ac c o u n t O v e r v i e w co n t i n u e d UN I O N B A N C I N V E S T M E N T S E R V I C E S MN _ C E B C D C Z F B B F P H C Q _ B B B B B 2 0 1 6 0 9 3 0 Ac c o u n t c a r r i e d w i t h N a t i o n a l F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s L L C , M e m b e r NY S E , S I P C Pa g e 3 o f 1 0 ME S S A G E S A N D A L E R T S Pl e a s e m a k e a l l c h e c k d e p o s i t s / c o n t r i b u t i o n s p a y a b l e t o : N A T I O N A L F I N A N C I A L S R V S 113 St a t e m e n t f o r t h e P e r i o d S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 6 t o S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 1 6 CI T Y O F C O R O N A D O - U n i n c o r p o r a t e d A s s n Ac c o u n t N u m b e r : W B B - 0 1 2 3 0 0 Pa g e 4 o f 1 0 UN I O N B A N C I N V E S T M E N T S E R V I C E S MN _ C E B C D C Z F B B F P H C Q _ B B B B B 2 0 1 6 0 9 3 0 Ac c o u n t c a r r i e d w i t h N a t i o n a l F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s L L C , M e m b e r NY S E , S I P C Pa g e 4 o f 1 0 Ho l d i n g s NF S - p r o v i d e d c o s t b a s i s , r e a l i z e d g a i n ( l o s s ) a n d h o l d i n g p e r i o d i n f o r m a t i o n m a y n o t r e f l e c t a l l a d j u s t m e n t s n e c e s s a r y f o r t a x p u r p o s e s . P l e a s e r e f e r t o F o o t n o t e s a n d C o s t B a s i s I n f o r m a t i o n a t t h e e n d o f t h i s st a t e m e n t f o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n . Fo r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g y o u r h o l d i n g s , p l e a s e r e f e r t o t h e f o o t n o t e s a t t h e e n d o f t h e s t a t e m e n t . FI X E D I N C O M E - 1 0 0 . 0 0 % o f T o t a l A c c o u n t V a l u e Fo r a n e x p l a n a t i o n o f f i x e d i n c o m e p r i c i n g , p l e a s e s e e t h e l a s t p a g e . R e d e m p t i o n s c h e d u l e ( s ) , b o n d r a t i n g ( s ) , a n d o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n a r e p r o v i d e d w h e r e a v a i l a b l e . I f i n f o r m a t i o n d o e s n o t a p p e a r r e g a r d i n g a pa r t i c u l a r i n v e s t m e n t , i t i s n o t a v a i l a b l e . T h e r a t i n g s o n t h i s s t a t e m e n t a r e p r o v i d e d b y S t a n d a r d & P o o r ' s a n d / o r M o o d y ' s t o r a t e t h e q u a l i t y b a s e d o n t h e r e s p e c t i v e r a t i n g a g e n c y ' s a s s e s s m e n t . " R a t i n g s in f o r m a t i o n f r o m S t a n d a r d & P o o r ' s ( " S & P " ) m a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d . S & P c r e d i t r a t i n g s a r e s t a t e m e n t s o f o p i n i o n a n d a r e n o t s t a t e m e n t s o f f a c t o r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t o p u r c h a s e , h o l d , o r s e l l s e c u r i t i e s , n o r do t h e y a d d r e s s t h e s u i t a b i l i t y o f s e c u r i t i e s f o r i n v e s t m e n t p u r p o s e s , a n d s h o u l d n o t b e r e l i e d o n a s i n v e s t m e n t a d v i c e . S & P d o e s n o t g u a r a n t e e t h e a c c u r a c y , c o m p l e t e n e s s , t i m e l i n e s s o r a v a i l a b i l i t y o f a n y in f o r m a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g r a t i n g s , a n d i s n o t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r e r r o r s o r o m i s s i o n s ( n e g l i g e n t o r o t h e r w i s e ) . S & P g i v e s n o e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d w a r r a n t i e s , i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o a n y w a r r a n t i e s o f m e r c h a n t a b i l i t y or f i t n e s s f o r a p a r t i c u l a r p u r p o s e o r u s e . S & P s h a l l n o t b e l i a b l e f o r a n y d i r e c t , i n d i r e c t , i n c i d e n t a l , e x e m p l a r y , c o m p e n s a t o r y , p u n i t i v e , s p e c i a l o r c o n s e q u e n t i a l d a m a g e s , c o s t s , e x p e n s e s , l e g a l f e e s , o r l o s s e s (i n c l u d i n g l o s t i n c o m e o r p r o f i t s a n d o p p o r t u n i t y c o s t s ) i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h a n y u s e o f r a t i n g s . " Ac c r u e d I n t e r e s t - Re p r e s e n t s i n t e r e s t a c c u m u l a t e d s i n c e t h e l a s t c o u p o n d a t e o n c e r t a i n f i x e d i n c o m e s e c u r i t i e s w h i c h m a y n o t y e t h a v e b e e n p a i d b y t h e i s s u e r o r r e c e i v e d b y N F S . T h e r e i s n o g u a r a n t e e th a t t h e a c c r u e d i n t e r e s t w i l l b e p a i d b y t h e i s s u e r . De s c r i p t i o n Sy m b o l / C u s i p Ac c o u n t T y p e Qu a n t i t y Es t i m a t e d Pr i c e o n 09 / 3 0 / 1 6 Es t i m a t e d Cu r r e n t Ma r k e t V a l u e Es t i m a t e d An n u a l I n c o m e To t a l Co s t B a s i s Un r e a l i z e d Ga i n ( L o s s ) Mu n i c i p a l B o n d s AL L A N H A N C O C K C A L I F J T C M N T Y C O L L E G E 01 6 7 3 0 F S 7 04 . 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 8 / 0 1 / 2 0 2 0 D I S T G O B D S C A S H EL E C T I O N O F 2 0 0 6 S E R I E S A IN S U R E D B Y A G M C F O R M E R L Y F S A UN L I M I T E D G E N O B L I G MO O D Y ' S A a 2 / S & P A A CP N P M T S E M I - A N N U A L ON F E B 0 1 , A U G 0 1 Ne x t I n t e r e s t P a y a b l e : 0 2 / 0 1 / 1 7 CO N T I N U O U S L Y C A L L A B L E F R O M 0 8 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 6 CA L L A B L E O N 1 0 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 6 @ 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Ac c r u e d I n t e r e s t $ 3 3 . 3 3 5,0 0 0 $ 1 0 0 . 2 2 2 $ 5 , 0 1 1 . 1 0 $ 2 0 0 . 0 0 114 St a t e m e n t f o r t h e P e r i o d S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 6 t o S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 1 6 CI T Y O F C O R O N A D O - U n i n c o r p o r a t e d A s s n Ac c o u n t N u m b e r : W B B - 0 1 2 3 0 0 Pa g e 5 o f 1 0 UN I O N B A N C I N V E S T M E N T S E R V I C E S MN _ C E B C D C Z F B B F P H C Q _ B B B B B 2 0 1 6 0 9 3 0 Ac c o u n t c a r r i e d w i t h N a t i o n a l F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s L L C , M e m b e r NY S E , S I P C Pa g e 5 o f 1 0 FI X E D I N C O M E co n t i n u e d De s c r i p t i o n Sy m b o l / C u s i p Ac c o u n t T y p e Q u a n t i t y Es t i m a t e d Pr i c e o n 09 / 3 0 / 1 6 Es t i m a t e d Cu r r e n t Ma r k e t V a l u e Es t i m a t e d An n u a l I n c o m e To t a l Co s t B a s i s Un r e a l i z e d Ga i n ( L o s s ) LA K E E L S I N O R E C A L I F P U B F I N G A U T H T A X 50 9 6 3 J E L 8 04 . 3 7 5 0 0 % 0 9 / 0 1 / 2 0 2 3 A L L O C R E V T A X A L L O C C A S H BD S S E R . 2 0 1 0 A IN S U R E D B Y A S S D G U A R C O R P TA X A L L O C / I N C R E M E N T S& P A A CP N P M T S E M I - A N N U A L ON S E P 0 1 , M A R 0 1 Ne x t I n t e r e s t P a y a b l e : 0 3 / 0 1 / 1 7 CO N T I N U O U S L Y C A L L A B L E F R O M 0 9 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 9 CA L L A B L E O N 0 9 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 9 @ 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 SU B J E C T T O E X T R A O R D I N A R Y C A L L Ac c r u e d I n t e r e s t $ 2 7 3 . 4 4 75 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 8 . 4 1 1 $ 8 1 , 3 0 8 . 2 5 $ 3 , 2 8 1 . 2 5 DA N V I L L E C A L I F C T F S P A R T N C O P S C A P I M P T 23 6 4 8 0 C P 2 05 . 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 9 / 0 1 / 2 0 2 6 R E F I N G S E R . 2 0 0 1 C A S H IN S U R E D B Y A M B A C LE A S E - R E N T BA N K Q U A L I F I E D MO O D Y ' S A a 2 CP N P M T S E M I - A N N U A L ON M A R 0 1 , S E P 0 1 Ne x t I n t e r e s t P a y a b l e : 0 3 / 0 1 / 1 7 CO N T I N U O U S L Y C A L L A B L E F R O M 0 9 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 1 CA L L A B L E O N 1 0 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 6 @ 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 SU B J E C T T O E X T R A O R D I N A R Y C A L L SU B J E C T T O S I N K I N G F U N D Ac c r u e d I n t e r e s t $ 3 5 4 . 1 7 85 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 0 . 2 8 7 $ 8 5 , 2 4 3 . 9 5 $ 4 , 2 5 0 . 0 0 To t a l M u n i c i p a l B o n d s 16 5 , 0 0 0 $1 7 1 , 5 6 3 . 3 0 $7 , 7 3 1 . 2 5 To t a l F i x e d I n c o m e 16 5 , 0 0 0 $1 7 1 , 5 6 3 . 3 0 $7 , 7 3 1 . 2 5 To t a l S e c u r i t i e s $1 7 1 , 5 6 3 . 3 0 $7 , 7 3 1 . 2 5 TO T A L P O R T F O L I O V A L U E $1 7 1 , 5 6 3 . 3 0 $7 , 7 3 1 . 2 5 115 St a t e m e n t f o r t h e P e r i o d S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 6 t o S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 1 6 CI T Y O F C O R O N A D O - U n i n c o r p o r a t e d A s s n Ac c o u n t N u m b e r : W B B - 0 1 2 3 0 0 Pa g e 6 o f 1 0 UN I O N B A N C I N V E S T M E N T S E R V I C E S MN _ C E B C D C Z F B B F P H C Q _ B B B B B 2 0 1 6 0 9 3 0 Ac c o u n t c a r r i e d w i t h N a t i o n a l F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s L L C , M e m b e r NY S E , S I P C Pa g e 6 o f 1 0 Ac t i v i t y NF S - p r o v i d e d c o s t b a s i s , r e a l i z e d g a i n ( l o s s ) a n d h o l d i n g p e r i o d i n f o r m a t i o n m a y n o t r e f l e c t a l l a d j u s t m e n t s n e c e s s a r y f o r t a x p u r p o s e s . P l e a s e r e f e r t o F o o t n o t e s a n d C o s t B a s i s I n f o r m a t i o n a t t h e e n d o f t h i s st a t e m e n t f o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n . PU R C H A S E S , S A L E S , A N D R E D E M P T I O N S Se t t l e m e n t Da t e Ac c o u n t Ty p e T r a n s a c t i o n D e s c r i p t i o n Q u a n t i t y Am o u n t To t a l Co s t B a s i s Re a l i z e d Ga i n ( L o s s ) Re d e m p t i o n s 09 / 0 1 / 1 6 C A S H R E D E E M E D CE N T E R U N I S C H D I S T C A L I F C A P AP P R E C B D S 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 9 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 6 RE D E M P T I O N P A Y O U T # R E O R R0 0 5 5 6 5 7 9 1 0 0 0 0 (6 0 , 0 0 0 ) $6 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 To t a l R e d e m p t i o n s $6 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 AC T I V I T Y > AD D I T I O N S A N D W I T H D R A W A L S > O T H E R A D D I T I O N S A N D W I T H D R A W A L S Da t e Ac c o u n t Ty p e T r a n s a c t i o n D e s c r i p t i o n Q u a n t i t y Am o u n t Ot h e r A d d i t i o n s a n d W i t h d r a w a l s 09 / 0 1 / 1 6 C A S H T R A N S F E R T O A C C O U N T A U T O M O N E Y M O V E M E N T I D 7 7 0 5 7 1 2 0 ($ 6 3 , 7 6 5 . 6 3 ) To t a l O t h e r A d d i t i o n s a n d W i t h d r a w a l s ($ 6 3 , 7 6 5 . 6 3 ) TO T A L A D D I T I O N S A N D W I T H D R A W A L S ($ 6 3 , 7 6 5 . 6 3 ) AC T I V I T Y > IN C O M E > N O N - T A X A B L E I N C O M E Se t t l e m e n t Da t e Ac c o u n t Ty p e T r a n s a c t i o n D e s c r i p t i o n Q u a n t i t y Am o u n t Mu n i T a x E x e m p t I n t e r e s t 116 St a t e m e n t f o r t h e P e r i o d S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 6 t o S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 1 6 CI T Y O F C O R O N A D O - U n i n c o r p o r a t e d A s s n Ac c o u n t N u m b e r : W B B - 0 1 2 3 0 0 Pa g e 7 o f 1 0 UN I O N B A N C I N V E S T M E N T S E R V I C E S MN _ C E B C D C Z F B B F P H C Q _ B B B B B 2 0 1 6 0 9 3 0 Ac c o u n t c a r r i e d w i t h N a t i o n a l F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s L L C , M e m b e r NY S E , S I P C Pa g e 7 o f 1 0 AC T I V I T Y > IN C O M E > N O N - T A X A B L E I N C O M E co n t i n u e d Se t t l e m e n t Da t e Ac c o u n t Ty p e T r a n s a c t i o n D e s c r i p t i o n Q u a n t i t y Am o u n t 09 / 0 1 / 1 6 C A S H M U N I E X E M P T I N T D A N V I L L E C A L I F C T F S P A R T N C O P S CA P I M P T 0 5 . 0 0 0 0 0 % 0 9 / 0 1 / 2 0 2 6 RE F I N G S E R . 2 0 0 1 $2 , 1 2 5 . 0 0 Mu n i T a x E x e m p t I n t e r e s t = M u n i T a x E x e m p t I n t e r e s t 09 / 0 1 / 1 6 C A S H M U N I E X E M P T I N T L A K E E L S I N O R E C A L I F P U B F I N G AU T H T A X 0 4 . 3 7 5 0 0 % 0 9 / 0 1 / 2 0 2 3 AL L O C R E V T A X A L L O C B D S S E R . 20 1 0 A $1 , 6 4 0 . 6 3 To t a l M u n i T a x E x e m p t I n t e r e s t $3 , 7 6 5 . 6 3 To t a l N o n - T a x a b l e I n c o m e $3 , 7 6 5 . 6 3 TO T A L I N C O M E $3 , 7 6 5 . 6 3 Fo o t n o t e s a n d C o s t B a s i s I n f o r m a t i o n Am o r t i z a t i o n , a c c r e t i o n a n d s i m i l a r a d j u s t m e n t s t o c o s t b a s i s h a v e b e e n p r o v i d e d f o r m a n y f i x e d i n c o m e s e c u r i t i e s ( a n d s o m e b o n d - l i k e e q u i t i e s ) , h o w e v e r , t h e y a r e n o t p r o v i d e d f o r c e r t a i n t y p e s , s u c h a s sh o r t - t e r m i n s t r u m e n t s , U n i t I n v e s t m e n t T r u s t s , f o r e i g n f i x e d i n c o m e s e c u r i t i e s , o r t h o s e t h a t a r e s u b j e c t t o e a r l y p r e p a y m e n t o f p r i n c i p a l ( p a y d o w n s ) . W h e r e c u r r e n t y e a r p r e m i u m o r a c q u i s i t i o n p r e m i u m am o r t i z a t i o n i s p r o v i d e d , t h e p r i o r y e a r s ' c u m u l a t i v e a m o r t i z a t i o n i s r e f l e c t e d i n t h e a d j u s t e d c o s t b a s i s , b u t w e c a n n o t p r o v i d e a b r e a k d o w n o r t h e t o t a l o f s u c h p r i o r a m o r t i z a t i o n a m o u n t s . NF S i s r e q u i r e d t o r e p o r t c e r t a i n c o s t b a s i s a n d r e l a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e I R S o n t h e F o r m 1 0 9 9 - B . Y o u r o f f i c i a l 1 0 9 9 - B f o r m s f o r c e r t a i n t r a n s a c t i o n s w i l l r e f l e c t w h i c h l o t s h a v e b e e n s o l d f o r t a x p u r p o s e s . To a p p l y a s p e c i f i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n c o s t b a s i s m e t h o d t o 1 0 9 9 - B r e p o r t i n g , a p p r o p r i a t e i n s t r u c t i o n s m u s t b e o n f i l e w i t h N F S o r b e r e c e i v e d b y N F S b e f o r e t h e t r a d e h a s s e t t l e d . A b s e n t s u c h i n s t r u c t i o n s , N F S de t e r m i n e s c o s t b a s i s a t t h e t i m e o f s a l e b a s e d o n i t s d e f a u l t m e t h o d s o f a v e r a g e c o s t f o r o p e n - e n d m u t u a l f u n d s a n d f i r s t - i n , f i r s t - o u t ( F I F O ) f o r a l l o t h e r ( i n c l u d i n g E T F s ) u n l e s s y o u r b r o k e r d e a l e r h a s el e c t e d t o u s e a n o t h e r d e f a u l t m e t h o d . N F S a p p l i e s F I F O ( o r o t h e r d i s p o s a l m e t h o d , i f a p p l i c a b l e ) b a s e d o n i t s r e c o r d s , w h i c h m a y b e d i f f e r e n t f r o m y o u r s . F o r t r a n s a c t i o n s t h a t a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o 1 0 9 9 - B co s t b a s i s r e p o r t i n g , y o u s h o u l d r e f e r t o y o u r t r a d e c o n f i r m a t i o n s a n d o t h e r a p p l i c a b l e r e c o r d s t o d e t e r m i n e w h i c h l o t s w e r e c o n s i d e r e d s o l d f o r t a x p u r p o s e s . Wh i l e N F S m u s t m e e t I R S r e q u i r e m e n t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o c e r t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d t o b e r e p o r t e d t o t h e I R S , N F S - p r o v i d e d c o s t b a s i s , r e a l i z e d g a i n a n d l o s s , a n d h o l d i n g p e r i o d i n f o r m a t i o n m a y n o t r e f l e c t al l a d j u s t m e n t s n e c e s s a r y f o r y o u r t a x r e p o r t i n g p u r p o s e s . N F S m a k e s n o w a r r a n t i e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o a n d s p e c i f i c a l l y d i s c l a i m s a n y l i a b i l i t y a r i s i n g o u t o f a c u s t o m e r ' s u s e o f , o r a n y t a x p o s i t i o n t a k e n i n re l i a n c e u p o n , s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n . Fo r i n v e s t m e n t s i n p a r t n e r s h i p s , N F S d o e s n o t m a k e a n y a d j u s t m e n t s t o c o s t b a s i s i n f o r m a t i o n a s t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f b a s i s i n s u c h i n v e s t m e n t s r e q u i r e s s u p p l e m e n t a l i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m t h e p a r t n e r s h i p o n i t s in c o m e a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n s d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d y o u h e l d y o u r i n v e s t m e n t . P a r t n e r s h i p s u s u a l l y p r o v i d e t h i s a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n o n a F o r m K - 1 i s s u e d b y A p r i l 1 5 t h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g y e a r . Co n s u l t y o u r t a x a d v i s o r f o r f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n . 117 St a t e m e n t f o r t h e P e r i o d S e p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 6 t o S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 1 6 CI T Y O F C O R O N A D O - U n i n c o r p o r a t e d A s s n Ac c o u n t N u m b e r : W B B - 0 1 2 3 0 0 Pa g e 8 o f 1 0 UN I O N B A N C I N V E S T M E N T S E R V I C E S MN _ C E B C D C Z F B B F P H C Q _ B B B B B 2 0 1 6 0 9 3 0 Ac c o u n t c a r r i e d w i t h N a t i o n a l F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s L L C , M e m b e r NY S E , S I P C Pa g e 8 o f 1 0 Mi s c e l l a n e o u s F o o t n o t e s CH A N G E I N V A L U E O F Y O U R P O R T F O L I O i s t h e c h a n g e i n m a r k e t v a l u e o f y o u r p o r t f o l i o a s s e t s o v e r t h e t i m e p e r i o d s h o w n . T h e p o r t f o l i o a s s e t s i n c l u d e t h e m a r k e t v a l u e o f a l l t h e s e c u r i t i e s i n t h e ac c o u n t , p l u s i n s u r a n c e a n d a n n u i t y a s s e t s i f a p p l i c a b l e . T h e t i m e f r a m e o f t h e g r a p h i s f r o m a c c o u n t o p e n i n g o r S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 1 , w h i c h e v e r i s l a t e r , t o t h e c u r r e n t p e r i o d . P l e a s e n o t e t h a t l a r g e i n c r e a s e s an d / o r d e c l i n e s i n t h e c h a n g e i n t h e v a l u e o f t h e p o r t f o l i o c a n b e d u e t o a d d i t i o n s , d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d / o r p e r f o r m a n c e . CH A N G E I N I N V E S T M E N T V A L U E i s t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e p r i o r p e r i o d a n d c u r r e n t p e r i o d v a l u e s w h i c h i n c l u d e s t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n s e c u r i t i e s t h a t w e r e b o u g h t , s o l d a n d r e d e e m e d d u r i n g t h i s t i m e pe r i o d a s w e l l a s a n y a c t i v i t y t h a t o c c u r r e d s u c h a s a d d i t i o n s a n d w i t h d r a w a l s , s e c u r i t i e s t r a n s f e r r e d , i n c o m e , e x p e n s e s , a n d o t h e r a c t i v i t y . T h i s d o e s n o t r e f l e c t a c t i v i t y r e l a t e d t o a s s e t s i n w h i c h N a t i o n a l Fi n a n c i a l i s n o t t h e c u s t o d i a n ( e . g . I n s u r a n c e a n d A n n u i t i e s , A s s e t s H e l d A w a y a n d O t h e r A s s e t s H e l d A w a y ) . CA L L A B L E S E C U R I T I E S L O T T E R Y - W h e n s t r e e t n a m e o r b e a r e r s e c u r i t i e s h e l d f o r y o u a r e s u b j e c t t o a p a r t i a l c a l l o r p a r t i a l r e d e m p t i o n b y t h e i s s u e r , N F S m a y o r m a y n o t r e c e i v e a n a l l o c a t i o n o f ca l l e d / r e d e e m e d s e c u r i t i e s b y t h e i s s u e r , t r a n s f e r a g e n t a n d / o r d e p o s i t o r y . I f N F S i s a l l o c a t e d a p o r t i o n o f t h e c a l l e d / r e d e e m e d s e c u r i t i e s , N F S u t i l i z e s a n i m p a r t i a l l o t t e r y a l l o c a t i o n s y s t e m , i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h ap p l i c a b l e r u l e s , t h a t r a n d o m l y s e l e c t s t h e s e c u r i t i e s w i t h i n c u s t o m e r a c c o u n t s t h a t w i l l b e c a l l e d / r e d e e m e d . N F S ' a l l o c a t i o n s a r e n o t m a d e o n a p r o r a t a b a s i s a n d i t i s p o s s i b l e f o r y o u t o r e c e i v e a f u l l o r pa r t i a l a l l o c a t i o n , o r n o a l l o c a t i o n . Y o u h a v e t h e r i g h t t o w i t h d r a w u n c a l l e d f u l l y p a i d s e c u r i t i e s a t a n y t i m e p r i o r t o t h e c u t o f f d a t e a n d t i m e e s t a b l i s h e d b y t h e i s s u e r , t r a n s f e r a g e n t a n d / o r d e p o s i t o r y w i t h re s p e c t t o t h e p a r t i a l c a l l , a n d a l s o t o w i t h d r a w e x c e s s m a r g i n s e c u r i t i e s p r o v i d e d y o u r a c c o u n t i s n o t s u b j e c t t o r e s t r i c t i o n u n d e r R e g u l a t i o n T o r s u c h w i t h d r a w a l w i l l n o t c a u s e a n u n d e r m a r g i n e d c o n d i t i o n . PR I C I N G I N F O R M A T I O N - P r i c e s d i s p l a y e d a r e o b t a i n e d f r o m s o u r c e s t h a t m a y i n c l u d e p r i c i n g v e n d o r s , b r o k e r / d e a l e r s w h o c l e a r t h r o u g h N F S a n d / o r o t h e r s o u r c e s . P r i c e s m a y n o t r e f l e c t c u r r e n t f a i r m a r k e t va l u e a n d / o r m a y n o t b e r e a d i l y m a r k e t a b l e o r r e d e e m a b l e a t t h e p r i c e s s h o w n . FO R E I G N E X C H A N G E T R A N S A C T I O N S - S o m e t r a n s a c t i o n t y p e s n e c e s s i t a t e a f o r e i g n c u r r e n c y e x c h a n g e ( F X ) i n o r d e r t o s e t t l e . F X t r a n s a c t i o n s m a y b e e f f e c t e d b y F i d e l i t y F o r e x , I n c . o n a p r i n c i p a l b a s i s . Fi d e l i t y F o r e x , I n c . , a n a f f i l i a t e o f N F S , m a y i m p o s e a c o m m i s s i o n o r m a r k u p o n t h e p r e v a i l i n g i n t e r b a n k m a r k e t p r i c e , w h i c h m a y r e s u l t i n a h i g h e r p r i c e t o y o u . F i d e l i t y F o r e x , I n c . m a y s h a r e a p o r t i o n o f a n y FX c o m m i s s i o n o r m a r k u p w i t h N F S . M o r e f a v o r a b l e r a t e s m a y b e a v a i l a b l e t h r o u g h t h i r d p a r t i e s n o t a f f i l i a t e d w i t h N F S . T h e r a t e a p p l i c a b l e t o a n y t r a n s a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g a n F X i s a v a i l a b l e u p o n r e q u e s t th r o u g h y o u r b r o k e r - d e a l e r . CO S T B A S I S L E G I S L A T I O N - N e w I R S R u l e s w i l l r e q u i r e N a t i o n a l F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s t o r e p o r t c o s t b a s i s a n d h o l d i n g p e r i o d i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h e s a l e o f s h a r e s o f o p e n e n d M u t u a l F u n d h o l d i n g s p u r c h a s e d o n or a f t e r J a n u a r y 1 , 2 0 1 2 o n F o r m 1 0 9 9 - B . N a t i o n a l F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s d e t e r m i n e s t h e c o s t b a s i s f o r a l l s h a r e s o f o p e n e n d m u t u a l f u n d s u s i n g a d e f a u l t m e t h o d o f a v e r a g e c o s t . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , a c c o u n t o w n e r s or t h e i r b r o k e r s a n d a d v i s o r s c a n i n s t r u c t N a t i o n a l F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c o s t b a s i s f o r s h a r e s o f o p e n e n d m u t u a l f u n d s b y 1 ) s e t t i n g u p t h e i r n o n - r e t i r e m e n t a c c o u n t s w i t h o n e o f o u r e l e v e n t a x lo t d i s p o s a l m e t h o d s a v a i l a b l e t o i n v e s t o r s o r 2 ) i d e n t i f y i n g s p e c i f i c t a x l o t s t o s e l l a t t h e t i m e o f a t r a n s a c t i o n . C o n t a c t y o u r b r o k e r o r a d v i s o r t o l e a r n m o r e a b o u t t h e c o s t b a s i s t r a c k i n g o f y o u r h o l d i n g s . 118 GL O S S A R Y Sh o r t A c c o u n t B a l a n c e s - I f y o u h a v e s o l d s e c u r i t i e s u n d e r t h e s h o r t s a l e r u l e , w e h a v e , i n ac c o r d a n c e w i t h r e g u l a t i o n s , s e g r e g a t e d t h e p r o c e e d s f r o m s u c h t r a n s a c t i o n s i n y o u r S h o r t A c c o u n t . A n y ma r k e t i n c r e a s e s o r d e c r e a s e s f r o m t h e o r i g i n a l s a l e p r i c e w i l l b e m a r k e d t o t h e m a r k e t a n d w i l l b e t r a n s f e r r e d to y o u r M a r g i n A c c o u n t o n a w e e k l y b a s i s . Ma r k e t V a l u e - T h e T o t a l M a r k e t V a l u e h a s b e e n c a l c u l a t e d o u t t o 9 d e c i m a l p l a c e s , h o w e v e r , t h e i n d i v i d u a l u n i t p r i c e i s d i s p l a y e d i n 5 d e c i m a l p l a c e s . T h e T o t a l M a r k e t V a l u e re p r e s e n t s p r i c e s o b t a i n e d f r o m v a r i o u s s o u r c e s , m a y b e i m p a c t e d b y t h e f r e q u e n c y i n w h i c h s u c h p r i c e s a r e re p o r t e d a n d s u c h p r i c e s a r e n o t g u a r a n t e e d . P r i c e s r e c e i v e d f r o m p r i c i n g v e n d o r s a r e g e n e r a l l y b a s e d o n cu r r e n t m a r k e t q u o t e s , b u t w h e n s u c h q u o t e s a r e n o t a v a i l a b l e t h e p r i c i n g v e n d o r s u s e a v a r i e t y o f t e c h n i q u e s to e s t i m a t e v a l u e . T h e s e e s t i m a t e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r fi x e d i n c o m e s e c u r i t i e s , ma y b e b a s e d o n c e r t a i n min i m u m p r i n c i p a l a m o u n t s ( e . g . $ 1 m i l l i o n ) a n d m a y n o t r e f l e c t a l l o f t h e f a c t o r s t h a t a f f e c t t h e v a l u e o f t h e se c u r i t y , i n c l u d i n g l i q u i d i t y r i s k . T h e p r i c e s p r o v i d e d a r e n o t f i r m b i d s o r o f f e r s . C e r t a i n s e c u r i t i e s m a y r e f l e c t "N / A " o r " u n a v a i l a b l e " w h e r e t h e p r i c e f o r s u c h s e c u r i t y i s g e n e r a l l y n o t a v a i l a b l e f r o m a p r i c i n g s o u r c e . T h e Ma r k e t V a l u e o f a s e c u r i t y , i n c l u d i n g t h o s e p r i c e d a t p a r v a l u e , m a y d i f f e r f r o m i t s p u r c h a s e p r i c e a n d m a y n o t clo s e l y r e f l e c t t h e v a l u e a t w h i c h t h e s e c u r i t y m a y b e s o l d o r p u r c h a s e d b a s e d o n v a r i o u s m a r k e t f a c t o r s . In v e s t m e n t d e c i s i o n s s h o u l d b e m a d e o n l y a f t e r c o n s u l t i n g y o u r b r o k e r - d e a l e r . Es t i m a t e d Y i e l d ( " E Y " ) an d Es t i m a t e d A n n u a l I n c o m e ( " E A I " ) - W h e n a v a i l a b l e , t h e c o u p o n r a t e o f s o m e f i x e d i n c o m e s e c u r i t i e s i s di v i d e d b y t h e c u r r e n t m a r k e t v a l u e o f t h e f i x e d i n c o m e s e c u r i t y t o c r e a t e t h e E Y f i g u r e a n d / o r t h e c u r r e n t in t e r e s t r a t e o r m o s t r e c e n t l y d e c l a r e d d i v i d e n d s f o r c e r t a i n s e c u r i t i e s a r e a n n u a l i z e d t o c r e a t e t h e E A I f i g u r e . EA I a n d E Y a r e e s t i m a t e s , a n d t h e i n c o m e a n d y i e l d m i g h t b y l o w e r o r h i g h e r . E s t i m a t e s m a y i n c l u d e r e t u r n o f pr i n c i p a l o r c a p i t a l g a i n s , w h i c h w o u l d r e n d e r t h e m o v e r s t a t e d . I n a d d i t i o n , E A I i s c a l c u l a t e d f o r p o s i t i o n s o r ac c o u n t s w h e r e d i v i d e n d s a r e r e i n v e s t e d a n d n o t p a i d a s i n c o m e . E Y r e f l e c t s o n l y t h e i n c o m e g e n e r a t e d b y a n in v e s t m e n t ; n o t c h a n g e s i n p r i c e s w h i c h f l u c t u a t e . T h e s e f i g u r e s a r e b a s e d o n m a t h e m a t i c a l c a l c u l a t i o n s o f av a i l a b l e d a t a , a n d h a v e b e e n o b t a i n e d f r o m i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e r s b e l i e v e d t o b e r e l i a b l e , b u t n o a s s u r a n c e ca n b e m a d e a s t o a c c u r a c y . S i n c e t h e i n t e r e s t a n d d i v i d e n d r a t e s a r e s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e a t a n y t i m e , a n d m a y be a f f e c t e d b y c u r r e n t a n d f u t u r e e c o n o m i c , p o l i t i c a l a n d b u s i n e s s c o n d i t i o n s , t h e y s h o u l d n o t b e r e l i e d o n f o r ma k i n g i n v e s t m e n t , t r a d i n g d e c i s i o n s , o r t a x d e c i s i o n s . CU S T O M E R S E R V I C E : Pl e a s e r e v i e w y o u r s t a t e m e n t a n d r e p o r t a n y d i s c r e p a n c i e s i m m e d i a t e l y . I n q u i r i e s o r co n c e r n s r e g a r d i n g y o u r b r o k e r a g e a c c o u n t o r t h e a c t i v i t y t h e r e i n s h o u l d b e d i r e c t e d t o y o u r b r o k e r - d e a l e r a t t h e te l e p h o n e n u m b e r a n d a d d r e s s r e f l e c t e d o n t h e f r o n t o f t h i s s t a t e m e n t a n d N a t i o n a l F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s L L C (" N F S " ) w h o c a r r i e s y o u r b r o k e r a g e a c c o u n t a n d a c t s a s y o u r c u s t o d i a n f o r f u n d s a n d s e c u r i t i e s t h a t a r e de p o s i t e d w i t h N F S b y y o u o r y o u r b r o k e r - d e a l e r , o r a s a r e s u l t o f t r a n s a c t i o n s N F S p r o c e s s e s f o r y o u r a c c o u n t , ma y a l s o b e c o n t a c t e d f o r s t a t e m e n t d i s c r e p a n c i e s . N F S m a y b e c a l l e d a t (8 0 0 ) 8 0 1 - 9 9 4 2 . An y o r a l co m m u n i c a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g i n a c c u r a c i e s o r d i s c r e p a n c i e s s h o u l d b e r e c o n f i r m e d i n w r i t i n g t o p r o t e c t y o u r r i g h t s , in c l u d i n g t h o s e u n d e r t h e S e c u r i t i e s I n v e s t o r P r o t e c t i o n A c t ( " S I P A " ) . W h e n c o n t a c t i n g e i t h e r N F S o r y o u r br o k e r - d e a l e r , r e m e m b e r t o i n c l u d e y o u r e n t i r e b r o k e r a g e a c c o u n t n u m b e r t o e n s u r e a p r o m p t r e p l y . P l e a s e n o t i f y th e s e r v i c e c e n t e r o r y o u r b r o k e r - d e a l e r p r o m p t l y i n w r i t i n g o f a n y c h a n g e o f a d d r e s s . AD D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N F r e e c r e d i t b a l a n c e s ("F C B " ) a r e f u n d s p a y a b l e t o y o u o n d e m a n d . F C B a r e su b j e c t t o o p e n c o m m i t m e n t s s u c h a s u n c l e a r e d c h e c k d e p o s i t s , a n d e x c l u d e p r o c e e d s f r o m s a l e s o f c e r t i f i c a t e d se c u r i t i e s w i t h o u t d e l i v e r y o f t h e c e r t i f i c a t e . I f y o u r F C B i s a u t o m a t i c a l l y t r a n s f e r r e d t o a m o n e y m a r k e t f u n d o r t o an F D I C i n s u r e d b a n k a c c o u n t y o u u s e a s y o u r b r o k e r a g e a c c o u n t ' s c o r e p o s i t i o n , y o u c a n l i q u i d a t e t h e s h a r e s o f th e m o n e y m a r k e t f u n d o r b a n k b a l a n c e s a t a n y t i m e a n d h a v e t h e p r o c e e d s r e m i t t e d t o y o u o r h e l d i n y o u r br o k e r a g e a c c o u n t s u b j e c t t o t h e t e r m s a n d c o n d i t i o n s o f y o u r a c c o u n t a g r e e m e n t . I n t e r e s t o n f r e e c r e d i t ba l a n c e s a w a i t i n g r e i n v e s t m e n t m a y b e p a i d o u t a t r a t e s t h a t m a y v a r y w i t h c u r r e n t s h o r t - t e r m m o n e y m a r k e t ra t e s a n d / o r y o u r b r o k e r a g e a c c o u n t b a l a n c e s , s e t a t t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f y o u r b r o k e r - d e a l e r a n d / o r N F S . R e q u i r e d ru l e 1 0 b - 1 0 ( a ) i n f o r m a t i o n n o t c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n w i l l b e p r o v i d e d u p o n w r i t t e n r e q u e s t . Cr e d i t A d j u s t m e n t P r o g r a m . Ac c o u n t h o l d e r s r e c e i v i n g p a y m e n t s i n l i e u o f q u a l i f i e d d i v i d e n d s m a y n o t b e eli g i b l e t o r e c e i v e c r e d i t a d j u s t m e n t s i n t e n d e d t o h e l p c o v e r a d d i t i o n a l a s s o c i a t e d f e d e r a l t a x b u r d e n s . N F S re s e r v e s t h e r i g h t t o d e n y t h e a d j u s t m e n t t o a n y a c c o u n t h o l d e r a n d t o a m e n d o r t e r m i n a t e t h e c r e d i t a d j u s t m e n t pr o g r a m . Op t i o n s C u s t o m e r s . Ea c h t r a n s a c t i o n c o n f i r m a t i o n p r e v i o u s l y d e l i v e r e d t o y o u c o n t a i n s f u l l i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t co m m i s s i o n s a n d o t h e r c h a r g e s . I f y o u r e q u i r e f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n , p l e a s e c o n t a c t y o u r b r o k e r - d e a l e r . As s i g n m e n t s o f A m e r i c a n a n d E u r o p e a n - s t y l e o p t i o n s a r e a l l o c a t e d a m o n g c u s t o m e r s h o r t p o s i t i o n s p u r s u a n t t o a r a n d o m a l l o c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e , a d e s c r i p t i o n o f w h i c h i s a v a i l a b l e u p o n r e q u e s t . S h o r t p o s i t i o n s i n Am e r i c a n - s t y l e o p t i o n s a r e l i a b l e f o r a s s i g n m e n t a t a n y t i m e . T h e w r i t e r o f a E u r o p e a n - s t y l e o p t i o n i s s u b j e c t t o ex e r c i s e a s s i g n m e n t o n l y d u r i n g t h e e x e r c i s e p e r i o d . Y o u s h o u l d a d v i s e y o u r b r o k e r - d e a l e r p r o m p t l y o f a n y ma t e r i a l c h a n g e i n y o u r i n v e s t m e n t o b j e c t i v e s o r f i n a n c i a l s i t u a t i o n . Sp l i t s , D i v i d e n d s , a n d I n t e r e s t . Ex p e c t e d st o c k s p l i t , n e x t d i v i d e n d p a y a b l e , a n d n e x t i n t e r e s t p a y a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n h a s b e e n p r o v i d e d b y t h i r d p a r t i e s a n d ma y b e s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e . I n f o r m a t i o n f o r c e r t a i n s e c u r i t i e s m a y b e m i s s i n g i f n o t r e c e i v e d f r o m t h i r d p a r t i e s i n tim e f o r p r i n t i n g . N F S i s n o t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i n a c c u r a t e , i n c o m p l e t e , o r m i s s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . P l e a s e c o n s u l t y o u r br o k e r - d e a l e r f o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t e x p e c t e d s t o c k s p l i t , n e x t d i v i d e n d p a y a b l e , a n d n e x t i n t e r e s t p a y a b l e f o r ce r t a i n s e c u r i t i e s . Eq u i t y D i v i d e n d R e i n v e s t m e n t C u s t o m e r s . Sh a r e s c r e d i t e d t o y o u r b r o k e r a g e a c c o u n t r e s u l t e d f r o m tr a n s a c t i o n s e f f e c t e d a s a g e n t b y e i t h e r : 1 ) Y o u r b r o k e r - d e a l e r f o r y o u r i n v e s t m e n t a c c o u n t , o r 2 ) t h r o u g h t h e De p o s i t o r y T r u s t C o m p a n y ( D T C ) d i v i d e n d r e i n v e s t m e n t p r o g r a m . F o r b r o k e r - d e a l e r e f f e c t e d t r a n s a c t i o n s , t h e tim e o f t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s , t h e e x c h a n g e u p o n w h i c h t h e s e t r a n s a c t i o n s o c c u r r e d a n d t h e n a m e o f t h e p e r s o n f r o m wh o m t h e s e c u r i t y w a s p u r c h a s e d w i l l b e f u r n i s h e d u p o n w r i t t e n r e q u e s t . N F S m a y h a v e a c t e d a s m a r k e t m a k e r in e f f e c t i n g t r a d e s i n ' o v e r - t h e - c o u n t e r ' s e c u r i t i e s . Re t i r e m e n t C o n t r i b u t i o n s / D i s t r i b u t i o n s . A s u m m a r y o f r e t i r e m e n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s / d i s t r i b u t i o n s i s d i s p l a y e d f o r yo u i n t h e a c t i v i t y s u m m a r y s e c t i o n o f y o u r s t a t e m e n t . In c o m e R e p o r t i n g . NF S r e p o r t s e a r n i n g s f r o m in v e s t m e n t s i n T r a d i t i o n a l I R A s , R o l l o v e r I R A s , S E P - I R A s a n d , K e o g h s a s t a x - d e f e r r e d i n c o m e . E a r n i n g s f r o m Ro t h I R A s a r e r e p o r t e d a s t a x - f r e e i n c o m e , s i n c e d i s t r i b u t i o n s m a y b e t a x - f r e e a f t e r m e e t i n g t h e 5 y e a r a g i n g re q u i r e m e n t a n d c e r t a i n o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s . A f i n a n c i a l s t a t e m e n t of N F S i s a v a i l a b l e f o r y o u r p e r s o n a l in s p e c t i o n a t i t s o f f i c e o r a c o p y o f i t w i l l b e m a i l e d t o y o u u p o n y o u r w r i t t e n r e q u e s t . St a t e m e n t M a i l i n g . NF S w i l l d e l i v e r s t a t e m e n t s b y m a i l o r , i f a p p l i c a b l e , n o t i f y y o u b y e - m a i l o f y o u r s t a t e m e n t ' s av a i l a b i l i t y , i f y o u h a d t r a n s a c t i o n s t h a t a f f e c t e d y o u r c a s h b a l a n c e s o r s e c u r i t y p o s i t i o n s h e l d i n y o u r a c c o u n t ( s ) du r i n g t h e l a s t m o n t h l y r e p o r t i n g p e r i o d . A t a m i n i m u m , a l l b r o k e r a g e c u s t o m e r s w i l l r e c e i v e q u a r t e r l y s t a t e m e n t s (a t l e a s t f o u r t i m e s p e r c a l e n d a r y e a r ) a s l o n g a s t h e i r a c c o u n t s c o n t a i n a c a s h o r s e c u r i t i e s b a l a n c e . Lo a d s a n d F e e s . I n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h ( i ) a c c e s s t o , p u r c h a s e o r r e d e m p t i o n o f , a n d / o r m a i n t e n a n c e o f p o s i t i o n s i n mu t u a l f u n d s a n d o t h e r i n v e s t m e n t p r o d u c t s ( " f u n d s " ) o r ( i i ) i n f r a s t r u c t u r e n e e d e d t o s u p p o r t s u c h f u n d s , s o m e fu n d s , o r t h e i r i n v e s t m e n t a f f i l i a t e s , p a y y o u r i n t r o d u c i n g b r o k e r d e a l e r a n d / o r N F S s a l e s l o a d s a n d 1 2 b - 1 f e e s de s c r i b e d i n t h e p r o s p e c t u s a s w e l l a s a d d i t i o n a l c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r s h a r e h o l d e r s e r v i c e s , i n f r a s t r u c t u r e s u p p o r t an d m a i n t e n a n c e , a n d o t h e r p r o g r a m s . A d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e s o u r c e ( s ) a n d a m o u n t ( s ) o f co m p e n s a t i o n a s w e l l a s o t h e r r e m u n e r a t i o n r e c e i v e d b y y o u r i n t r o d u c i n g b r o k e r d e a l e r a n d / o r N F S w i l l b e fu r n i s h e d t o y o u u p o n w r i t t e n r e q u e s t . A t t i m e o f p u r c h a s e f u n d s h a r e s m a y b e a s s i g n e d a l o a d , t r a n s a c t i o n f e e o r no t r a n s a c t i o n f e e s t a t u s . A t t i m e o f s a l e , a n y f e e s a p p l i c a b l e t o y o u r t r a n s a c t i o n w i l l b e a s s e s s e d b a s e d o n t h e st a t u s a s s i g n e d t o t h e s h a r e s a t t i m e o f p u r c h a s e . Ma r g i n . If y o u h a v e a p p l i e d f o r m a r g i n p r i v i l e g e s a n d b e e n ap p r o v e d , y o u m a y b o r r o w m o n e y f r o m N F S i n e x c h a n g e f o r p l e d g i n g t h e a s s e t s i n y o u r a c c o u n t a s c o l l a t e r a l f o r an y o u t s t a n d i n g m a r g i n l o a n . T h e a m o u n t y o u m a y b o r r o w i s b a s e d o n t h e v a l u e o f s e c u r i t i e s i n y o u r m a r g i n ac c o u n t , w h i c h i s i d e n t i f i e d o n y o u r s t a t e m e n t . I f y o u h a v e a m a r g i n a c c o u n t , t h i s i s a c o m b i n e d s t a t e m e n t o f y o u r ma r g i n a c c o u n t a n d s p e c i a l m e m o r a n d u m a c c o u n t o t h e r t h a n y o u r n o n - p u r p o s e m a r g i n a c c o u n t s m a i n t a i n e d f o r yo u u n d e r S e c t i o n 2 2 0 . 5 o f R e g u l a t i o n T i s s u e d b y t h e B o a r d o f G o v e r n o r s o f t h e F e d e r a l R e s e r v e B o a r d . T h e pe r m a n e n t r e c o r d o f t h e s e p a r a t e a c c o u n t , a s r e q u i r e d b y R e g u l a t i o n T , i s a v a i l a b l e f o r y o u r i n s p e c t i o n u p o n re q u e s t . NY S E a n d F I N R A . All t r a n s a c t i o n s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n , r u l e s , r e g u l a t i o n s , c u s t o m s , u s a g e s , ru l i n g s a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e e x c h a n g e m a r k e t a n d i t s c l e a r i n g h o u s e , i f a n y , w h e r e t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s a r e ex e c u t e d , a n d o f t h e N e w Y o r k S t o c k E x c h a n g e ( N Y S E ) a n d o f t h e F i n a n c i a l I n d u s t r y R e g u l a t o r y A u t h o r i t y (" F I N R A " ) . T h e F I N R A r e q u i r e s t h a t w e n o t i f y y o u i n w r i t i n g o f t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f a n i n v e s t o r b r o c h u r e t h a t i n c l u d e s in f o r m a t i o n d e s c r i b i n g F I N R A R e g u l a t i o n ' s B r o k e r C h e c k P r o g r a m ( " P r o g r a m " ) . T o o b t a i n a b r o c h u r e o r m o r e in f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e P r o g r a m o r F I N R A R e g u l a t i o n , c o n t a c t t h e F I N R A R e g u l a t i o n B r o k e r C h e c k P r o g r a m H o t l i n e at ( 8 0 0 ) 2 8 9 - 9 9 9 9 o r a c c e s s t h e F I N R A ' s w e b s i t e a t w w w . f i n r a . o r g . FI N R A R u l e 4 3 1 1 re q u i r e s t h a t y o u r br o k e r - d e a l e r a n d N F S a l l o c a t e b e t w e e n t h e m c e r t a i n f u n c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f y o u r b r o k e r a g e ac c o u n t . T h e f o l l o w i n g i s a s u m m a r y o f t h e a l l o c a t i o n s e r v i c e s p e r f o r m e d b y y o u r b r o k e r - d e a l e r a n d N F S . A m o r e co m p l e t e d e s c r i p t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e u p o n r e q u e s t . Y o u r b r o k e r - d e a l e r i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r : (1 ) o b t a i n i n g a n d ve r i f y i n g b r o k e r a g e a c c o u n t i n f o r m a t i o n a n d d o c u m e n t a t i o n , ( 2 ) o p e n i n g , a p p r o v i n g a n d m o n i t o r i n g y o u r br o k e r a g e a c c o u n t , ( 3 ) t r a n s m i t t i n g t i m e l y a n d a c c u r a t e o r d e r s a n d o t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n s t o N F S w i t h r e s p e c t t o y o u r br o k e r a g e a c c o u n t , ( 4 ) d e t e r m i n i n g t h e s u i t a b i l i t y o f i n v e s t m e n t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a n d a d v i c e , ( 5 ) o p e r a t i n g , a n d su p e r v i s i n g y o u r b r o k e r a g e a c c o u n t a n d i t s o w n a c t i v i t i e s i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h a p p l i c a b l e l a w s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s in c l u d i n g c o m p l i a n c e w i t h m a r g i n r u l e s p e r t a i n i n g t o y o u r m a r g i n a c c o u n t , i f a p p l i c a b l e , a n d ( 6 ) m a i n t a i n i n g re q u i r e d b o o k s a n d r e c o r d s f o r t h e s e r v i c e s t h a t i t p e r f o r m s . N F S s h a l l , a t t h e d i r e c t i o n o f y o u r br o k e r - d e a l e r : (1 ) e x e c u t e , c l e a r a n d s e t t l e t r a n s a c t i o n s p r o c e s s e d t h r o u g h N F S b y y o u r b r o k e r - d e a l e r , ( 2 ) pr e p a r e a n d s e n d t r a n s a c t i o n c o n f i r m a t i o n s a n d p e r i o d i c s t a t e m e n t s o f y o u r b r o k e r a g e a c c o u n t ( u n l e s s y o u r br o k e r - d e a l e r h a s u n d e r t a k e n t o d o s o ) . C e r t a i n s e c u r i t i e s p r i c i n g a n d d e s c r i p t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n m a y b e p r o v i d e d b y yo u r b r o k e r - d e a l e r o r o b t a i n e d f r o m t h i r d p a r t i e s d e e m e d t o b e r e l i a b l e , h o w e v e r , t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n h a s n o t b e e n ve r i f i e d b y N F S , ( 3 ) a c t a s c u s t o d i a n f o r f u n d s a n d s e c u r i t i e s r e c e i v e d b y N F S o n y o u r b e h a l f , ( 4 ) f o l l o w t h e in s t r u c t i o n s o f y o u r b r o k e r - d e a l e r w i t h r e s p e c t t o t r a n s a c t i o n s a n d t h e r e c e i p t a n d d e l i v e r y o f f u n d s a n d s e c u r i t i e s fo r y o u r b r o k e r a g e a c c o u n t , a n d ( 5 ) e x t e n d m a r g i n c r e d i t f o r p u r c h a s i n g o r c a r r y i n g s e c u r i t i e s o n m a r g i n . Y o u r br o k e r - d e a l e r i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r e n s u r i n g t h a t y o u r b r o k e r a g e a c c o u n t i s i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h f e d e r a l , i n d u s t r y a n d NF S m a r g i n r u l e s , a n d f o r a d v i s i n g y o u o f m a r g i n r e q u i r e m e n t s . N F S s h a l l m a i n t a i n t h e r e q u i r e d b o o k s a n d re c o r d s f o r t h e s e r v i c e s i t p e r f o r m s . S e c u r i t i e s i n a c c o u n t s c a r r i e d b y N F S a r e p r o t e c t e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h th e S e c u r i t i e s I n v e s t o r P r o t e c t i o n C o r p o r a t i o n ( " S I P C " ) u p t o $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 . T h e $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 t o t a l a m o u n t o f S I P C pr o t e c t i o n i s i n c l u s i v e o f u p t o $ 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 p r o t e c t i o n f o r c l a i m s f o r c a s h , s u b j e c t t o p e r i o d i c a d j u s t m e n t s f o r i n f l a t i o n in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t e r m s o f t h e S I P C s t a t u t e a n d a p p r o v a l b y S I P C ' s B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s . N F S a l s o h a s a r r a n g e d fo r c o v e r a g e a b o v e t h e s e l i m i t s . N e i t h e r c o v e r a g e p r o t e c t s a g a i n s t a d e c l i n e i n t h e m a r k e t v a l u e o f s e c u r i t i e s , n o r do e s e i t h e r c o v e r a g e e x t e n d t o c e r t a i n s e c u r i t i e s t h a t a r e c o n s i d e r e d i n e l i g i b l e f o r c o v e r a g e . F o r m o r e d e t a i l s o n SI P C , o r t o r e q u e s t a S I P C b r o c h u r e , v i s i t w w w . s i p c . o r g o r c a l l 1 - 2 0 2 - 3 7 1 - 8 3 0 0 . F u n d s u s e d t o p u r c h a s e o r sw e e p t o a b a n k d e p o s i t a r e S I P C p r o t e c t e d u n t i l d e p o s i t e d t o a P r o g r a m B a n k a t w h i c h t i m e f u n d s m a y b e el i g i b l e f o r F D I C i n s u r a n c e . A s s e t s H e l d A w a y , c o m m o d i t i e s , u n r e g i s t e r e d i n v e s t m e n t c o n t r a c t s , f u t u r e s ac c o u n t s , l o a n e d s e c u r i t i e s a n d o t h e r i n v e s t m e n t s m a y n o t b e c o v e r e d . P r e c i o u s m e t a l s a r e n o t c o v e r e d b y S I P C pr o t e c t i o n . M u t u a l f u n d s a n d / o r o t h e r s e c u r i t i e s a r e n o t b a c k e d o r g u a r a n t e e d b y a n y b a n k , n o r a r e t h e y i n s u r e d b y th e F D I C a n d i n v o l v e i n v e s t m e n t r i s k i n c l u d i n g p o s s i b l e l o s s o f p r i n c i p a l . En d o f S t a t e m e n t 72 2 2 3 9 . 3 . 0 UN I O N B A N C I N V E S T M E N T S E R V I C E S MN _ C E B C D C Z F B B F P H C Q _ B B B B B 2 0 1 6 0 9 3 0 Ac c o u n t c a r r i e d w i t h N a t i o n a l F i n a n c i a l S e r v i c e s L L C , M e m b e r NY S E , S I P C Pa g e 9 o f 1 0 119 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 120 12/06/16 RESULTS OF THE FREE SUMMER SHUTTLE AND SILVER STRAND SHUTTLE PILOT PROJECT FOR SUMMER 2016 RECOMMENDATION: Receive report. FISCAL IMPACT: The Free Summer Shuttle and the Free Silver Strand Shuttle cost the City of Coronado approximately $160,000 and $60,000, respectively. In addition to the costs to the City, the Coronado Tourism Improvement District (CTID) contributed $60,724 for the Silver Strand Shuttle (which included the cost to wrap the bus), and paid to wrap the Village Free Summer Shuttle. The Loews Coronado Bay Resort (Loews Resort) also contributed $32,000 in in-kind services for the Silver Strand Shuttle. PUBLIC NOTICE: None required. However, the CTID, Loews, and the Coronado Cays Homeowners Association (HOA) were made aware of this agenda item. BACKGROUND: Beginning with the Free Summer Shuttle pilot program in 2013, the City of Coronado has annually provided a free shuttle replacing MTS’s Route 904 service during the summer with the following elements: •Free rides for all passengers •Increased frequency of service from hourly to 30 minutes in 2013 and 2014, to 20 minutesin 2015, and 15 minutes in 2016. •Expanded hours of operation to 8:57 a.m. – 9:42 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 8:57a.m. – 10:42 p.m. Friday and Saturday. In addition, in 2015, the City also offered free bus passes to residents of the Cays to ride the MTS 901 bus to a summer Sunday concert and into the Village on the 4th of July at a total cost of $2,692. In 2016, the Council approved a Pilot Project to add a Silver Strand Shuttle Pilot Project service into the Coronado Cays via an agreement with Loews Resort, with a 30-minute frequency and the same hours of operation as the Summer Shuttle. RESULTS OF THE FREE SUMMER SHUTTLE: The standard Free Summer Shuttle operated seven days a week from May 27 to September 25. The route consisted of the MTS 904 route between the Coronado Ferry Landing and Coronado City Hall. The City opted to increase service frequency from three trips per hour in 2015 (every 20 minutes) to four trips per hour in 2016 (every 15 minutes). In addition, the southern terminal was relocated from Avenida de las Arenas to SR-75 (north of Avenida de las Arenas). The comparative results for August and September 2016 are shown in Table 1 below. Table 1: August and September Percent Ridership Change in Free Summer Shuttle Summer August September Total Per Day Per Trip Total Per Day Per Trip 2016 50,768 1,638 16.4 24,613 985 9.8 2015 40,937 1,321 17.4 10,481 806 10.6 % Increase 24.0% 22.2% 121 5k 12/06/16 A comparison between 2015 and 2016 for August and September indicates a 24% increase in daily ridership in August 2016 and a 22% increase in September 2016. Unfortunately, MTS data from May 27 through mid-July was deemed unreliable, due to unexplained anomalies. The continued growth in ridership for the Free Summer Shuttle demonstrates a successful transit program. Therefore, staff will return in the near future with recommendations on continuing the Free Summer Shuttle Program in 2017. RESULTS OF THE SILVER STRAND SHUTTLE PILOT PROJECT: The Silver Strand Shuttle operated seven days a week from May 27 to September 25. The route included three southbound and seven northbound stops, including three stops in the Cays, one stop at the Loews Resort and one stop in the Village at Orange and Adella. As shown in Table 2 below, the Silver Strand Shuttle averaged 326 boardings per day. About 195 of these boarding were in the northbound direction (going to the Village). Of these 195 boardings, approximately 155 originated from the Loews and 31 from the three Cays stops, with the remainder from stops adjacent to Navy facilities along the Strand. Table 2: Total Boardings = 39,838 Silver Strand Stop Total Southbound Boardings Total Northbound Boardings Average per Day (122 days) Percent Southbound Percent Northbound Cays stops (Cays Park, Blue Anchor, and Cays Entrance) - 4,040 33.11 - 16.96% Loews - 18,941 155.25 - 79.53% Attu - North - 255 2.09 - 1.07% Leyte - North - 351 2.88 - 1.47% NAB - North - 228 1.87 - 0.96% Sub-Total 23,815 195.20 - 100% Orange/Adella 15,584 - 127.74 97.26% - NAB - South 344 - 2.82 2.15% - Leyte - South 95 - 0.78 0.59% - Sub-Total 16,023 - 131.34 100% - TOTAL 16,023 23,815 326.54 40.22% 59.78% Cost of Silver Strand Shuttle Service: The Silver Strand Shuttle cost $152,724 to implement with the City contributing $60,000, the CTID $60,724, and the Loews Resort $32,000 in in-kind contributions. Total boardings from May 27 to September 25 was 39,838 passengers. Ridership: Appendix Figure 1 illustrates total boardings by week fluctuated throughout the summer, with peak usage occurring July 4-10 (2,977) and August 1-7 (2,976), and lowest ridership June 6-12 (1,580), and September 12-18 (1,276). Appendix Figure 2 graphically demonstrates ridership by pick-up location, with the Loews representing nearly 80% of all riders in the northbound direction. 122 12/06/16 Table 3 below describes the total boardings and cost of the Silver Strand Shuttle as compared to the Free Summer Shuttle. Table 4 describes the cost per unique Cays passenger served for the Silver Strand Shuttle. Table 3: Free Summer Shuttle Cost per Boarding Total Cost Cost to City Total Boardings Total Cost Per Boarding City Cost Per Boarding Summer Shuttle $181,116.20 $160,948.20 138,584 $1.31 $1.16 Silver Strand Shuttle $152,724 $60,000 39,838 $3.83 $1.51 Table 4: Cost per Passenger from the Cays Cost to City Total Cays Passengers Cost per Cays Passenger Silver Strand Shuttle $60,000 4,040 $14.85 Understanding that the Loews Coronado Bay Resort already provided shuttle service to its customers prior to implementation of this Pilot Project, it is reasonable to assume that they will continue to provide such service for their customers in the future, without support from the CTID or the City. Therefore, it is fair to assume that the funding provided by the City was primarily for the purpose of generating ridership from the Cays. Unfortunately, given a cost of $14.85 per unique Cays rider, the Silver Strand Shuttle was not a very cost effective solution. Given the above information, staff will not be recommending a similar level of service to the Cays in 2017, but will rather come back in the near future with alternative recommendations that provide other cost effective transportation options for Cays residents to include services on the 4th of July. Submitted by Public Services & Engineering/Scrivener CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR N/A JNC MLC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 123 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 124 12/06/16 APPENDIX Figure 1: Silver Strand Ridership by Week Figure 2: Silver Strand Summer Bus Ridership by Stop 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Ridership by Week 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 Silver Strand Shuttle -Ridership by Stop 125 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 126 12/06/16 SUMMARY OF SUMMER 2016 PILOT PROJECT VALET PARKING PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION: Receive report. FISCAL IMPACT: The net cost of the Pilot Project Valet Parking Program ($26,778) was paid for by the Coronado Tourism Improvement District. CEQA: The three-month pilot project is categorically exempt under CEQA Section 15306 Class 6, Information Collection. PUBLIC NOTICE: None required; however, the Chamber of Commerce, MainStreet, the Tourism Improvement District, the ownership of the Coronado Plaza, and David Spatafore were made aware of this item. BACKGROUND: On May 3, 2016 the City Council approved moving forward with a three- month pilot project for valet parking on B Avenue utilizing the Bank of America parking garage. This included converting three metered parking spaces on B Avenue to valet use to be offset by converting 60 feet of existing 20-minute yellow loading zone (no longer used for valet) in front of the Coronado Plaza on Orange into three metered parking spaces. Subsequently, the ownership of the Coronado Plaza objected to the loss of the loading zone and compelled their vendor, LAZ Parking, to only commit to providing access to the Bank of America garage if the loading zone in front of the Coronado Plaza was not converted to metered parking during the test period. Therefore, on June 21, 2016, the Council reconsidered the Pilot Valet Parking Program, approving moving forward with the program without converting the yellow zone in front of the Coronado Plaza into metered parking, leaving that issue to be addressed after the conclusion of the Pilot Parking Program. The Pilot Valet Parking Program began on July 7, 2016, with an established cost of $5 dollars for the first three hours, and $10 for each additional hour. Valet cars were parked in 40 spaces under contract by LAZ in the Bank of America (BofA) parking garage during the day, with an additional 15 spaces available in the same garage after 5 p.m. It included strategically placed signage on Orange Avenue and Tenth Street to direct cars to the valet location. ANALYSIS: A total of 1,869 vehicles used the valet service over a period of 63 days. As shown in the Pilot Project Valet Use Summary (attached), an average of 19.49 vehicles were parked on weekdays and an average of 55.11 vehicles were parked per weekend day. The top five destinations of those taking advantage of the valet parking service, were: Dinner 39% (728); Lunch 22.6% (423); Walking Around 21% (393); the Beach 7.5% (140); and the Theater 3.9% (73). The average amount collected per car parked was $6.09 ($11,390/1869). Given the cost to manage a 12-hour per day valet operation (2 valet personnel plus overhead) of $605.85 per day, the actual cost of each car parked was $20.42 ($38,168/1869) resulting in a subsidy of $14.32 per car parked. The valet would have had to park approximately 100 cars per day to break even, given the established rate structure. In theory, with a turnover rate of every 3 hours, each of the 127 5l 12/06/16 40 parking spaces could accommodate 4 cars per 12 hours, for a total maximum turnover rate of 160 vehicles per day, with an additional 30 vehicles accommodated in the extra 15 spaces available after 5 p.m. This can be compared against what may have occurred otherwise at the three on-street meters. Only considering the time used as an exclusive valet loading zone from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. (12 hours per day) and assuming the three metered parking spaces were fully occupied 12 hours per day, in two hour increments, then six vehicles could have parked at each of the three metered spots per day for a total of 18 vehicles. This assumes that the turnover at the metered spots would be at the maximum allowed, which probably would not be the case. Given that this Pilot Valet Parking Program was operated in the summer season with very reasonable rates, it is unlikely that utilization rates will increase, without locating a more visible/convenient drop-off location(s). In conclusion, generally, the public demand for valet services did not justify the cost or the removal of on street parking spaces from the inventory. Alternatively, if the overall objective is to encourage more business district parking availability, the City may want to explore leasing private parking spaces in the business district to make them available to the general public. For example, the public can already take advantage of the 40 parking spaces in the BofA building by self-parking for five dollars ($5) for two hours or the City (subject to negotiations with LAZ Parking) could potentially enter into a lease (approximately $90 per space per month x 40 spaces = $3,600 per month) and make it free (or low cost) public parking for significantly less than the cost to provide a valet service. Suggestions received on the Pilot Program included better/more signage was needed, consider adding a location in front of the Coronado Plaza as a secondary drop off location in the southbound direction, and consider only operating on the weekends or evenings to reduce overhead costs. It is also not a given that the CTID will continue to fund such a program going forward, as some perceived it as only supporting day-visitors/tourists in the summer. With regard to the approximately 60-foot yellow loading zone on Orange Avenue in front of the Coronado Plaza, City staff can prepare a more detailed analysis on potential uses going forward if the Council desires, understanding that Caltrans has the ultimate authority on whether this curb should remain as a loading zone or for some other use. ALTERNATIVES: Provide staff direction on whether it should pursue other means to create additional public parking in the business district. Submitted by City Manager’s Office/Ritter Attachment: Pilot Project Valet Use Summary CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR NA JNC MLC NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 128 12/06/16 Pilot Project Valet Use Summary July 7 – Sep. 7, 2016 (63 Days) Rate: $5 for first 3 hours; $10 per hour for each additional hour Number of Cars Valet Parked Per Day Period Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun TOTAL July 7 - 10 38 36 45 53 172 July 11 - 17 15 16 17 26 33 54 55 216 July 18 - 24 8 27 19 16 36 52 55 213 July 25 - 31 9 13 30 24 49 75 75 275 Aug 1 – 7 12 16 22 30 30 60 58 228 Aug 8 - 14 11 19 34 18 41 60 39 222 Aug 15 - 21 9 17 22 15 32 48 49 192 Aug 22 - 28 2 13 15 15 23 47 27 142 Aug 29 – Sep 4 5 5 3 6 27 58 82 186 Sep 5 - 7 16 3 4 23 TOTAL 87 129 166 188 307 499 493 1869 AVERAGE 9.67 14.33 18.44 20.89 34.11 55.44 54.78 29.67 Average Count per day 29.67 Average Daily Rev. $180.79 Total Gross Rev. $11,390.00 Average Weekday Count 19.49 Average Daily Exp. $605.85 Total Gross Exp. $38,168.56 Average Weekend Count 55.11 Net Loss Per Day $425.06 Total Net Exp. $26,778.56 Average cost (subsidy) per vehicle parked $14.32 ($26,778/1869) Destinations - By Rank July 7 – Sep 7, 2016 Destination Count Percent Dinner 728 39.0% Lunch 423 22.6% Walking around 393 21.0% Beach 140 7.5% Theater 73 3.9% Other 56 3.0% Hotel del 37 2.0% No response 19 1.0% TOTAL 1869 100.0% Parked less than 3 hours = 89.5% Parked greater than 3 hours = 10.5% 129 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 130 12/06/16 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A HISTORIC ALTERATION PERMIT FOR A REMODEL AND ADDITION, INCLUDING ZONING EXCEPTION REQUESTS RELATED TO SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 855 ALAMEDA BOULEVARD AND LOCATED IN THE R-1A (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE (HAP 2016-09) HISTORIC RESOURCE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Adopt “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado approving the request for Historic Alteration Permit, including zoning exception requests related to setbacks and floor area ratio, for the property addressed as 855 Alameda and located in the R-1A (single family residential) zone” (Attachment 1). FISCAL IMPACT: No impacts have been identified. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: The matter before the City Council is an administrative decision, sometimes called “quasi-judicial,” involving the application of existing laws or policies to a given set of facts. Courts generally give less deference to decision makers in administrative mandate actions and will inquire (a) whether the city proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction; (b) whether there was a fair hearing; or (c) whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion (which is established when (i) the city has not proceeded in the manner required by law, (ii) the decision is not supported by the findings, or (iii) the findings are not supported by the evidence). CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: Class 31 CEQA Guidelines Section 15331 provides for exemptions to Historic Resource Restoration and Rehabilitation projects that involve maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of historic resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a resource. The Historic Resource Commission determined that the project is in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties and will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic resource. PUBLIC NOTICE: A public notice was published in the Coronado Eagle & Journal on November 23 and notices were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the boundaries of the project. BACKGROUND: On October 21, 2015, the Historic Resource Commission adopted Resolution HR 29-16 designating the property at 855 Alameda Boulevard as a Historic Resource. The property was noted as historically significant for its French Eclectic architectural style and as a notable work of the architectural firm Hurlburt, Frank, and Slaughter. A Historic Alteration Permit application (HAP 2016-02) was reviewed by the Historic Resource Commission on April 6, 2016, which was denied by the Commission because the project was not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards due to proposed removal of the front balcony and its replacement with a new larger balcony, as well as construction of a second story addition that was not subordinate to, or differentiated from, the original structure. 131 8a 12/06/16 The applicant redesigned the project and submitted a new Historic Alteration Permit application, proposing a project that includes the addition of 588 square feet at the first floor level, the addition of 670 square feet at the second floor level, enclosure of patios at the rear, and restoration of the balcony on the front elevation, rather than replacement. Three sets of French doors, two single doors, and five windows are proposed to be removed. All are located on the rear elevation. The project summary mentions deterioration of existing windows and doors; however, no other windows or doors are indicated for removal or restoration on the demolition plan. New doors are proposed to be aluminum clad, and new windows are proposed to be wood with dual paned glass. Existing shutters are proposed to be repaired or replaced as needed, and the existing concrete tile roof is proposed to be retained and repaired in existing locations and new roofing is proposed to match existing. The project is fully detailed in the summary statement and plans submitted by the applicant (Attachment 3). On October 19, 2016, the Historic Resource Commission reviewed the project at a noticed public hearing and determined that the proposed project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, as well as the City’s Guidelines to Alterations of Mills Act properties, and adopted resolution HR 29-16 (Attachment 2), recommending approval of a Historic Alteration Permit and the associated zoning exception requests. City Council approval is required for zoning exceptions requests associated with a Historical Alteration Permit. CMC § 84.20.090(G). ANALYSIS: The project proposal includes requests for exceptions to zoning standards related to setbacks and floor area ratio (FAR). The Historic Preservation Ordinance provides benefits for historically designated properties including the ability to apply for exceptions to zoning code regulations. The ordinance granting zoning exceptions was written to provide relief to historically designated properties where additions or modifications to structures on the site would prove difficult, if not prohibitive, if current zoning standards were to be applied. Granting an exception to zoning standards is a policy decision which requires a recommendation of approval from the Historic Resource Commission and final approval by the City Council. There are no specific criteria required to be met in order for the City Council to approve or deny a request for zoning exceptions. However, the Commission and City Council have historically considered the impact of the exception request on the neighborhood, as well as whether the request is justified in order to achieve preservation or improvement of the Historic Resource. 86.08.050 – Rear Yard Required A second-story rear yard setback of 40% of the depth of the lot is required for lots that are 110’- 0” or greater in depth and 6,000 square feet or greater in lot area. The subject lot is approximately 140’-2” deep, resulting in a required second-story rear yard setback of approximately 56’-0” from the rear property line. The proposed second story is located 33’-7” from the rear property line, encroaching into the required second-story setback area approximately 22’-5”, necessitating an exception to the rear yard setback requirement if the project is to be approved as proposed. Additionally, a setback of five feet from the property line is required for accessory structures and covered parking attached to the main building. The existing covered patio, which is proposed to be enclosed, is located on the property line and encroaches entirely in the required 5’-0” setback area for accessory buildings. This encroachment condition already exists; the proposal is to 132 12/06/16 completely enclose the covered patio to make it an interior space, which will require construction in the setback area if the project is to be approved as proposed. 86.08.060 – Side Yard Required For a lot between 10,000 and 10,999 square feet in size, a side yard setback of 13% of the lot width is required. The subject lot is approximately 75 feet wide, which requires a side yard setback of 9’-9”. The existing house encroaches into the side yard setback, with the exterior wall located approximately 4’-11” from the north side property line. The second story, as proposed, will be stacked on the existing wall of the first story, encroaching into the required side yard setback area, necessitating an exception to the side yard setback requirement if the project is to be approved as proposed. 86.08.035 – Floor Area Ratio (FAR) For a lot that is 10,520 square feet in size, development shall not exceed a base floor area ratio of 0.35 (3,682 square feet) or a maximum of 0.50 (5,260 square feet) if the maximum number of additional design features are incorporated. According to the project plans, the existing floor area ratio square footage of the property is currently 5,695 square feet, which already exceeds the maximum allowable FAR by 435 square feet. The proposed project will increase the floor area ratio to 6,367 square feet, exceeding the maximum allowable floor area ratio by 1,107 square feet, resulting in a floor area ratio of 0.605 if the project is to be approved as proposed. CONCLUSION: The Historic Resource Commission determined that the project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, the City’s Guidelines for Alterations to Mills Act Properties, and the City of Coronado Historic Resource Code, and staff recommends approval of the Historic Alteration Permit and associated zoning exception requests. Please see application and plans for additional information. Submitted by Community Development/Olsen Attachments: 1. Draft City Council resolution per HRC Recommendation 2. HR 29-16 Historic Resource Commission resolution recommending approval 3. Historic Alteration Permit application and plans (Full-sized plans provided to the City Council under separate cover) 4. Historic Resource Commission summary minutes of October 19, 2016 5. Correspondence Received 6. Public Notice of the City Council meeting of December 6, 2016 N:\All Departments\Staff Reports - Drafts\2016 Meetings\12-06 Meeting SR Due Nov. 21\HAP 2016-09\CD - SR - CC HAP 2016-09 855 Alameda.doc CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR NA RRS MLC RAH NA NA NA NA NA NA 133 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 134 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO APPROVING THE REQUEST FOR HISTORIC ALTERATION PERMIT, INCLUDING RELIEF FROM ZONING STANDARDS RELATED TO SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO, FOR THE PROPERTY ADDRESSED AS 855 ALAMEDA BOULEVARD AND LOCATED IN THE R- 1A (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE _______________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, on July 29, 2016, the property owner submitted a Historic Alteration Permit, with associated requests for relief from zoning standards related to setbacks and floor area ratio, for the property addressed as 855 Alameda Boulevard in accordance with Chapter 84.20 of the Coronado Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2016, the Historic Resource Commission of the City of Coronado held a public hearing on HAP 2016-09 at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and WHEREAS, the Historic Resource Commission recommended approval of the application for Historic Alteration Permit with associated requests for relief from zoning standards related to setbacks and floor area ratio in association with HAP 2016-09; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2016, the City Council of the City of Coronado considered the Historic Resource Commission recommendation to approve the issuance of the request for a Historic Alteration Permit with associated requests for relief from zoning standards related to setbacks and floor area ratio in association with HAP 2016-09, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard, and evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation: 1. Historic Alteration Permit application submittal dated July 29, 2016; 2. Oral testimony and correspondence received regarding the permit application; 3. City Council staff report dated December 6, 2016, including staff determination the project was Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Class 31 of Section 15331 regarding Historic Resources and Class 1 of Section 15301(e) pertaining to small additions; and 4. Additional written information, plans, photographs, and project materials provided by the applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Coronado finds, based on the evidence described herein, that the zoning exception requests as described in the application dated July 29, 2016, shall be approved because the following findings have been made: A. The proposed alteration is consistent with the purpose and intent of this Chapter, the Historic Preservation Element, and the General Plan as the project is consistent with 135 Objective D of the Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan, as the project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. B. The proposed alteration will not adversely affect the historical, architectural or aesthetic value of the Historic Resource as the second-story addition is subordinate to the original structure as viewed from the public right-of-way, and the front balcony will be restored. C. The proposed alteration will retain the essential elements that make the Historic Resource significant as the project retains the original historic appearance from the public right-of-way. D. The proposed alteration will not adversely affect the Historic Resource’s relationship to its surroundings and neighboring Historic Resources as the project does not impact surrounding buildings or Historic Resources, and the relationship of the building to its surroundings will remain unchanged. E. The proposed alteration does comply with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards as set forth in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 because the project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the construction of a second-story addition is subordinate to the original dwelling as viewed from the public right of way, and the historic details visible from the public right-of-way will be restored. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Coronado hereby approves the issuance of a Historic Alteration Permit for the historically designated property addressed as 855 Alameda Boulevard and located in the R-1A (Single Family Residential) Zone, as submitted in the application and plans comprising HAP 2016-09, in accordance with Chapter 84.20 of the City of Coronado Municipal Code and approves the following associated zoning exception requests: 1. Floor Area Ratio of 0.605, rather than the allowed maximum of 0.50 (CMC § 86.08.035); 2. Second Story Rear Yard setback of approximately 33’-7” (an encroachment of approximately 22’-5”), rather than the 56’-0” that would be required (CMC § 86.08.050); 3. Construction to enclose currently unenclosed space in the 5’-0” rear yard setback area, where no new construction would typically be allowed (CMC §86.08.050); and 4. Side Yard Setback of 4’-11” for construction of a second story addition, where a setback of 9’-9” would be required (CMC § 86.08.060). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Coronado hereby approves the following conditions to HAP 2016-09: 1. Changes to the approved plans may require the review and approval of the Historic Resource Commission; 2. Any mechanical equipment installed in association with the project will be screened from view from the public right of way; and 3. This Historic Alteration Permit shall expire three years from the date of approval by the City Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, this 6th day of December 2016, by the following vote, to wit: 136 AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: _____________________________ Casey Tanaka, Mayor Attest: _____________________ Mary L. Clifford, CMC City Clerk 137 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 138 A t t a c h m e n t 2 1 3 9 1 4 0 A t t a c h m e n t 3 1 4 1 1 4 2 1 4 3 1 4 4 1 4 5 1 4 6 1 4 7 1 4 8 1 4 9 1 5 0 1 5 1 1 5 2 1 5 3 1 5 4 1 5 5 1 5 6 1 5 7 1 5 8 1 5 9 1 6 0 1 6 1 1 6 2 1 6 3 1 6 4 A t t a c h m e n t 4 1 6 5 1 6 6 1 6 7 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 168 A t t a c h m e n t 5 1 6 9 1 7 0 1 7 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 172 A t t a c h m e n t 6 1 7 3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 174 12/06/16 PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTION OF “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSNET LOCAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2016/17 THROUGH 2020/21” RECOMMENDATION: Adopt “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado Approving an Amendment to the TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for Fiscal Years 2016/17 through 2020/21.” FISCAL IMPACT: The project to be approved in the TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for Fiscal Year 2016/17 is Neighborhood Lighting and Street Improvements along Third and Fourth Streets for $550,000. The project will be funded from the Bridge Toll Fund (215). CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: The adoption of a resolution to approve an amendment to the TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Project is an administrative decision which does not implicate any fundamental vested right. PUBLIC NOTICE: The notice of this public hearing was published in the Coronado Eagle & Journal on November 23, 2016. BACKGROUND: SANDAG approves the TransNet Program of Projects (POP) list as an element of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). In developing and approving the TransNet POP to be included in the RTIP, each agency and SANDAG must comply with all provisions of the TransNet Ordinance and Expenditure Plan and any other implementing ordinances and rules as appropriate. The RTIP includes all major projects requesting certain categories of federal transportation funding or federal project approval. On May 17, 2016, the City Council approved a resolution that certified to SANDAG that the City will comply with all of the TransNet requirements. In addition to projects funded by TransNet funds, the POP also contains projects that are funded with Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) fees, Active Transportation Grants, and Bridge Tolls funds. In order to design and construct the Neighborhood Lighting and Street Improvements along Third and Fourth Streets project and expend Bridge Toll Funds, the project is required to be included in the RTIP and approved by the SANDAG board. ANALYSIS: The Neighborhood Lighting and Street Improvements along Third and Fourth Streets project was included and approved in the City’s Fiscal Year 2016/17 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget process, but this project was not submitted in SANDAG’s 2016 RTIP program. Per Section 4, in order for the City of Coronado to expend the Bridge Toll Funds identified in the Neighborhood Lighting and Street Improvements along Third and Fourth Streets project, the City is required to amend the 2016 RTIP program. 175 8b 12/06/16 A copy of the resolution amending the 2016 RTIP must be submitted to SANDAG by December 9, 2016, to be included in SANDAG’s 2016 amendment process. ALTERNATIVE: The City Council could decide to not amend the TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects for FY 2016/17 to FY 2020/21 and not move forward with the project. Submitted by Public Services & Engineering/R. Huth Attachments: A. Resolution Amending the TransNet Program B. Neighborhood Lighting and Street Improvements Project Sheet \\chfile2\all\All Departments\Staff Reports - Drafts\2016 Meetings\12-06 Meeting SR Due Nov. 21\SR-Amending 2016-17 TransNet program.docx CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR JK JNC MLC NA EW NA NA NA NA NA 176 Attachment A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSNET LOCAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2016/17 THROUGH 2020/21 WHEREAS, on November 4, 2004, the voters of San Diego County approved the San Diego Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (TransNet Extension Ordinance); and WHEREAS, the TransNet Extension Ordinance provides that SANDAG, acting as the Regional Transportation Commission, shall approve on a biennial basis a multi-year program of projects submitted by local jurisdictions identifying those transportation projects eligible to use transportation sales tax (TransNet) funds; and WHEREAS, the City of Coronado was provided with an estimate of annual TransNet local street improvement revenues for Fiscal Years 2017 through 2021; and WHEREAS, the City of Coronado approved its 2016 TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects (POP) on May 17, 2016, and the City of Coronado desires to make adjustments to its Program of Projects; and WHEREAS, the City of Coronado has held a noticed public meeting with an agenda item that clearly identified the proposed amendment prior to approval of the projects by its authorized legislative body in accordance with Section 5(A) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Rule 7 of SANDAG Board Policy No. 31. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that City of Coronado requests that SANDAG make the following change: Add Neighborhood Lighting and Street Improvements along Third and Fourth Streets project to the 2016 POP (the “Amendment”) ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 2(C)(1) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Coronado certifies that no more than 30 percent of its annual revenues shall be spent on local street and road maintenance-related projects as a result of the Amendment; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 4(E)(3) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the City of Coronado certifies that all new or changed projects, or major reconstruction projects included in the Amendment and funded by TransNet revenues, shall accommodate travel by pedestrians and bicyclists, and that any exception to this requirement permitted under the Ordinance and proposed was clearly noticed as part of the City of Coronado’s public meeting process for the Amendment; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Coronado does hereby certify that all applicable provisions of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and SANDAG Board Policy No. 31 have been met; and 177 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Coronado continues to agree to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend SANDAG, the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, and all officers and employees thereof against all causes of action or claims related to City of Coronado’s TransNet funded projects. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Coronado on the 6th day of December 2016, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ____________________________________ Casey Tanaka, Mayor City of Coronado, California ATTEST: _________________________________ Mary L. Clifford, CMC City Clerk 178 ATTACHMENT B STREETS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY SR-13 9792-17024 Project Description: Coronado General Plan: Environmental Impacts: Background: Current Status: Appropriations: Prior Year Approp.FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19 Total Cost Design 50,000 0 0 50,000 Construction 500,000 0 0 500,000 Total 0 500,000 0 0 500,000 Funding Source: Tolls 550,000 0 0 550,000 Total 0 550,000 0 0 550,000 Maintaining the City's infrastructure is consistent with the Public Facilities Element to ensure that the community's residents and visitors are efficiently served in a cost-effective manner that preserves the ambiance of the community and the quality of life of its citizens.The project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Policy to provide support to public recognition programs acknowledging individuals who have contributed to the community. It is anticipated that a Categorical Exemption will be processed for this project. In April 2014, the City Council designated the SR 282 couplet as the Coronado Avenue of Heroes and established the Hometown Heroes Banner Program to honor Coronado's military along the roadway leading to and from North Island. The banner program is a joint City,Navy and neighborhood event at NASNI on Veterans Day.Banners depicting members of the United States armed forces with ties to Coronado are mounted on existing light standards biannually on Memorial Day and Veterans Day.Adding additional lighting will be a traffic calming measure for Third and Fourth Streets, New project. This project will purchase and install decorative light standards for the Coronado Avenue of Heroes, also known as California State Highway 282 (Third and Fourth Streets from Orange Avenue to NASNI). NEIGHBORHOOD LIGHTING AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THIRD AND FOURTH STREETS 179 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 180 CC 12/06/16 PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A TWO-LOT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO ALLOW FOR CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP OF FOUR RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY ADDRESSED AS 449-455 E AVENUE IN THE R-3 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE (PC 2016-06) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Adopt “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado Approving a Two-lot Tentative Parcel Map to Allow for Condominium Ownership of Four Residential Units for the Property Legally Described as Lot 33 and 34 in Block 123, of Coronado Beach South Island According to Map thereof No. 376, Addressed as 449-455 E Avenue, Coronado, California.” FISCAL IMPACT: If the parcel map is approved and the property is developed as proposed, property taxes will increase and the following impact fees will be paid to the City: •In-lieu housing: $28,000 ($7,000 per unit). •Public Facilities Impact Fee: $.50 per square foot of net increase in floor area (transportation $.15,storm drain $.30 and administrative $.05). •Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Fee: $4,714 ($2,357 per net increase in dwellingunits.) In addition, the School District will charge an impact fee of $3.48 per sq. ft. of net increase in floor area; however, this is not an impact to the City. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: Approval of a Tentative Map is considered to be an administrative decision (“quasi-adjudicative”). Administrative decisions involve the application of existing laws or policies to a given set of facts. Findings are required to be made in any administrative decision, based on the evidence presented. The administrative act is to apply these findings to a specific parcel of land and the findings must conform to what is required by applicable law or local ordinances. If challenged, generally the court will look to the administrative record to determine whether the evidence or findings support the decision or whether the City Council decision was arbitrary or capricious. Findings that require the disapproval of a tentative map include the following: (1) that the proposed map is inconsistent with applicable general and specific plans; (2) that the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with applicable general and specific plans; (3) that the site is not physically suitable for the type of development; (4) that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development; (5) that the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; (6) that the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems; or (7) that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public easements. The City Council’s authority to act upon tentative maps is also addressed under the Coronado Municipal Code Subdivision Ordinance Section 82.50.120 and the State Subdivision Map Act Section 66452.2. These regulations require that the City Council approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the tentative map within 50 days of the submission of the tentative map. 181 8c CC 12/06/16 PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of this public hearing, as well as the Planning Commission public hearing, was mailed to all property owners within a 300 ft. radius of the property and published in the Coronado Eagle & Journal on November 23, 2016. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA): Categorically Exempt CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” Class 3(b): “A duplex or similar multi-family residential structure, totaling no more than four dwelling units. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to apartments, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units”; Section 15315 “Minor Land Divisions” Class 15: “…the division of property in urbanized areas…into four or fewer parcels…”; and Section 15332 “In-Fill Development Projects” Class 32. BACKGROUND: 1. Request: Two-lot Tentative Parcel Map per Chapter 82.60 Minor Subdivisions to allow for condominium ownership of four residential units. 2. Location: Property is located on the east side of E Avenue between Fourth and Fifth Streets. 3. Description of Property: The property is comprised of two 25 ft. x 140 ft. lots (3,500 sq. ft. each) for a total area of 7,000 sq. ft. with street and alley access provided to each lot. The site is currently vacant but was previously developed with a former preschool building at the front of the lot and a duplex at the rear. Four detached condominium units (two on each lot) are planned to be constructed on the site. 4. Zoning Designation: “R-3 Multi-Family Residential Zone.” The R-3 zone permits 28 dwelling units per acre or one unit per 1,556 sq. ft. of lot size. The size of the subject property would allow a maximum of four units - four units are proposed. 5. General Plan Designation: “Medium Density Residential: Up to 28 dwelling units per acre (i.e., R- 3 Zone).” The Land Use Element of the General Plan, implemented through the Zoning Ordinance, “encourages a vibrant diverse community by allowing a variety of life styles and housing opportunities.” “The residential land use categories are expressed in terms of density maximums – that is, up to 8 dwellings per acre, up to 12 dwellings per acre, etc. Implied in the approach is a City policy prerogative, which simply says that all residential development in any specific category may be built as desired by the residents, as long as the density does not exceed a certain upper limit.” The Land Use Element further describes the R-3 Zone as a zone “intended to provide medium density residential opportunities typified by apartment or condominium development, interspersed with lower density duplex and single-family dwellings.” 6. Design Review Commission: Not required for less than three units on one lot. 7. Planning Commission: On October 11, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted a motion with findings and conditions, recommending City Council approval of the Tentative Map. 182 CC 12/06/16 ANALYSIS: Pursuant to Coronado Municipal Code ("CMC") Section 82.50.110, the Planning Commission is authorized to recommend to the City Council the approval, conditional approval or denial of the tentative map. As appropriate, the Planning Commission is to recommend the kind, nature and extent of improvements that should be constructed or installed. The recommendation is then presented to the City Council according to CMC Section 82.50.120. If the tentative map is approved, the tentative map will become final upon compliance with CMC Chapter 82.64 as a minor subdivision. The two R-3 zoned lots totaling 7,000 sq. ft. allow a maximum of four residential units (two per lot). Two off-street parking spaces will be provided for each unit for a total of eight off-street parking spaces. The approval of this parcel map will permit the individual units to be sold separately as condominiums. The configuration of the existing lots will remain as is with no changes proposed for the exterior lot lines. The parcel map and proposed residential use is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, complies with the State Map Act and the Coronado Subdivision Ordinance, and was reviewed by the Public Services and Engineering and Fire departments, whose proposed conditions are incorporated into the draft resolution of approval. The State Subdivision Map Act and Coronado Subdivision Ordinance provide authority to local agencies to impose conditions on the approval of subdivisions. The subdivider can be required to dedicate land to public use, make public improvements, pay required fees, or other conditions as needed to mitigate any adverse impacts of the subdivision on the community, to provide governmental services to subdivision residents, and to implement the requirements of the local general plan. Public improvements for this project include undergrounding utilities and replacing portions of the adjacent public sidewalk, alley and curb and gutter. These required public improvements have been incorporated into the list of conditions and are consistent with requirements of other subdivision maps. ALTERNATIVE: The City Council has the right to modify the attached findings and conditions in accordance with the above City Council Authority. For additional details, please see the attachments. The full size proposed Tentative Parcel Map is available to review in the Community Development Department. Submitted by Community Development Department/Peter Fait Attachments: A) Draft Resolution B) Tentative Parcel Map i:\staff\peter\maps\pc 2016-06 449-455 e ave\tmap 2 lots 449-455 e ave. pc 2016-06 cc 12-06-16.docx CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR N/A RS MLC RAH EW N/A N/A N/A CMM N/A 183 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 184 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. __________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO APPROVING A TWO-LOT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO ALLOW FOR CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP OF FOUR RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 33 AND 34 IN BLOCK 123, OF CORONADO BEACH SOUTH ISLAND ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 376, ADDRESSED AS 449-455 E AVENUE, CORONADO, CALIFORNIA _________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, AK Coronado Investments Inc. has, per the California Subdivision Map Act and the City of Coronado Subdivision Ordinance, requested City approval to subdivide 449- 455 E Avenue for development of four residential condominium units; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Coronado did, pursuant to section 66452.2 of the Government Code, hold a public hearing on the Tentative Parcel Map on October 11, 2016, and subsequently adopted a motion recommending approval with findings and conditions to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Coronado did, pursuant to Section 66452.2 of the Government Code, hold a public hearing on said subdivision request on December 6, 2016, and said public hearing was duly noticed as required by law and all persons desiring to be heard were heard at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado that the proposed Tentative Parcel Map for 449-455 E Avenue be approved and that the approval be based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the Coronado General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in that the proposed residential use and density of development are permitted under the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements; 2. The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the Coronado General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in that the design provides sufficient lot area and street access for proper development; 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development in that the two subject lots of 7,000 sq. ft. combined are capable of supporting up to four dwelling units in the R-3 zone; 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the number of units in the project is within the 28 dwelling units per acre standard specified in the Coronado Zoning Ordinance for the R-3 zone; 5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, nor are they likely to substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat and the project is categorically exempt from environmental review according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in accordance with Section 185 15303 Class 3(b) for new construction of a duplex or similar multi-family residential structure totaling no more than six dwelling units, Section 15315 Class 15 for minor land divisions of four or fewer parcels, and Section 15332 Class 32 for in-fill development; 6. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems within the authority of the Coronado Public Health Officer; 7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large and which are recorded or established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction; and 8. The Tentative Map meets all the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the Coronado Subdivision Ordinance and was reviewed by the Public Services and Engineering, and Fire departments whose proposed conditions are incorporated below. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the approval is subject to the following conditions: Fire Department 1. Owner shall install a NFPA 13 compliant fire sprinkler and alarm system throughout the development in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association and California Fire Code Standards to the satisfaction of the City of Coronado Fire and Community Development departments; 2. Owner shall provide appropriate Fire Department personnel and vehicle access including access to any locked common areas. All gates or other structures or devices that could obstruct fire access roadways or otherwise hinder emergency operations are prohibited unless they meet standards approved by the Fire Department and receive specific plan approval; 3. The location of any fire department connection and back flow prevention device (OS&Y valve) shall be approved by the Fire Department and preferably face E Avenue; 4. Owner shall provide adequate water flow for firefighting based upon the square footage of the buildings and, if needed, Owner shall upgrade or install a fire hydrant within the adjacent public rights-of-way in accordance with the California Fire Code standard to the satisfaction of the City of Coronado Fire Department; Public Services & Engineering Department 5. Owner shall maintain a minimum of three feet of clearance between driveways located on public property and any property lines extended, intersection radius, and any obstructions located on public property, e.g., utility poles, fire hydrants, street trees, etc. The relocation of any of these items to obtain the needed clearances shall be the sole responsibility of the Owner, subject to the review and approval of the City’s Public Services and Engineering Department; 6. Any existing sewer laterals used for new development shall be videotaped, at Owner’s expense, for its entire length to the sewer main to assess its condition and suitability for continued use. The video shall be furnished to the City of Coronado Public Services and Engineering Department in DVD format, and based on its review, repairs or replacement of the sewer line may be required, at the direction of the City of Coronado. Each building requires a separate sewer service lateral connected to the sewer main and the reservation of easements may be required; 7. Prior to demolition, any existing sewer laterals shall be capped and staked. Sewer laterals that are not used by the proposed development shall be removed by Owner from the City’s rights- 186 of-way and capped within 24 inches of the sewer main under permit issued by the Public Services and Engineering Department; 8. Owner shall underground all existing and future utilities to this site. Individual lots require separate utility service and utility easements shall be provided between the alley and the street. (Concrete replacement to accommodate the undergrounding of utilities shall be a minimum of 30 inches wide for the length of the repair); 9. Owner shall research and identify the location of existing utilities on the site prior to grading or excavating the site and the Owner shall be responsible to remove any utility location “mark out” indicators or paint; 10. Owner shall install all utilities, which are not possible to underground, such as back flow valves and transformers, on private property and said utilities shall be permanently screened from public view, at the direction of the City of Coronado Community Development Department; 11. Owner shall remove and replace the alley adjoining the subject property from the southerly property line to one foot north of the northerly property line (full width x length - approximately 20 ft. x 51 ft.) in accordance with City standards and the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings, at the direction of the City Public Services and Engineering Department; 12. Owner shall remove and replace approximately 52 lineal feet of adjacent sidewalk in accordance with City standards and the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings, at the direction of the City Public Services and Engineering Department; 13. Owner shall remove and replace approximately 50 lineal feet of adjacent curb and gutter in accordance with City standards and the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings (G-02), at the direction of the City Public Services and Engineering Department; 14. Owner shall remove the existing concrete walkway in the parkway in accordance with City standards and the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings; 15. Owner shall remove and replace portions damaged during construction of adjacent public sidewalk (with “historic” pattern) and/or curb and gutter in accordance with City standards and the San Diego Regional Standards Drawings (SDRSD), and verify limits of removal at the direction of the City Public Services and Engineering Department; 16. The adjacent public sidewalk and alley shall remain safe, smooth and free of all trip or travel hazards during construction. Owner shall repair any public paving damaged (e.g., sidewalk, curb, gutter, alley, street) during the course of this project at the direction of the City’s Public Services and Engineering Department. All repairs to public property shall be in accordance with City standards and the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings; 17. Owner shall have a California licensed land surveyor install survey monuments at all property corners with locations indicated on the final parcel map and any monuments disturbed during construction shall be replaced by a licensed land surveyor at Owner’s expense; 18. Owner shall assure that the storage of building materials, equipment, or containers (other than for refuse purposes) in the City right-of-way does not occur; 19. Owner shall apply for an encroachment permit from the Public Services and Engineering Department for any amenities proposed for the adjoining public rights-of-way and the Owner shall assume responsibility for costs associated with the construction and maintenance of said amenities; 20. Owner shall assure that all work performed outside of the private property lines shall conform to the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings and Coronado Special Construction Provisions and, prior to construction, a right-of-way permit shall be obtained from the Public Services and Engineering Department; 187 21. Owner shall comply with the City of Coronado’s policy for proposed construction of subterranean garages/cellars dated June 2, 2005, as warranted by the improvement plan; 22. The City does not permit the discharge of groundwater or construction runoff into the storm drain system. Consequently, disposal of groundwater extracted from the site into the City sewer system, if warranted, requires approval and a permit from the City’s Public Services and Engineering Department. The applicant must pay the costs for this operation and make payment of a processing fee charged the City by San Diego’s Metropolitan Waste Water Department; 23. Owner shall maintain on-street parking spaces, parking and traffic markings, and signage adjacent to the subject property except as required to be modified to provide vehicle ingress and egress to the property or for temporary activity during construction as permitted by the City’s Public Services and Engineering Department; 24. In accordance with Chapter 60.12 of the Coronado Municipal Code, a wastewater capacity fee will be charged prior to building permit issuance for sewer service connections to the sanitary sewer system; 25. Owner shall protect, irrigate and maintain the existing street trees within the adjacent street public parkway in accordance with Chapter 52.32 of the Coronado Municipal Code at the direction of the City of Coronado Public Services and Engineering Department. Said trees shall be protected with an expandable collar and no turf shall be permitted within 12 inches of the trunk; 26. Owner shall install linear root barriers adjacent to all existing and newly planted shade trees on public or private property, which are within 10 feet of any public sidewalk, street or alley. Said barriers shall be installed adjacent to the sidewalk and curb face to extend 8 feet to each side of center of the tree installed and not encircle the trees. The barrier shall be a minimum of 12” and a maximum of 18” in depth and shall be either hard plastic or fabric impregnated with a root inhibitor (bio-barrier); 27. Owner shall provide an automatic irrigation system to all existing and proposed adjoining public property landscaping. Street trees shall be served by independent dedicated lines with bubblers; 28. Owner shall provide an area on private property, accessible by all occupants, for the storage of trash and recyclable materials to the satisfaction of the City of Coronado; 29. Prior to approval of any and all demolition, construction, and building permits for the project, Owner shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Services and Engineering Department Director compliance with all of the applicable provisions of the following and any amendments thereto: a. The City of Coronado Stormwater and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control (Coronado Municipal Code Chapter 61.04). b. NPDES Municipal Permit No. CAS0109266 (San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R9-2013-0001 or re-issuances thereof). c. NPDES Construction Permit No. CAS000002 (State Water Resources Control Board Order No. R9-2012-0006 DWQ or re-issuances thereof). Community Development Department 30. Owner shall reserve 20% of the units within the development “for rental” to persons qualified by the County Housing Authority as meeting Section 8 Rental Assistance requirements or to persons qualifying within very low and low income categories as established annually by the 188 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or “for sale” to persons qualifying within moderate income categories as established annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or shall pay a fee in lieu thereof of $7,000.00 for every unit within the project, at the option of the subdivider, for the purpose of providing affordable housing assistance in accordance with Chapter 82.21 of the Coronado Municipal Code (CMC); 31. Owner shall assure that any common areas and easements be identified and described on the Final Map; 32. Owner shall comply with and, if there are CC&Rs, include in said CC&Rs: a) That no existing or future utility lines be permitted outside of the lot or private interest spaces (separate interest spaces or units) of which they serve unless located within a common area or an easement approved by the City of Coronado; b) That common area or reciprocal pedestrian easements be provided to allow all private occupants of the property access to both the street and alley. Where fences or walls are proposed, gates shall be provided to give said occupants access to both the street and alley; c) Easements and/or rights providing for pedestrian and vehicle access, utilities and/or other purposes, for each proposed condominium unit, are to be specified in any condominium plans and/or conveyances of any unit constructed within the boundaries of this parcel map. Any vehicle access driveway and vehicle maneuvering/turnaround space adjacent to garages or parking spaces shall be shared by all owners. d) That two required off-street parking spaces be provided for each dwelling with each space specifically assigned to each dwelling unit and clearly marked for such dwelling or use; e) That each off-street parking space required for all dwellings be continuously maintained free and unobstructed, with adequate ingress and egress, and not used for any use other than parking of motor vehicles; f) That any present or future outside storage of trash be accessible by all occupants and be enclosed within a minimum 5 ft. high wall with gate which shall be on private property and approved by the City of Coronado Community Development Department; g) That each existing and proposed dwelling unit held as a condominium form of ownership shall be provided with a minimum of 200 cubic feet of storage space per dwelling, in addition to closets customarily provided, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance; and h) That none of the covenants, conditions and restrictions required by this condition shall be deleted, amended or modified without the prior written approval of the City of Coronado; and 33. If the above conditions have not been completed and accepted in accordance with standards established by the City prior to approval of the final map, then the subdivider shall enter into a secured agreement with the City for 100% of the estimated cost of constructing the improvements and performing the conditions before the final map is approved pursuant to CMC Section 82.16.080. Said agreement shall be prepared and recorded with the County Recorder’s Office. If the above conditions are not completed prior to approval of the final map and a secured agreement is approved, all of the above conditions shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City of Coronado prior to any newly constructed dwelling’s building permit being finaled or occupancy permitted. 189 34. In accordance with Coronado Municipal Code Section 82.50.130(A) and State Government Code Section 66452.6, the Tentative Map shall expire 24 months after City Council approval. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, this _____ day of ________________, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Casey Tanaka, Mayor of the City of Coronado, California Attest: Mary L. Clifford, CMC City Clerk 190 ATTACHMENT B 191 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 192 CC 12/06/16 PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE-LOT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO ALLOW FOR CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP OF THREE RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY ADDRESSED AS 244 B AVENUE IN THE R-3 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE (PC 2016-07) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Adopt “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado Approving a One-lot Tentative Parcel Map to Allow for Condominium Ownership of Three Residential Units for the Property Legally Described as the Northerly 12½ Feet of Lot 8 and all of Lot 9 in Block 151, of Coronado Beach South Island According to Map thereof No. 376, Addressed as 244 B Avenue, Coronado, California.” FISCAL IMPACT: If the parcel map is approved and the property is developed as proposed, property taxes will increase and the following impact fees will be paid to the City: •In-lieu housing: $21,000 ($7,000 per unit). •Public Facilities Impact Fee: $.50 per square foot of net increase in floor area (transportation $.15,storm drain $.30 and administrative $.05). •Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Fee: $2,357 ($2,357 per net increase in dwellingunits). In addition, the School District will charge an impact fee of $3.48 per sq. ft. of net increase in floor area; however, this is not an impact to the City. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: Approval of a Tentative Map is considered to be an administrative decision (“quasi-adjudicative”). Administrative decisions involve the application of existing laws or policies to a given set of facts. Findings are required to be made in any administrative decision, based on the evidence presented. The administrative act is to apply these findings to a specific parcel of land and the findings must conform to what is required by applicable law or local ordinances. If challenged, generally the court will look to the administrative record to determine whether the evidence or findings support the decision or whether the City Council decision was arbitrary or capricious. Findings that require the disapproval of a tentative map include the following: (1) that the proposed map is inconsistent with applicable general and specific plans; (2) that the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with applicable general and specific plans; (3) that the site is not physically suitable for the type of development; (4) that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development; (5) that the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; (6) that the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems; or (7) that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with public easements. The City Council’s authority to act upon tentative maps is also addressed under the Coronado Municipal Code Subdivision Ordinance Section 82.50.120 and the State Subdivision Map Act Section 66452.2. These regulations require that the City Council approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the tentative map within 50 days of the submission of the tentative map. 193 8d CC 12/06/16 PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of this public hearing, as well as the Planning Commission public hearing, was mailed to all property owners within a 300 ft. radius of the property and published in the Coronado Eagle & Journal on November 23, 2016. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA): Categorically Exempt CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” Class 3(b): “A duplex or similar multi-family residential structure, totaling no more than four dwelling units. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to apartments, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units”; Section 15315 “Minor Land Divisions” Class 15: “…the division of property in urbanized areas…into four or fewer parcels…”; and Section 15332 “In-Fill Development Projects” Class 32. BACKGROUND: 1. Request: One-lot Tentative Parcel Map per Chapter 82.60 Minor Subdivisions to allow for condominium ownership of three residential units. 2. Location: Property is located on the west side of B Avenue between Second and Third Street. 3. Description of Property: The property is comprised of one 37.5 ft. x 140 ft. lot for a total area of 5,280 sq. ft. with street and alley access provided. The site is currently developed with two single- family dwellings. All of the existing structures will be demolished and replaced with one three-unit attached condominium development. 4. Zoning Designation: “R-3 Multi-Family Residential Zone.” The R-3 zone permits 28 dwelling units per acre or one unit per 1,556 sq. ft. of lot size. The size of the subject property would allow a maximum of three units - three units are proposed. 5. General Plan Designation: “Medium Density Residential: Up to 28 dwelling units per acre (i.e., R-3 Zone).” The Land Use Element of the General Plan, implemented through the Zoning Ordinance, “encourages a vibrant diverse community by allowing a variety of life styles and housing opportunities.” “The residential land use categories are expressed in terms of density maximums – that is, up to 8 dwellings per acre, up to 12 dwellings per acre, etc. Implied in the approach is a City policy prerogative, which simply says that all residential development in any specific category may be built as desired by the residents, as long as the density does not exceed a certain upper limit.” The Land Use Element further describes the R-3 Zone as a zone “intended to provide medium density residential opportunities typified by apartment or condominium development, interspersed with lower density duplex and single-family dwellings.” 6. Design Review Commission: The Commission approved the proposed exterior design on March 23, 2016. 7. Planning Commission: On October 11, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted a motion with findings and conditions, recommending City Council approval of the Tentative Map. 194 CC 12/06/16 ANALYSIS: Pursuant to Coronado Municipal Code ("CMC") Section 82.50.110, the Planning Commission is authorized to recommend to the City Council the approval, conditional approval or denial of the tentative map. As appropriate, the Planning Commission is to recommend the kind, nature and extent of improvements that should be constructed or installed. The recommendation is then presented to the City Council according to CMC Section 82.50.120. If the tentative map is approved, the tentative map will become final upon compliance with CMC Chapter 82.64 as a minor subdivision. The subject R-3 zoned lot of 5,280 sq. ft. allows a maximum of three residential units. Two off-street parking spaces will be provided for each unit for a total of six off-street parking spaces. The approval of this parcel map will permit the individual units to be sold separately as condominiums. The configuration of the existing lot will remain as is with no changes proposed for the exterior lot lines. The parcel map and proposed residential use is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, complies with the State Map Act and the Coronado Subdivision Ordinance, and was reviewed by the Public Services and Engineering and Fire departments, whose proposed conditions are incorporated into the draft resolution of approval. The State Subdivision Map Act and Coronado Subdivision Ordinance provide authority to local agencies to impose conditions on the approval of subdivisions. The subdivider can be required to dedicate land to public use, make public improvements, pay required fees, or other conditions as needed to mitigate any adverse impacts of the subdivision on the community, to provide governmental services to subdivision residents, and to implement the requirements of the local general plan. Public improvements for this project include undergrounding utilities, replacing the alley and portions of the adjacent curb and public sidewalk and removing the curb-cut and driveway. These required public improvements have been incorporated into the attached list of conditions and are consistent with requirements of other subdivision maps. ALTERNATIVE: The City Council has the right to modify the attached findings and conditions in accordance with the above City Council Authority. For additional details, please see the attachments. The full size proposed Tentative Parcel Map is available to review in the Community Development Department. Submitted by Community Development Department/Peter Fait Attachments: A) Draft Resolution B) Tentative Parcel Map i:\staff\peter\maps\pc 2016-07 244 b ave\tmap 1 lot 244 b ave. pc 2016-07 cc 12-06-16.docx CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR N/A RS MLC RAH EW N/A N/A N/A CMM N/A 195 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 196 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. __________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO APPROVING A ONE-LOT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO ALLOW FOR CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP OF THREE RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY 12½ FEET OF LOT 8 AND ALL OF LOT 9 IN BLOCK 151, OF CORONADO BEACH SOUTH ISLAND ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 376, ADDRESSED AS 244 B AVENUE, CORONADO, CALIFORNIA _________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the Campbell Family Trust has, per the California Subdivision Map Act and the City of Coronado Subdivision Ordinance, requested City approval to subdivide 244 B Avenue for development of three residential condominium units; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Coronado did, pursuant to section 66452.2 of the Government Code, hold a public hearing on the Tentative Parcel Map on October 11, 2016, and subsequently adopted a motion recommending approval with findings and conditions to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Coronado did, pursuant to Section 66452.2 of the Government Code, hold a public hearing on said subdivision request on December 6, 2016, and said public hearing was duly noticed as required by law and all persons desiring to be heard were heard at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado that the proposed Tentative Parcel Map for 244 B Avenue be approved and that the approval be based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the Coronado General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in that the proposed residential use and density of development are permitted under the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements; 2. The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the Coronado General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in that the design provides sufficient lot area and street access for proper development; 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development in that the one lot of 5,280 sq. ft. is capable of supporting up to three dwelling units in the R-3 zone; 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the number of units in the project is within the 28 dwelling units per acre standard specified in the Coronado Zoning Ordinance for the R-3 zone; 5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, nor are they likely to substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat and the project is categorically exempt from environmental review 197 according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in accordance with Section 15303 Class 3(b) for new construction of a duplex or similar multi-family residential structure totaling no more than six dwelling units, Section 15315 Class 15 for minor land divisions of four or fewer parcels, and Section 15332 Class 32 for in-fill development; 6. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems within the authority of the Coronado Public Health Officer; 7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large and which are recorded or established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction; and 8. The Tentative Map meets all the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the Coronado Subdivision Ordinance and was reviewed by the Public Services and Engineering, and Fire departments whose proposed conditions are incorporated below. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the approval is subject to the following conditions: Fire Department 1. Owner shall install a NFPA 13 compliant fire sprinkler and alarm system throughout the development in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association and California Fire Code Standards to the satisfaction of the City of Coronado Fire and Community Development departments; 2. Owner shall provide appropriate Fire Department personnel and vehicle access including access to any locked common areas. All gates or other structures or devices that could obstruct fire access roadways or otherwise hinder emergency operations are prohibited unless they meet standards approved by the Fire Department and receive specific plan approval; 3. The location of any fire department connection and back flow prevention device (OS&Y valve) shall be approved by the Fire Department and preferably face B Avenue; 4. Owner shall provide adequate water flow for firefighting based upon the square footage of the buildings and, if needed, Owner shall upgrade or install a fire hydrant within the adjacent public rights-of-way in accordance with the California Fire Code standard to the satisfaction of the City of Coronado Fire Department; Public Services & Engineering Department 5. Owner shall maintain a minimum of three feet of clearance between driveways located on public property and any property lines extended, intersection radius, and any obstructions located on public property, e.g., utility poles, fire hydrants, street trees, etc. The relocation of any of these items to obtain the needed clearances shall be the sole responsibility of the Owner, subject to the review and approval of the City’s Public Services and Engineering Department; 6. Any existing sewer laterals used for new development shall be videotaped, at Owner’s expense, for its entire length to the sewer main to assess its condition and suitability for continued use. The video shall be furnished to the City of Coronado Public Services and Engineering Department in DVD format, and based on its review, repairs or replacement of the sewer line may be required, at the direction of the City of Coronado. Each building requires a separate sewer service lateral connected to the sewer main and the reservation of easements may be required. The owner may have one sewer service lateral connection to serve the development; however, the responsibility of maintenance, replacement, etc. shall be delegated in the 198 development’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Public Services and Engineering Department for review prior to the approval of the Final Map; 7. Prior to demolition, any existing sewer laterals shall be capped and staked. Sewer laterals that are not used by the proposed development shall be removed by Owner from the City’s rights- of-way and capped within 24 inches of the sewer main under permit issued by the Public Services and Engineering Department; 8. Owner shall underground all existing and future utilities to this site. Individual lots require separate utility service and utility easements shall be provided between the alley and the street. (Concrete replacement to accommodate the undergrounding of utilities shall be a minimum of 30 inches wide for the length of the repair); 9. Owner shall research and identify the location of existing utilities on the site prior to grading or excavating the site and the Owner shall be responsible to remove any utility location “mark out” indicators or paint; 10. Owner shall install all utilities, which are not possible to underground, such as back flow valves and transformers, on private property and said utilities shall be permanently screened from public view, at the direction of the City of Coronado Community Development Department; 11. Owner shall remove and replace the alley adjoining the subject property from the northerly property line to one foot south of the southerly property line (full width x length - approximately 20 ft. x 39 ft.) in accordance with City standards and the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings, at the direction of the City Public Services and Engineering Department; 12. Owner shall remove and replace approximately 38 lineal feet of adjacent sidewalk in accordance with City standards and the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings, at the direction of the City Public Services and Engineering Department; 13. Owner shall remove and replace approximately 25 lineal feet of adjacent curb and gutter in accordance with City standards and the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings (G-02), at the direction of the City Public Services and Engineering Department; 14. Owner shall remove the existing concrete walkway in the parkway and remove and replace the existing driveway opening only if applicable in the new development. If the driveway access will not be needed, the curb opening shall be removed and restored with a curb and gutter in accordance with City standards and the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings, at the direction of the City Public Services and Engineering Department; 15. Owner shall remove and replace portions damaged during construction of adjacent public sidewalk (with “historic” pattern) and/or curb and gutter in accordance with City standards and the San Diego Regional Standards Drawings (SDRSD), and verify limits of removal at the direction of the City Public Services and Engineering Department; 16. The adjacent public sidewalk and alley shall remain safe, smooth and free of all trip or travel hazards during construction. Owner shall repair any public paving damaged (e.g., sidewalk, curb, gutter, alley, street) during the course of this project at the direction of the City’s Public Services and Engineering Department. All repairs to public property shall be in accordance with City standards and the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings; 17. Owner shall have a California licensed land surveyor install survey monuments at all property corners with locations indicated on the final parcel map and any monuments disturbed during construction shall be replaced by a licensed land surveyor at Owner’s expense; 18. Owner shall assure that the storage of building materials, equipment, or containers (other than for refuse purposes) in the City right-of-way does not occur; 199 19. Owner shall apply for an encroachment permit from the Public Services and Engineering Department for any amenities proposed for the adjoining public rights-of-way and the Owner shall assume responsibility for costs associated with the construction and maintenance of said amenities; 20. Owner shall assure that all work performed outside of the private property lines shall conform to the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings and Coronado Special Construction Provisions and prior to construction a right-of-way permit shall be obtained from the Public Services and Engineering Department; 21. Owner shall comply with the City of Coronado’s policy for proposed construction of subterranean garages/cellars dated June 2, 2005, as warranted by the improvement plan; 22. The City does not permit the discharge of groundwater or construction runoff into the storm drain system. Consequently, disposal of groundwater extracted from the site into the City sewer system, if warranted, requires approval and a permit from the City’s Public Services and Engineering Department. The applicant must pay the costs for this operation and make payment of a processing fee charged the City by San Diego’s Metropolitan Waste Water Department; 23. Owner shall maintain on-street parking spaces, parking and traffic markings, and signage adjacent to the subject property except as required to be modified to provide vehicle ingress and egress to the property or for temporary activity during construction as permitted by the City’s Public Services and Engineering Department; 24. In accordance with Chapter 60.12 of the Coronado Municipal Code, a wastewater capacity fee will be charged prior to building permit issuance for sewer service connections to the sanitary sewer system; 25. Owner shall protect, irrigate and maintain street trees within the adjacent street public parkway in accordance with Chapter 52.32 of the Coronado Municipal Code at the direction of the City of Coronado Public Services and Engineering Department. Said trees shall be protected with an expandable collar and no turf shall be permitted within 12 inches of the trunk; 26. Owner shall install linear root barriers adjacent to all existing and newly planted shade trees on public or private property, which are within 10 feet of any public sidewalk, street or alley. Said barriers shall be installed adjacent to the sidewalk and curb face to extend 8 feet to each side of center of the tree installed and not encircle the trees. The barrier shall be a minimum of 12” and a maximum of 18” in depth and shall be either hard plastic or fabric impregnated with a root inhibitor (bio-barrier); 27. Owner shall provide an automatic irrigation system to all existing and proposed adjoining public property landscaping. Street trees shall be served by independent dedicated lines with bubblers; 28. Owner shall provide an area on private property, accessible by all occupants, for the storage of trash and recyclable materials to the satisfaction of the City of Coronado; 29. Prior to approval of any and all demolition, construction, and building permits for the project, Owner shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Services and Engineering Department Director compliance with all of the applicable provisions of the following and any amendments thereto: a. The City of Coronado Stormwater and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control (Coronado Municipal Code Chapter 61.04). b. NPDES Municipal Permit No. CAS0109266 (San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R9-2013-0001 or re-issuances thereof). 200 c. NPDES Construction Permit No. CAS000002 (State Water Resources Control Board Order No. R9-2012-0006 DWQ or re-issuances thereof). Community Development Department 30. Owner shall reserve 20% of the units within the development “for rental” to persons qualified by the County Housing Authority as meeting Section 8 Rental Assistance requirements or to persons qualifying within very low and low income categories as established annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or “for sale” to persons qualifying within moderate income categories as established annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or shall pay a fee in lieu thereof of $7,000.00 for every unit within the project, at the option of the subdivider, for the purpose of providing affordable housing assistance in accordance with Chapter 82.21 of the Coronado Municipal Code (CMC); 31. Owner shall assure that any common areas and easements be identified and described on the Final Map; 32. Owner shall comply with and, if there are CC&Rs, include in said CC&Rs: a) That no existing or future utility lines be permitted outside of the lot or private interest spaces (separate interest spaces or units) of which they serve unless located within a common area or an easement approved by the City of Coronado; b) That common area or reciprocal pedestrian easements be provided to allow all private occupants of the property access to both the street and alley. Where fences or walls are proposed, gates shall be provided to give said occupants access to both the street and alley; c) Easements and/or rights providing for pedestrian and vehicle access, utilities and/or other purposes, for each proposed condominium unit, are to be specified in any condominium plans and/or conveyances of any unit constructed within the boundaries of this parcel map. Any vehicle access driveway and vehicle maneuvering/turnaround space adjacent to garages or parking spaces shall be shared by all owners; d) That two required off-street parking spaces be provided for each dwelling with each space specifically assigned to each dwelling unit and clearly marked for such dwelling or use; e) That each off-street parking space required for all dwellings be continuously maintained free and unobstructed, with adequate ingress and egress, and not used for any use other than parking of motor vehicles; f) That any present or future outside storage of trash be accessible by all occupants and be enclosed within a minimum 5 ft. high wall with gate which shall be on private property and approved by the City of Coronado Community Development Department; g) That each existing and proposed dwelling unit held as a condominium form of ownership shall be provided with a minimum of 200 cubic feet of storage space per dwelling, in addition to closets customarily provided, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance; and h) That none of the covenants, conditions and restrictions required by this condition shall be deleted, amended or modified without the prior written approval of the City of Coronado; and 33. If the above conditions have not been completed and accepted in accordance with standards established by the City prior to approval of the final map, then the subdivider shall enter into a secured agreement with the City for 100% of the estimated cost of constructing the 201 improvements and performing the conditions before the final map is approved pursuant to CMC Section 82.16.080. Said agreement shall be prepared and recorded with the County Recorder’s Office. If the above conditions are not completed prior to approval of the final map and a secured agreement is approved, all of the above conditions shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City of Coronado prior to any newly constructed dwelling’s building permit being finaled or occupancy permitted. 34. In accordance with Coronado Municipal Code Section 82.50.130(A) and State Government Code Section 66452.6, the Tentative Map shall expire 24 months after City Council approval. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, this _____ day of ________________, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Casey Tanaka, Mayor of the City of Coronado, California Attest: Mary L. Clifford, CMC City Clerk 202 ATTACHMENT B 203 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 204 12/06/16 PUBLIC HEARING: SECOND READING FOR ADOPTION OF “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA REPEALING CHAPTERS 44.04, 70.01, 70.05, 70.06, 70.20, 70.25, 70.30, 70.40, 70.50, 70.60, 70.80, 70.100, 70.110, AND 70.120 OF THE CORONADO MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING NEW CHAPTERS 70.01, 70.05, 70.06, 70.10, 70.20, 70.25, 70.30, 70.40, 70.50, 70.60, 70.80, 70.90, 70.100, 70.110, 70.120, AND 70.130 OF THE CORONADO MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH ADOPT BY REFERENCE THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, AND THE 2016 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, BUILDING CODE, RESIDENTIAL CODE, ELECTRIC CODE, MECHANICAL CODE, PLUMBING CODE, ENERGY CODE, HISTORIC BUILDING CODE, FIRE CODE, EXISTING BUILDING CODE, GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS, AND REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE” RECOMMENDATION: Hold a public hearing and adopt “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Coronado, California repealing Chapters 44.04, 70.01, 70.05, 70.06, 70.20, 70.25, 70.30, 70.40, 70.50, 70.60, 70.80, 70.100, 70.110, and 70.120 of the Coronado Municipal Code and adopting new Chapters 70.01, 70.05, 70.06, 70.10, 70.20, 70.25, 70.30, 70.40, 70.50, 70.60, 70.80, 70.90, 70.100, 70.110, 70.120, and 70.130 of the Coronado Municipal Code which adopt by reference the Uniform Administrative Code, the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the Uniform Housing Code, and the 2016 California Administrative Code, Building Code, Residential Code, Electric Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, Energy Code, Historic Building Code, Fire Code, Existing Building Code, Green Building Standards, and Referenced Standards Code.” FISCAL IMPACT: None identified. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: This is a policy matter reflective of the Council’s legislative role. Therefore a person that would challenge such a legislative action must prove that the decision was “arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, or unlawfully or procedurally unfair” per the California court decision of Fullerton Joint Union High School District v. State Bd. of Education [(1982) 32 Cal. 3d 779, 786]. PUBLIC NOTICE: The Government Code requires that publication of the notice of public hearing appear in the newspaper twice, at least five (5) days apart. Legal notices of the public hearing were published in the Coronado Eagle & Journal on November 23 and 30. A summary of the ordinance will be published in the Coronado Eagle & Journal within 15 days after passage of the ordinance. BACKGROUND: The California Building Standards Code is published in its entirety every three years by order of the California Legislature, with supplements published in intervening years. The 2016 Edition, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, California Building Standards Code, Parts 1-6, and Parts 8-12, delegates authority to various state agencies, boards, commissions, departments, and local jurisdictions to create building 205 8e 12/06/16 regulations to implement the state’s statutes. To formalize the use of the state regulations locally, the City of Coronado formally adopts these statutes by reference. The documents herein referenced for adoption are the official 2016 edition of the aforementioned 2016 Edition, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, California Building Standards Code, Parts 1-6 and Parts 8-12. These building standards have the same force of law and take effect on January 1, 2017. In addition, to align the 2016 California Fire Code and tables with the Title 24 Code of Regulations California Building Standards located in Title 70, Chapter 44.04 of Title 44 will be repealed and replaced in Chapter 70.90, to be titled “2016 California Fire Code,” of Title 70 Building and Construction. The ordinance was introduced at the November 15, 2016, City Council meeting. ANALYSIS: The triennial update and adoption of the state codes provides an opportunity to reorganize portions of the City’s Municipal Code related to the building code sections. The reorganization of the Fire Code to Title 70 Building and Construction Chapter 70.90 aligns the adoption of the Fire Code in its intended location as Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, published by the California Building Standards Commission. Additionally, the California Building Standards Commission and state law permit the various jurisdictions under its authority to adopt the Codes with modifications or amendments to various sections of the Codes under either of two conditions: a. Minor modifications or amendments to various sections of the Codes may be made if such modifications or amendments maintain the intent of that section. Such minor modifications or amendments support local operational, zoning, or other regulatory requirements. b. Major modifications or amendments to the Codes may be made in support of local operational, zoning or other local regulatory requirements; however, such modifications or amendments must be formally submitted, reviewed and approved by the California Building Standards Commission. Staff presented specific modifications or amendments to each Code at the introduction. These modifications or amendments, listed in the Ordinance, are all considered minor and do not require the review and approval process by the California Building Standards Commission. Nonetheless, these state codes may be adopted or amended by the City Council after a noticed public hearing. Gov’t Code §§ 50022.3-50022.4. Notable amendments to Chapter 70.01 Uniform Administrative Code in Section 70.01.030 are as follows: • Section 301.2.1 item #2 entitled “Building permits” shall be amended: Fences not over 2 feet high. • Section 301.2.1 item #5 entitled “Building permits” shall be amended: Retaining walls which are not over 2 feet in height measured from the 206 12/06/16 bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding flammable liquids. The above local amendments are to require a building permit for a fence or a wall 2 feet high. Absent these amendments, no building permit would be required for a fence less than six feet high or a retaining wall less than four feet high. All other amendments are carried forward from previous code adoptions or are administrative in nature. The revised ordinance makes the language consistent throughout the CMC for all chapters adopting state or uniform codes by reference. The full language of the revisions is attached in the proposed ordinance. The adoption of additional chapters of the 2016 California Building Standards Code requires that the existing CMC Chapter 70.120, entitled “Requests for Reasonable Accommodations under the Fair Housing Act,” be repealed and readopted with a new chapter number with no changes to the text of this chapter. ALTERNATIVE: None. State mandated codes become effective regardless of City action, though without adoption of the codes by reference, no local changes are effective. Submitted by City Clerk/Clifford Attachment: Ordinance CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR N/A JNC MLC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 207 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 208 1 ORDINANCE NO. ______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING CHAPTERS 44.04, 70.01, 7.05, 7.06, 70.20, 70.25, 70.30, 70.40, 70.50, 70.60, 70.80, 70.100, 70.110, AND 70.120 OF THE CORONADO MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING NEW CHAPTERS 70.01, 70.05, 70.06, 70.10, 70.20, 70.25, 70.30, 70.40, 70.50, 70.60, 70.80, 70.90, 70.100, 70.110, 70.120, AND 70.130 OF THE CORONADO MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH ADOPT BY REFERENCE THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, AND THE 2016 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, BUILDING CODE, RESIDENTIAL CODE, ELECTRIC CODE, MECHANICAL CODE, PLUMBING CODE, ENERGY CODE, HISTORIC BUILDING CODE, FIRE CODE, EXISTING BUILDING CODE, GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS, AND REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE WHEREAS, Health & Safety Code Section 17958 mandates that the City of Coronado shall adopt ordinances or regulations imposing the same requirements as are contained in the regulations adopted by the State pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 17922; and WHEREAS, the State of California is mandated by Health & Safety Code Section 17922 to impose the same requirements as are contained in the 2016 California Building Standards Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations; and WHEREAS, the State of California is mandated by Health & Safety Code Section 17922 to impose the same requirements as are contained in the 2016 California Building Standards Code, together with the City of Coronado amendments, which collectively shall be the City of Coronado Building Code, for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Coronado; and WHEREAS, local amendments adopted by the City of Coronado shall take precedence over the 2016 California Building Standards Code; and WHEREAS, Health & Safety Code Section 17958.5 permits the City of Coronado to make such changes or modifications to the 2016 California Building Standards Code as are reasonably necessary because of local conditions; and WHEREAS, Health & Safety Code Section 17958.7 requires that the City of Coronado, before making any changes or modifications to building standards pursuant to Section 17958.5, make express findings that such changes or modifications are needed due to climatic, geographic, or topographic conditions and files the same with the California Building Standards Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Coronado does herewith find that the City has certain climatic, geologic, and topographical features that can have a deleterious effect on the safety and fitness of property, buildings and structures; and 209 2 WHEREAS, Sections 50022.1 through 50022.10, inclusive, of the Government Code provide authority for the adoption by reference of codes, or portion of such codes; and WHEREAS, the adoption of additional chapters of the 2016 California Building Standards Code requires that the existing CMC Chapter 70.120, entitled “Requests for Reasonable Accommodations under the Fair Housing Act,” be repealed and readopted with a new chapter number with no changes to the text of this chapter. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION ONE: Code Adoption and Availability That certain documents, one (1) copy of which is on file in the office of the Building Official of the City of Coronado, being marked and designated as the 2016 California Building Standards Code, including Appendix Chapters, as published by the California Building Standards Commission, be and is hereby adopted as the Building and Fire Code of the City of Coronado, in the State of California regulating and governing the conditions and maintenance of all property, facilities, buildings and structures; by providing the standards for supplied utilities and facilities and other physical things and conditions essential to ensure that structures are safe, sanitary and fit for occupation and use; and the condemnation of buildings and structures unfit for human occupancy and use and the demolition of such structures as herein provided; providing for the issuance of permits and collection of fees therefore; and each and all of the regulations, provisions, penalties, conditions and terms of said Building and Fire Code on file in the office of the City of Coronado are hereby referred to, adopted, and made a part hereof, as if fully set out in this ordinance, with the additions, insertions, deletions and changes, if any, prescribed in Exhibits A through P of this ordinance. SECTION TWO: Chapters 44.04, 70.01, 70.05, 70.06, 70.20, 70.25, 70.30, 70.40, 70.50, 70.60, 70.80, 70.100, 70.110, and 70.120 of the Coronado Municipal Code are hereby repealed. SECTION THREE: Chapter 70.01 of the Coronado Municipal Code, entitled Uniform Administrative Code, is hereby added to read as set forth in Exhibit A. SECTION FOUR: Chapter 70.05 of the Coronado Municipal Code, entitled Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, is hereby added to read as set forth in Exhibit B. 210 3 SECTION FIVE: Chapter 70.06 of the Coronado Municipal Code, entitled Uniform Housing Code, is hereby added to read as set forth in Exhibit C. SECTION SIX: Chapter 70.10 of the Coronado Municipal Code, entitled California Administrative Code, is hereby added to read as set forth in Exhibit D. SECTION SEVEN: Chapter 70.20 of the Coronado Municipal Code, entitled California Building Code, is hereby added to read as set forth in Exhibit E. SECTION EIGHT: Chapter 70.25 of the Coronado Municipal Code, entitled California Residential Code, is hereby added to read as set forth in Exhibit F. SECTION NINE: Chapter 70.30 of the Coronado Municipal Code, entitled California Electrical Code, is hereby added to read as set forth in Exhibit G. SECTION TEN: Chapter 70.40 of the Coronado Municipal Code, entitled California Mechanical Code, is hereby added to read as set forth in Exhibit H. SECTION ELEVEN: Chapter 70.50 of the Coronado Municipal Code, entitled California Plumbing Code, is hereby added to read as set forth in Exhibit I. SECTION TWELVE: Chapter 70.60 of the Coronado Municipal Code, entitled California Energy Code, is hereby added to read as set forth in Exhibit J. SECTION THIRTEEN: Chapter 70.80 of the Coronado Municipal Code, entitled California Historic Building Code, is hereby added to read as set forth in Exhibit K. 211 4 SECTION FOURTEEN: Chapter 70.90 of the Coronado Municipal Code, entitled California Fire Code, is hereby added to read as set forth in Exhibit L. SECTION FIFTEEN: Chapter 70.100 of the Coronado Municipal Code, entitled California Existing Building Code, is hereby added to read as set forth in Exhibit M. SECTION SIXTEEN: Chapter 70.110 of the Coronado Municipal Code, entitled California Green Building Standards Code, is hereby added to read as set forth in Exhibit N. SECTION SEVENTEEN: Chapter 70.120 of the Coronado Municipal Code, entitled California Referenced Standards Code, is hereby added to read as set forth in Exhibit O. SECTION EIGHTEEN: Chapter 70.130 of the Coronado Municipal Code, entitled Requests for Reasonable Accommodations under the Fair Housing Act, is hereby added to read as set forth in Exhibit P. SECTION NINETEEN: This ordinance was introduced on November 15, 2016. SECTION TWENTY: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Coronado hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION TWENTY-ONE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. Within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, the City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933. 212 5 PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of __________ 2016, by the following votes, to wit: AYES: BAILEY, DOWNEY, SANDKE, WOIWODE, TANAKA NAYES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE ____________________________________ Casey Tanaka, Mayor of the City of Coronado, California ATTESTATION AND CERTIFICATE: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. ____, which has been published pursuant to law. ____________________________ Mary L. Clifford, CMC City Clerk 213 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 214 Title 70 BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION Chapters: 70.01 Uniform Administrative Code 70.02 Building and Planning Permit Fees and Deposits 70.03 Building Numbers 70.04 Undergrounding Utilities 70.05 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings 70.06 Uniform Housing Code 70.10 California Administrative Code 70.20 California Building Code 70.25 California Residential Code 70.30 California Electrical Code 70.35 Small Residential Roof Top Solar Energy Systems 70.40 California Mechanical Code 70.50 California Plumbing Code 70.60 California Energy Code 70.70 (Reserved) 70.80 2016 California Historic Building Code 70.90 California Fire Code 70.100 California Existing Building Code 70.110 California Green Building Standards Code 70.120 California Referenced Standards Code 70.130 Requests for Reasonable Accommodations under the Fair Housing Act 215 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 216 Exhibit A Chapter 70.01 UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Sections: 70.01.010 Code adopted 70.01.020 Appendices 70.01.030 Amendments 70.01.040 Permit Fees 70.01.010 Code adopted The Uniform Administrative Code (UAC), 1997 Edition, as published by the International Conference of Building Officials, is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the city administrative code for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Coronado and shall serve as the administrative, organizational, and enforcement rules and regulations for the technical codes which regulate site preparation and construction, alteration, moving, demolition, repair, use and occupancy of buildings, structures and building service equipment within this jurisdiction. 70.01.020 Appendices Reserved. 70.01.030 Amendments The City Council hereby expressly finds that the following revisions, additions, deletions and other changes to the Uniform Administrative Code and Appendices thereto as adopted herein are needed in the City of Coronado as herein set forth: A. Section 101.1 entitled “Title” shall be amended: These regulations shall be known as the City of Coronado Administrative Code, may be cited as such and will be referred to herein as “this Code.” B. Section 102.4, paragraph 2, entitled “Existing Occupancy” shall be amended: A change in the use or occupancy of any existing structure shall comply with the provisions of Section 309 and Part 10 of the California Existing Code. C. Section 301.2.1 item #2 entitled “Building permits” shall be amended: Fences not over 2 feet high. D. Section 301.2.1 item #5 entitled “Building permits” shall be amended: Retaining walls which are not over 2 feet in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding flammable liquids. 217 E. Section 303.4 add Paragraph 2: The Building official may extend a permit for a period not exceeding 180 days upon written request by the permittee showing that circumstances beyond control of the permittee have prevented action from being taken. F. Section 304.1 entitled “General” shall be amended: Fees shall be assessed in accordance with Chapter 70.02 of this Title. G. Section 304.2, paragraph 1, sentence 1 entitled “Permit fees” shall be amended: The fee for each permit shall be set forth in Chapter 70.02 of this Title. H. Section 304.3 entitled “Plan review fees” shall be amended: When submittal documents are required by Section 302.2, a plan review fee shall be paid at the time of submitting the submittal documents for plan review. Said plan review fee shall be as set forth in Chapter 70.02 of this Title. The plan review fees for electrical, mechanical, fire and plumbing work shall be set forth in Chapter 70.02 of this Title. The plan review fees specified in Chapter 70.02 of this Title are separate fees from permit fees specified in Chapter 70.02 of this Title and are in addition to the permit fees. When submittal documents are incomplete or changed so as to require additional plan review or when the project involves deferred submittal items as defined in Section 302.4.2, an additional plan review fee shall be charged at the rate set forth in Chapter 70.02 of this Title. I. Section 304.4 entitled “Expiration of Plan Review” shall be amended: Applications for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official. The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days upon written request by the applicant showing that circumstances beyond the control of the applicant have prevented action from being taken. An application shall not be extended if this code or any other pertinent laws or ordinances have been amended subsequent to the date of application. In order to renew action on an application after expiration, the applicant shall resubmit plans and pay a new plan review fee. J. Section 304.5.2 entitled “Fee” shall be amended: An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the permit fee required by this code. The investigation fee shall be set forth in Chapter 70.02. The payment of such investigation fee shall not exempt the applicant from compliance with all other provisions of either this code or technical codes nor from the penalty prescribed by law. K. Table 3-A through Table 3–H shall be deleted. 70.01.040 Permit Fees Permit fees shall be set forth in Chapter 70.02 CMC. 218 Exhibit B Chapter 70.05 UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS Sections: 70.05.010 Code adopted 70.05.020 Appendices 70.05.030 Amendments 70.05.040 Permit Fees 70.05.010 Code adopted The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition, as published by the International Conference of Building Officials, is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the city code for the abatement of dangerous buildings for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Coronado to provide a just, equitable, and practicable method, to be cumulative with and in addition to any remedy provided by the Building Code, Housing Code or otherwise available at law, whereby buildings and structures which from any cause endanger the life, limb, health, morals, property, safety or welfare of the general public or their occupants may be required to be repaired, vacated or demolished. 70.05.020 Appendices Reserved. 70.05.030 Amendments Reserved. 70.05.040 Permit Fees Permit fees shall be as set forth in Chapter 70.02 CMC. 219 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 220 Exhibit C Chapter 70.06 UNIFORM HOUSING CODE Sections: 70.06.010 Code adopted 70.06.020 Appendices 70.06.030 Amendments 70.06.040 Permit Fees 70.06.010 Code adopted The Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition, as published by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the city code for housing for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Coronado to provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the use and occupancy, location and maintenance of all residential buildings and structures within this jurisdiction. 70.06.020 Appendices Reserved. 70.06.030 Amendments Reserved. 70.06.040 Permit Fees Permit fees shall be as set forth in Chapter 70.02 CMC. 221 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 222 Exhibit D Chapter 70.10 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Sections: 70.10.010 Code adopted 70.10.020 Appendices 70.10.030 Amendments 70.10.040 Permit Fees 70.10.010 Code adopted The California Administrative Code (CAC), 2016 Edition, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 1, as published by the California Building Standards Commission, is adopted and incorporated by reference for the City of Coronado. 70.10.020 Appendices Reserved. 70.10.030 Amendments Reserved. 70.10.040 Permit Fees Permit fees shall be as set forth in Chapter 70.02 CMC. 223 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 224 Exhibit E Chapter 70.20 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE Sections: 70.20.010 Code adopted 70.20.020 Appendices 70.20.030 Amendments 70.20.040 Permit Fees 70.20.010 Code adopted The California Building Code (CBC), 2016 Edition, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2 as published by the California Building Standards Commission based on the 2015 Edition of the International Building Code, is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the city building code for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Coronado for the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal, conversion, demolition, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area, and maintenance of building and structures or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures within this jurisdiction. 70.20.020 Appendices A. Appendix J: Grading. B. Appendix I: Patio Covers 70.20.030 Amendments Reserved. 70.20.040 Permit Fees Permit fees shall be as set forth in Chapter 70.02 CMC. 225 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 226 Exhibit F Chapter 70.25 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE Sections: 70.25.010 Code adopted 70.25.020 Appendices 70.25.030 Amendments 70.25.040 Permit Fees 70.25.010 Code adopted The California Residential Code (CRC), 2016 Edition, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2.5, as published by the California Building Standards Commission based on the 2015 Edition of the International Residential Code, is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the city residential code for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Coronado for erection, construction, alteration, enlargement, repair, use and occupancy, removal, demolition of detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures not more than three stories above grade plane in height within this jurisdiction. 70.25.020 Appendices Reserved. 70.25.030 Amendments None of the appendices to the 2016 California Residential Code are adopted by the City of Coronado. 70.25.040 Permit Fees Permit fees shall be as set forth in Chapter 70.02 CMC. 227 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 228 Exhibit G Chapter 70.30 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE Sections: 70.30.010 Code adopted 70.30.020 Appendices 70.30.030 Amendments 70.30.040 Permit Fees 70.30.010 Code adopted The California Electrical Code (CEC), 2016 Edition, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 3, as published by the California Building Standards Commission, based on the 2014 Edition of the National Electrical Code, is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the city electrical code for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Coronado for the installation, alteration or repair of electrical systems and permit requirements and inspections within this jurisdiction. 70.30.020 Appendices Reserved. 70.30.030 Amendments Reserved. 70.30.040 Permit Fees Permit fees shall be as set forth in Chapter 70.02 CMC. 229 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 230 Exhibit H Chapter 70.40 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE Sections: 70.40.010 Code adopted 70.40.020 Appendices 70.40.030 Amendments 70.40.040 Permit Fees 70.40.010 Code adopted The California Mechanical Code (CMC), 2016 Edition, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 4, as published by the California Building Standards Commission, based on the 2015 Edition of the Uniform Mechanical Code, is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the city mechanical code for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Coronado for the addition to or erection, installation, alteration, repair, relocation, replacement, use or maintenance of any heating, ventilating, cooling, refrigeration systems, incinerators, or other miscellaneous heat-producing appliances within this jurisdiction. 70.40.020 Appendices None of the appendices to the 2016 California Mechanical Code are adopted by the City of Coronado. 70.40.030 Amendments Reserved. 70.40.040 Permit Fees Permit fees shall be as set forth in Chapter 70.02 CMC. 231 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 232 Exhibit I Chapter 70.50 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE Sections: 70.50.010 Code adopted 70.50.020 Appendices 70.50.030 Amendments 70.50.040 Permit Fees 70.50.010 Code adopted The California Plumbing Code (CPC), 2016 Edition, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 5, as published by the California Building Standards Commission, based on the 2015 Edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the city plumbing code for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Coronado for the installation, alteration, relocation, addition to, use, maintenance, repair and replacement of plumbing systems, including gas, equipment, appliances, fixtures, fittings and appurtenances, and where connected to a water or sewage system and all aspects of a medical gas systems in or on any building or structure or outdoors on any premises or property within this jurisdiction. 70.50.020 Appendices None of the appendices to the 2016 California Plumbing Code are adopted by the City of Coronado. 70.50.030 Amendments Reserved. 70.50.040 Permit Fees Permit fees shall be as set forth in Chapter 70.02 CMC. 233 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 234 Exhibit J Chapter 70.60 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE Sections: 70.60.010 Code adopted 70.60.020 Appendices 70.60.030 Amendments 70.60.040 Permit Fees 70.60.010 Code adopted The California Energy Code (CENC), 2016 Edition, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, as published by the California Building Standards Commission, is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the city energy code for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Coronado for the conservation of energy and all matters governing the design and construction of buildings for energy efficiency within this jurisdiction. 70.60.020 Appendices Reserved. 70.60.030 Amendments Reserved. 70.60.040 Permit Fees Permit fees shall be as set forth in Chapter 70.02 CMC. 235 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 236 Exhibit K Chapter 70.80 2016 CALIFORNIA HISTORIC BUILDING CODE Sections: 70.80.010 Code adopted 70.80.020 Appendices 70.80.030 Amendments 70.80.040 Permit Fees 70.80.010 Code adopted The California Historic Building Code (CHBC), 2016 Edition, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 8, as published by the California Building Standards, is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the city historic building code for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Coronado for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, relocation or reconstruction of buildings or properties designated as qualified historical buildings or properties within this jurisdiction. The 2016 California Historic Code does not provide guidance as to how a building or property may be designated as a historic resource of the City of Coronado. Historic designation rules and regulations are delineated in CMC Title 84. 70.80.020 Appendices Reserved. 70.80.030 Amendments Reserved. 70.80.040 Permit Fees Permit fees for projects to be designated historic resources shall be as set forth in Chapter 70.02 CMC and CMC Title 84. 237 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 238 Exhibit L Chapter 70.90 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE Sections: 70.90.010 Code adopted 70.90.020 Appendices 70.90.030 Amendments 70.90.040 Permit Fees 70.90.010 Code adopted The California Fire Code (CFC), 2016 Edition, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9, as published by the California Building Standards Commission based on the 2015 Edition of the International Fire Code, is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the city fire code for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Coronado for safeguarding of life and property from fire and explosion hazards arising from the storage, handling and use of hazardous substances, materials and devices, and from conditions hazardous to life or property in the occupancy of buildings and premises erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal, conversion, demolition, equipment use, and maintenance of buildings and structures, including that providing for the issuance of permits; from conditions hazardous to life, property or public welfare in the occupancy of structures or premises; and from the construction, extension, repair, alteration or removal of fire suppression, automatic sprinkler systems and alarm systems or fire hazards in the structure or on the premises from occupancy or operation and conditions affecting the safety of firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations within this jurisdiction. 70.90.020 Appendices None of the appendices to the 2016 California Fire Code are adopted by the City of Coronado. 70.90.030 Amendments Reserved. 70.90.040 Permit Fees Permit fees shall be as set forth in Chapter 70.02 CMC. 239 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 240 Exhibit M Chapter 70.100 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE Sections: 70.100.010 Code adopted 70.100.020 Appendices 70.100.030 Amendments 70.100.040 Permit Fees 70.100.010 Code adopted The California Existing Building Code (CEBC), 2016 Edition, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 10, as published by the California Building Standards Commission based on the 2015 Edition of the International Existing Building Code, is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the city existing building code for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Coronado for promoting public safety and welfare by reducing the risk of death or injury that may result from the effects of earthquakes on existing unreinforced masonry-bearing-wall buildings within this jurisdiction. The CEBC does not apply to existing electrical, plumbing, mechanical or fire safety systems. 70.100.020 Appendices Reserved. 70.100.030 Amendments Reserved. 70.100.040 Permit Fees Permit fees shall be as set forth in Chapter 70.02 CMC. 241 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 242 Exhibit N Chapter 70.110 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE Sections: 70.110.010 Code adopted 70.110.020 Appendices 70.110.030 Amendments 70.110.040 Permit Fees 70.110.010 Code adopted The California Green Building Standards Code (CGC), 2016 Edition, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, as published by the California Building Standards Commission, is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as the city green building code for the purpose of prescribing regulations in the City of Coronado to improve public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: A. Planning and design; B. Energy efficiency; C. Water efficiency and conservation; D. Material conservation and resource efficiency; E. Environmental quality. 70.110.020 Appendices None of the appendices to the 2016 California Green Building Code are adopted by the City of Coronado. 70.110.030 Amendments Reserved. 70.110.040 Permit Fees Permit fees shall be as set forth in Chapter 70.02 CMC. 243 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 244 Exhibit O Chapter 70.120 CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE Sections: 70.120.010 Code adopted 70.120.020 Appendices 70.120.030 Amendments 70.120.040 Permit Fees 70.120.010 Code adopted The California Referenced Standards, 2016 Edition, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 12, as published by the California Building Standards Commission, is adopted and incorporated by reference for the City of Coronado. 70.120.020 Appendices Reserved. 70.120.030 Amendments Reserved. 70.120.040 Permit Fees Permit fees shall be as set forth in Chapter 70.02 CMC. 245 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 246 Exhibit P Chapter 70.130 REQUESTS FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS UNDER THE FAIR HOUSING ACT Sections: 70.130.010 Purpose. 70.130.020 Definitions. 70.130.030 Applicability. 70.130.040 Application requirements. 70.130.050 Review authority and procedure. 70.130.060 Reasonable accommodation criteria and findings. 70.130.070 Appeal of determination. 70.130.010 Purpose. This chapter provides a procedure to request reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the “Acts”) in the application of zoning laws and other land use regulations, policies and procedures. 70.130.020 Definitions. “Acts” shall mean the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. “Building Official” means the Director of Community Development of the City of Coronado. “Decision-making body” shall mean the City body which is authorized to approve the discretionary permit or other entitlement required to carry out the proposed project. “Person with a disability” is: a person who has a physical or mental impairment that limits or substantially limits one or more major life activities; anyone who is regarded as having such impairment; or anyone who has a record of such impairment. 70.130.030 Applicability. A. A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any person with a disability, or by an entity acting on behalf of a person or persons with disabilities, to provide or secure equal access to housing to prevent the application of any zoning law or other land use regulation, policy, or practice of the City from acting as a barrier to fair housing opportunities. This section is intended to apply to those persons who are defined as disabled under the Acts. 247 B. A request for reasonable accommodation may include an application for a modification or exception to the application of zoning and building standards and use of housing or housing-related facilities in order to eliminate identifiable regulatory barriers to provide a person with a disability an equal opportunity to housing. Requests for reasonable accommodation shall be made in the manner prescribed by CMC 70.130.040. 70.130.040 Application requirements. A request for reasonable accommodation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department on application forms prescribed by the Community Development Department to include, but not be limited to, the following items: A. Application form signed by the property owner or authorized agent; B. The applicant’s name, address and telephone number; C. The street address and assessor’s parcel number of the property for which the request is being made; D. The current and proposed use of the property; E. The basis for the claim that the individual (or group of individuals, if application is made by an entity acting on behalf of a person or persons with disabilities) is considered disabled under the Acts; F. The zoning law, provision, building regulation or policy from which reasonable accommodation is being requested; G. Why the requested accommodation is necessary to make the specific property accessible to the individual or group of individuals; H. Credible documentation shall be provided with respect to each element described above so that the City can fully evaluate the application and verify the factual basis underlying the need for the accommodation. The documentation shall be provided in a manner to permit the City to independently make this assessment; I. Application fee established by City Council resolution. 70.130.050 Review authority and procedure. A. An application request for reasonable accommodation must be submitted with and processed concurrently with an application for the associated land use, building, or similar determination, whether such determination is ministerial or discretionary. B. An application request for reasonable accommodation associated with a ministerial land use, building, or similar determination shall be reviewed by the Building Official. The Building 248 Official shall make a written determination within 30 days and either grant, grant with modifications, or deny such a request for reasonable accommodation in accordance with CMC 70.130.060. C. An application for reasonable accommodation associated with a discretionary land use, building, or similar determination shall be reviewed by the decision-making body which is authorized to approve the discretionary permit for the project. Notice and hearing shall be as required for the associated discretionary land use, building, or other determination. The decision-making body shall make a written determination and either grant, grant with modifications, or deny such a request for reasonable accommodation in accordance with CMC 70.130.060. 70.130.060 Reasonable accommodation criteria and findings. A. The Building Official or decision-making body may grant the requested accommodation or grant it with modifications if all of the following findings can be made: 1. The housing which is the subject of the request will be used by an individual or a group of individuals considered disabled under the Acts; 2. The accommodation requested is reasonable and necessary to make specific housing available to the individual or group of individuals with disability or disabilities under the Acts; 3. The requested reasonable accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City; and 4. The requested reasonable accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program or law including, but not limited to, land use and zoning. B. The following criteria, among other factors, may be considered by the decision-making body or Building Official regarding the reasonableness of the requested accommodation: 1. Whether there are alternative reasonable accommodations available that would provide an equivalent level of benefit; and 2. Whether the requested reasonable accommodation substantially affects the physical attributes of the property or has impacts on surrounding properties that would fundamentally alter a City program or law. C. The decision-making body or Building Official may impose any conditions of approval needed to ensure that the project complies with the required findings in subsection A of this section. Conditions may include, but are not limited to, ensuring that any removable structures or physical design features that are constructed or installed in association with a reasonable accommodation shall be removed once those structures or physical design features are no longer necessary to provide access to the dwelling unit for the current occupants. D. If an application for reasonable accommodation is approved, the request shall be granted to an individual and shall not run with the land unless it is determined that: (1) the modification is 249 physically integrated into the residential structure and cannot easily be removed or altered to comply with the code, or (2) the accommodation is to be used by another individual with a disability. 70.130.070 Appeal of determination. The decision of the Building Official or decision-making body to grant, grant with modifications, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall become final 10 calendar days after the notice of decision unless a notice of appeal to the City Council is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with Chapter 1.12 CMC. 250 12/06/16 COUNCIL REPORTS ON INTER-AGENCY COMMITTEE AND BOARD ASSIGNMENTS 251 11a THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 252 12/06/16 Councilmember Carrie Anne Inada Downey Coronado Meetings/events from September 1 – November 30, 2016 Date Event Activity/Topics 9/6/16 MainStreet Board of Directors Meeting Represented City of Coronado 9/9/16 SANDAG Board of Directors Meeting Represented City of Coronado 9/9/16 ARJIS Evaluation Steering Meeting Represented SANDAG Board on subcommittee to evaluate ARJIS 9/10/16 MainStreet Garden Party 9/21/16 Airport Land Use Commission ALCUP Working Group Represented City of Coronado 9/22/16 SANDAG Energy Working Group Represented South Bay Cities 9/22/16 REMEDI Ribbon Cutting 9/23/16 SANDAG Board of Directors Meeting Represented City of Coronado 9/29/16 Coronado Chamber of Commerce Sundowner 9/30/16 Navy Region Southwest Change of Command Represented City of Coronado 10/04/2016 MainStreet Board of Directors Meeting Represented City of Coronado 10/5/16 Walk to School Day- CMS Participated in student recognition 10/7/16 SANDAG Planning Board Meeting Represented South Bay Cities 10/14/16 Met 2 Cultural Arts Commission members Discussed possible Citywide Cultural Arts Master Plan 10/22/2016 Attended Ribbon Cutting at CHS Track Official opening of free resident use of CUSD facilities such as track and playgrounds under Joint Use Agreement 10/24/2016 C-3 Gallery Exhibit Opening 10/25/2016 City Staff/Coronado Promenade Concerts Mtg Participated in meeting to discuss measures being taken regarding passenger loading zones, no longer have double concerts, etc. for next year’s Summer Concerts in the Park. 253 12/06/16 10/27/2016 Stood at Amphib Base Oceanside Gate Observed pedestrians crossing and light sequencing. Showed pedestrians new signs to request they wait a full light before crossing to help traffic. 10/27/2016 CCHOA Board Mtg Briefed HoA Board on efforts to better operate traffic lights on the Strand. 10/28/2016 Spectrum TV Interview Interviewed on cable TV show about LAFCO Coastal Campus dispute 10/28/2016 Coronado Golf Pro Welcome Attended Golf Course Event to meet new Golf Pro Brian Smock 10/31/2016 Met John Frappier, Palm Street resident Met to observe illegal U-Turns to avoid no left turn at Palm during 2-6 rush hour. 11/1/2016 Coronado MainStreet Board Meeting Represented City of Coronado 11/10/2016 Middle School Take a Veteran to School Day 11/11/2016 Opening of NSW First Ashore Sculpture 11/16/2016 ALUCP Working Group Represented City of Coronado 11/18/2016 SANDAG Board of Directors Meeting Represented City of Coronado 11/29/2016 Loews Christmas Tree Lighting Represented City of Coronado 254 12/06/16 Agenda Item 11a: Report on Inter-Agency Committee and Board Assignments for Councilmember Michael Woiwode Period ending 11/15/2016 Tuesday, 11/15: Cornerstone Dedication Ceremony for the John D. Spreckels Center. Monday, 11/14: League of California Cities monthly meeting. Legislative update. Marijuana, e- cigarettes, transportation funding were topics. Sunday, 11/13: Old Goats and City reception for wounded warriors at the Nautilus room. Mayor keynoted. Saturday, 11/12: Coronado Island Film Festival events focused on the movie “Lone Survivor.” Friday, 11/11: Unveiling of the City’s new public art piece “Naked Warrior” at Glorietta Bay Park. Thursday, 11/10: SDMAC Board of Directors. Reported on actions related to the SANDAG Military Working Group. Thursday, 11/10: MTS Board of Directors. Review of CAFR for the year. Adding additional service from border crossing to Iris Transit Station. Systemwide, ridership is down 4%, perhaps due to lower fuel price, lower unemployment, greater prosperity. Thursday, 11/10: San Diego Chamber of Commerce Legislative Lounge. Region-wide legislator meet-and-greet. Saturday, 11/5: Avenue of Heroes induction. Friday, 11/4: Albondigas South County. Panel of political analysts forecasting the outcomes of Nov. 8. Friday, 11/4: SANDAG Transportation Committee. Thursday, 11/3: LiveWell San Diego conference. Contacted some Health and Human Services personnel who are interested in our new John D. Spreckels Center. 255 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 256 12/06/16 CONSIDERATION OF REAPPOINTMENT OF TWO INCUMBENTS, NORMAN FUNK AND AKSHAY SATEESH, TO SERVE A FIRST THREE-YEAR TERM ON THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Reappoint Norman Funk and Akshay Sateesh, each, to a first three-year term that will expire on January 31, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: None. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: The Government Code provides that the Mayor is responsible for appointments to most commissions or committees, with the approval of the City Council. An appointment to vacancies on City commissions, therefore, is a legislative action. Generally, legislative actions receive greater deference from the courts, and persons challenging a legislative action must prove that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unlawfully or procedurally unfair. PUBLIC NOTICE: None required. BACKGROUND: The Coronado Municipal Code and City Council Policies #6 and #23 set forth the appointment process to fill vacancies or re-appoint eligible incumbents to City boards, commissions, or committees, and set a limit on the time an individual may serve to a maximum of two terms or eight years, whichever is less. ANALYSIS: Commissioners Funk and Sateesh were appointed on October 6, 2015, to fill vacancies for terms which expire on January 31, 2017. Both are eligible for a full three-year term and have indicated that they desire to serve another term should they be reappointed. ALTERNATIVE: Decline to reappoint and direct the City Clerk to advertise for the vacancy. Submitted by City Clerk/Clifford CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR NA JNC MLC NA NA NA NA NA NA RAM 257 11b THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 258 12/06/16 CONSIDERATION OF REAPPOINTMENT OF ONE INCUMBENT, CAULEEN GLASS, TO SERVE A SECOND, THREE-YEAR TERM ON THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Reappoint Cauleen Glass to a second, three-year term that will expire on February 29, 2020. FISCAL IMPACT: None. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: The Government Code provides that the Mayor is responsible for appointments to most commissions or committees, with the approval of the City Council. An appointment to vacancies on City commissions, therefore, is a legislative action. Generally, legislative actions receive greater deference from the courts, and persons challenging a legislative action must prove that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unlawfully or procedurally unfair. PUBLIC NOTICE: None required. BACKGROUND: The Coronado Municipal Code and City Council Policies #6 and #23 set forth the appointment process to fill vacancies or re-appoint eligible incumbents to City boards, commissions, or committees, and set a limit on the time an individual may serve to a maximum of two terms or eight years, whichever is less. ANALYSIS: Commissioner Cauleen Glass was appointed to her first three-year term on February 18, 2014, and is eligible to serve a second three-year term. Ms. Glass is filling a position designated to be filled by a resident of the Cays. She has indicated that she desires to serve another term should she be reappointed. ALTERNATIVE: Decline to reappoint and direct the City Clerk to advertise for the vacancy. Submitted by City Clerk/Clifford CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR NA JNC MLC NA EW NA NA NA NA NA 259 11c THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 260 12/06/16 PRESENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR) FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the City of Coronado CAFR for the year ending June 30, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: The CAFR portrays the City’s financial condition as very healthy. There is no direct fiscal impact related to the receipt and filing of this report. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: This is an informational item only. The City Council is not required to take any action to approve, disapprove, or modify the report. PUBLIC NOTICE: None. BACKGROUND: Staff prepares a CAFR annually to provide a review of the City’s financial position and the financial transactions for the previous fiscal year. The City engages an independent auditor to audit the City’s financial statements, examine and report on the City’s internal controls, and to assist in the preparation of the CAFR. Under separate cover, the CAFR has been submitted to the City Council and is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, the City’s Library, and online at: https://www.coronado.ca.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_746006/File/government/departments/administrative/cafr/FINAL%20CORONADO%20CAFR.pdf The public accounting firm of Lance, Soll, & Lunghard (LSL) has conducted an audit of the City’s financial statements for the year ending June 30, 2016, and rendered an unmodified/clean opinion therewith. They have applied auditing procedures that are in compliance with the auditing standards that they are required to abide by in their profession. This report follows up on the information presented in the interim year-end financial report presented on October 18, 2016. There are no substantive differences in this report from what was presented on October 18. A management partner from LSL will be at the December 6, 2016, meeting to provide a brief presentation and answer questions. This opportunity is provided to the Council to demonstrate the transparency of the audit process and help provide the public with a level of confidence in the manner in which the audit firm independently conducted its audit. ANALYSIS: Responsibility for the accuracy, completeness and fair presentation of the CAFR, which includes all disclosures in the financial statements, rests with City management. In addition, management is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that adequate accounting data are compiled to allow for preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in the United States, compliance with applicable laws and regulations, effectiveness and efficiency of financial operations, and assets of the City are protected from loss, theft, and misuse. The internal control structure is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that these 261 11d 12/06/16 objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that (1) the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived and (2) the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management. Attachment A is a copy of management representations to the City’s auditor about the City’s internal controls and other matters pertaining to the City’s cooperation with the audit process. Work Performed by Auditor LSL has been retained to provide an independent audit, which includes rendering an opinion that the financial statements of the City of Coronado for the year ending June 30, 2016, are free of material misstatement. The independent audit involved examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements; assessing that the accounting principles used are appropriate and proper; evaluating the City’s internal control procedures; and determining that the overall financial statement presentation is in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for government. LSL conducted field work on two occasions, first to conduct its assessment of the City’s accounting and internal control procedures, and second to conduct tests of financial transactions. LSL has concluded, in its Independent Auditor’s Report (page 1 in the CAFR, which is included separately as a printed document), among other things, that: In our opinion, the financial statements referred to [herein] present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Coronado, California, as of June 30, 2016 and the respective changes in financial position and, where applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. As part of the FY 2015-16 engagement, LSL also performed an audit of the City’s compliance with Health and Safety Code sections pertaining to Housing Successor Agencies. The opinion of LSL is that the City has complied in all material respects with the compliance requirements of the Health and Safety Code pertaining to Housing Agencies. The report on compliance has been published on the City’s website for review. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Contents The Introductory Section of the CAFR contains a transmittal letter, which provides background information about the community and local economy, an organizational chart, and a page which identifies elected and appointed officials. The Financial Section of the CAFR includes Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A), the Basic Financial Statements, and Combining and Individual Fund Statements and Schedules. This MD&A is designed to provide a general overview and summary of the results and required supplemental information for the year ended June 30, 2016. The MD&A is intended to be read in conjunction with the financial statements and other information found in the report. 262 12/06/16 Accompanying this report are management’s representation letter to LSL (mentioned previously), two letters from LSL which constitute their report to the governing body on the scope of work performed as well as their report on matters of internal control and their compliance with auditing standards. Submitted by Administrative Services/Krueger, Gewaily Attachments: A. Management Representation Letter B. Summary of Audit Differences C. Communication from LSL – Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards D. Audit Communication Letter E. CAFR for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016 (under separate cover) N:\stfrpt\budget&finance\CAFR June 30 2016 presentation.doc CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR JK JNC MLC NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 263 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 264 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1825 STRAND WAY CITY HALL CORONADO, CA 92118 (619) 522-7300 November 21. 2016 Lance, Soll & Lunghard, LLP Certified Public Accountants 203 North Brea Boulevard, Suite 203 Brea, CA 92821-4056 This representation letter is provided in connection with your audit of the financial statements of the City of Coronado, which comprise the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information as of June 30, 2016, and the respective changes in financial position and, where applicable, cash flows for the year then ended, and the related notes to the financial statements, for the purpose of expressing opinions as to whether the financial statements are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (U.S. GAAP). Certain representations in this letter are described as being limited to matters that are material. Items are considered material, regardless of size, if they involve an omission or misstatement of accounting information that, in light of surrounding circumstances, makes it probable that the judgment of a reasonable person relying on the information would be changed or influenced by the omission or misstatement. An omission or misstatement that is monetarily small in amount could be considered material as a result of qualitative factors. We confirm, to the best of our knowledge and belief, as of the date of this letter, the following representations made to you during your audit. Financial Statements 1) We have fulfilled our responsibilities, as set out in the terms of the audit engagement letter dated May 23, 2016, including our responsibility for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP and for preparation of the supplementary information in accordance with the applicable criteria. 2) The financial statements referred to above are fairly presented in conformity with U.S. GAAP and include all properly classified funds and other financial information of the primary government and all component units required by generally accepted accounting principles to be included in the financial reporting entity. 3) We acknowledge our responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. 4) We acknowledge our responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control to prevent and detect fraud. 5) Significant assumptions we used in making accounting estimates, including those measured at fair value, are reasonable. 265 6) Related party relationships and transactions, including revenues, expenditures/expenses, loans, transfers, leasing arrangements, and guarantees, and amounts receivable from or payable to related parties have been appropriately accounted for and disclosed in accordance with U.S. GAAP. 7) Adjustments or disclosures have been made for all events, including instances of noncompliance, subsequent to the date of the financial statements that would require adjustment to or disclosure in the financial statements. 8) The effects of all known actual or possible litigation, claims, and assessments have been accounted for and disclosed in accordance with U.S. GAAP. 9) Guarantees, whether written or oral, under which the City is contingently liable, if any, have been properly recorded or disclosed. Information Provided 10) We have provided you with: a) Access to all information, of which we are aware, that is relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements, such as records, documentation, and other matters and all audit or relevant monitoring reports, if any, received from funding sources. b) Additional information that you have requested from us for the purpose of the audit. c) Unrestricted access to persons within the City from whom you determined it necessary to obtain audit evidence. d) Minutes of the meetings of the City or summaries of actions of recent meetings for which minutes have not yet been prepared. 11) All material transactions have been recorded in the accounting records and are reflected in the financial statements. 12) We have disclosed to you the results of our assessment of the risk that the financial statements may be materially misstated as a result of fraud. 13) We have no knowledge of any fraud or suspected fraud that affects the City and involves:  Management,  Employees who have significant roles in internal control, or  Others where the fraud could have a material effect on the financial statements. 14) We have no knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the City’s financial statements communicated by employees, former employees, regulators, or others. 15) We have no knowledge of instances of noncompliance or suspected noncompliance with provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, or grant agreements, or abuse, whose effects should be considered when preparing financial statements. 266 16) We have disclosed to you all known actual or possible litigation, claims, and assessments whose effects should be considered when preparing the financial statements. 17) We have disclosed to you the identity of the City’s related parties and all the related party relationships and transactions of which we are aware. Government—specific 18) We have made available to you all financial records and related data. 19) There have been no communications from regulatory agencies concerning noncompliance with, or deficiencies in, financial reporting practices. 20) We have a process to track the status of audit findings and recommendations. 21) We have identified to you any previous audits, attestation engagements, and other studies related to the audit objectives and whether related recommendations have been implemented. 22) We have provided our views on reported findings, conclusions, and recommendations, as well as our planned corrective actions, for the report. 23) The City has no plans or intentions that may materially affect the carrying value or classification of assets, liabilities, or equity. 24) We are responsible for compliance with the laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts and grant agreements applicable to us, including tax or debt limits and debt contracts; and legal and contractual provisions for reporting specific activities in separate funds. 25) We have identified and disclosed to you all instances that have occurred or are likely to have occurred, of fraud and noncompliance with provisions of laws and regulations that we believe have a material effect on the financial statements or other financial data significant to the audit objectives, and any other instances that warrant the attention of those charged with governance. 26) We have identified and disclosed to you all instances, which have occurred or are likely to have occurred, of noncompliance with provisions of contracts and grant agreements that we believe have a material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts or other financial data significant to the audit objectives. 27) We have identified and disclosed to you all instances that have occurred or are likely to have occurred, of abuse that could be quantitatively or qualitatively material to the financial statements or other financial data significant to the audit objectives. 28) There are no violations or possible violations of budget ordinances, laws and regulations (including those pertaining to adopting, approving, and amending budgets), provisions of contracts and grant agreements, tax or debt limits, and any related debt covenants whose effects should be considered for disclosure in the financial statements, or as a basis for recording a loss contingency, or for reporting on noncompliance. 29) As part of your audit, you assisted with preparation of the financial statements and related notes. We acknowledge our responsibility as it relates to those nonaudit services, including that we assume all management responsibilities; oversee the services by designating an individual, preferably within senior management, who possesses suitable skill, knowledge, or experience; evaluate the adequacy and results of the services performed; and accept responsibility for the results of the services. We have reviewed, approved, and accepted responsibility for those financial statements and related notes. 267 30) The City has satisfactory title to all owned assets, and there are no liens or encumbrances on such assets nor has any asset been pledged as collateral. 31) The City has complied with all aspects of contractual agreements that would have a material effect on the financial statements in the event of noncompliance. 32) The financial statements include all component units as well as joint ventures with an equity interest, and properly disclose all other joint ventures and other related organizations. 33) The financial statements properly classify all funds and activities, in accordance with GASB Statement No. 34. 34) All funds that meet the quantitative criteria in GASB Statement Nos. 34 and 37 for presentation as major are identified and presented as such and all other funds that are presented as major are particularly important to financial statement users. 35) Components of net position (net investment in capital assets; restricted; and unrestricted), and components of fund balance (nonspendable, restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned) are properly classified and, if applicable, approved. 36) Investments, derivative instruments, and land and other real estate held by endowments are properly valued. 37) Provisions for uncollectible receivables have been properly identified and recorded. 38) Expenses have been appropriately classified in or allocated to functions and programs in the statement of activities, and allocations have been made on a reasonable basis. 39) Revenues are appropriately classified in the statement of activities within program revenues, general revenues, contributions to term or permanent endowments, or contributions to permanent fund principal. 40) Interfund, internal, and intra-entity activity and balances have been appropriately classified and reported. 41) Deposits and investment securities and derivative instruments are properly classified as to risk and are properly disclosed. 42) Capital assets, including infrastructure and intangible assets, are properly capitalized, reported, and, if applicable, depreciated. 43) We have appropriately disclosed the City’s policy regarding whether to first apply restricted or unrestricted resources when an expense is incurred for purposes for which both restricted and unrestricted net position is available and have determined that net position is properly recognized under the policy. 44) We are following our established accounting policy regarding which resources (that is, restricted, committed, assigned, or unassigned) are considered to be spent first for expenditures for which more than one resource classification is available. That policy determines the fund balance classifications for financial reporting purposes. 45) We acknowledge our responsibility for the required supplementary information (RSI). The RSI is measured and presented within prescribed guidelines and the methods of measurement and presentation have not changed from those used in the prior period. We have disclosed to you any significant assumptions and interpretations underlying the measurement and presentation of the RSI. 268 2 6 9 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 270 Summary of Audit Differences Name of Governmental Unit: City of Coronado Date of Combined Balance Sheet: June 30, 2016 Opinion Unit, Fund Type or Fund: All Funds Unadjusted Audit Differences Cause None noted -$ Cumulative effect (before effect of prior year differences)- Effect of unadjusted audit difference - prior year - Cumulative effect (after effect of prior year differences)-$ Current Year Over (Under) Revenues and Expenditures/Expenses and Changes in Fund Balance/Equity 271 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 272 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Coronado, California We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of City of Coronado, California, (the City) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2016, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated November 21, 2016. Internal Control over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the City’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or, significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified. Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. 203 N. Brea Blvd., Suite 203 Brea, CA 92821 Phone: 714.672.0022 An Association of Independent Accounting Firms 273 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Coronado, California Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose. Brea, California November 21, 2016 274 November 21, 2016 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Coronado, California We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Coronado (the City) for the year ended June 30, 2016. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated May 23, 2016. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit. Significant Audit Findings Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the City are described in the notes to the financial statements. We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period. Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimate affecting the City’s financial statements was: Management’s estimate of its net pension liability is based on actuarial valuation specialist assumptions. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the proportionate share of the net pension liability in determining that it is reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. Management’s estimate of its Other Post-Employment Benefit Annual Required Contribution is based on actuarial valuation specialist assumptions. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the Other Post-Employment Benefit Annual Required Contribution in determining that it is reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear. Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit. 203 N. Brea Blvd., Suite 203 Brea, CA 92821 Phone: 714.672.0022 An Association of Independent Accounting Firms 275 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Coronado, California Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Management has corrected all such misstatements. In addition, none of the misstatements detected as a result of audit procedures and corrected by management were material, either individually or in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole. Disagreements with Management For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit. Management Representations We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated November 21, 2016. Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the City’s financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants. Other Audit Findings or Issues We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City’s auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention. Other Matters We applied certain limited procedures to management discussion and analysis, budgetary comparison schedules for the General Fund and major special revenue funds, the schedule of changes in net pension liability and related ratios, the schedule of proportionate share of the net pension liability and the schedule of plan contributions which are required supplementary information (RSI) that supplements the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI. 276 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Coronado, California We were engaged to report on combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements and schedules, and the supporting schedule of expenses for the storm drainage enterprise fund, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. With respect to this supplementary information, we made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves. We were not engaged to report on the introductory section and statistical section, which accompany the financial statements but are not RSI. We did not audit or perform other procedures on this other information and we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it. New Auditing Standard No. 130 This new auditing standard is effective for financial periods ending on or after December 15, 2016; for most California municipalities it is effective for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 and future periods thereafter. The standard allows CPA firms to issue an opinion on the financial statements conformity with generally accepted accounting principles, as well as an opinion on the operating effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting through an integrated audit. This standard does not change the objectives of a financial statement audit, it only enhances the value and scope of a financial statement audit and increases the level of assurance provided by CPA firms on financial controls. Municipalities should look to perform an integrated audit for more assurance on the operating effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting. New Accounting Standards The following new Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) pronouncements were effective for fiscal year June 30, 2016: GASB Statement No. 72, Fair Value Measurement and Application. GASB Statement No. 76, The Hierarchy of Generally accepted Accounting Principles for State and Local Governments. GASB Statement No. 79, Certain External Investment Pools and Pool Participants. The following Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) pronouncements are effective in the following fiscal year audit and should be reviewed for proper implementation by management: Fiscal year June 30, 2017: GASB Statement No. 73, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions and Related Assets That Are Not within the Scope of GASB Statement No. 68, and Amendments to Certain Provisions of GASB Statement Nos. 67 and 68. GASB Statement No. 74, Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefit Plans Other Than Pension Plans. GASB Statement No. 77, Tax Abatement Disclosures. GASB Statement No. 78, Pensions Provided through Certain Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plans. 277 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Coronado, California GASB Statement No. 80, Blending Requirements for Certain Component Units-an Amendment of GASB Statement No. 14. GASB Statement No. 82, Pension Issues an Amendment of GASB Statements No. 67, No. 68, and No. 73. Fiscal year June 30, 2018: GASB Statement No. 75, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions. GASB Statement No. 81, Irrevocable Split Interest Agreements. Restriction on Use This information is intended solely for the use of City Council or individuals(s) charged with governance and management of the City and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. Very truly yours, Brea, California 278 12/06/16 DISCUSS INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 2 CHAPTER 2.02 SECTION 2.02.030 OF THE CORONADO MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE COUNCILMEMBER COMPENSATION BY $435.00 PER MONTH COMMENCING AFTER THE CITY COUNCIL’S REORGANIZATION IN 2018; AND/OR PLACE A MEASURE ON THE NOVEMBER 6, 2018, GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT RELATED TO SUBSEQUENT INDEX INCREASES RECOMMENDATION: Council direction requested. Discuss and consider a two-part change to Councilmember compensation; (1) introduce an ordinance to establish a lump-sum increase of $435 per month to take effect after the November 2018 General Election; and (2) if desired, place a measure on the November 6, 2018, ballot to make subsequent indexed adjustments to Councilmember Salary, and direct staff to incorporate the necessary language in any resolution(s) required when calling for the November 2018 General Election. FISCAL IMPACT: The cumulative increase for the five-member City Council is $2,175 per month or $26,100 per year. It is a sub-fractional percentage of Coronado’s Fiscal Year 2016-17 General Fund expenditure budget of $39 million and all-funds budget of $62 million. The cost of placing a measure on the November 6, 2018, ballot is unknown at this time. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: Introduction of an ordinance amending the Municipal Code is a legislative action. Legislative actions tend to express a public purpose and make provisions for the ways and means of accomplishing the purpose. Legislative actions involve the exercise of discretion governed by considerations of public welfare, in which case, the City Council is deemed to have “paramount authority” in such decisions. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: Not a project as defined by CEQA. PUBLIC NOTICE: Should the City Council decide to place a measure on the ballot for November 2018, the City’s Election Official (City Clerk) is required to publish a Notice of Election for measures along with the timeline for arguments as required under the state Elections Code. BACKGROUND: At the November 15, 2016 meeting, the City Council directed staff to return to the Council to address the current City Councilmember salary, which has not been adjusted since 1996. The monthly salary for each Councilmember is $435 per month. The City Council last adjusted the monthly salary paid to its members in 1996 when it adopted an ordinance amending Coronado Municipal Code (“CMC”) section 2.02.030(A). The increase to $435 per month went into effect when a new term of office began as a result of the November 1996 election. Under state law (Government Code sections 36516 et. seq.), as a general law city, the City Council is to establish by ordinance a salary up to a ceiling dependent on the population of the City. For Coronado, the salary established by Council action may be increased up to five percent (5%) for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of salary unless the 279 11e 12/06/16 electorate approves a higher salary. The percentage increase is non-compounded. Thus, the adjustment would be computed as the percentage increase (maximum of 5%) multiplied by the number of years since the last salary adjustment. ANALYSIS: The direction from the City Council envisioned two different compensation increases. One lump sum increase, and subsequent increases which could be related to an index or standard percentage increase. It appeared that the Council may want to consider an increase pursuant to Government Code guidelines, and then seek the approval of voters for any subsequent indexed increases. With regard to a one-time, lump-sum increase, the City Council may adopt an ordinance to increase the current salary of Councilmembers by a maximum of $435 per month. The $435 per month increase is calculated as $21.75 (5% of $435) multiplied by 20 (number of years since last adjustment). With the statutory maximum adjustment, the salary of Councilmembers would increase up to $870 per month. The City Council may also choose a percentage increase below the maximum threshold provided in state law. To effectuate any increase desired, the City Council will need to discuss the percentage increase desired and introduce and adopt an ordinance reflecting the salary increase. Any increase in salary may only be provided to the next City Council and cannot benefit the Council that approved the increase. If adopted, this action would be effective thirty days after the second reading, presumably January 17, 2017, which would make the action effective in February 2017, which then means this increase would take effect only once a new term of office commences as a result of the November 2018 election. A draft ordinance is attached for consideration (Attachment 1). The second phase of a possible increase contemplated by the City Council requests the voters to approve automatic salary adjustments thereafter for every year as is allowed by statute. Such increase which would take effect following each General Election of the City. The California Elections Code requires the adoption of resolutions in order to place a ballot measure question before the voters on the November 6, 2018 ballot. The question posed to the voters on the ballot could read: Should the City of Coronado amend Title 2 Chapter 2.02 Section 2.02.030 of the Coronado Municipal Code to increase the base salary of City Councilmembers pursuant to California Government Code Section 36516(a)(4) with an automatic adjustment of ___% that would go into effect following each general election of the City, to become effective after the November 3, 2020 General Election? As an example, should the statutory 5% salary increase be approved by ordinance, the Councilmember salary would be $870 per month beginning January 2019. If a measure on the November 3, 2018, ballot with the statutory 5% adjustment is approved as drafted above, Councilmembers would then receive an adjustment of $87 to the base salary following the 2020 General Election. This is calculated as $43.50 (5% of $870) multiplied by 2 (number of years since last adjustment). 280 12/06/16 ALTERNATIVE: The City Council may choose to pass an ordinance increasing Councilmember salary by the amount authorized by statute without voter approval. The Council may increase compensation by a percent lower than the cap imposed by statute. Submitted by City Attorney/Canlas Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance Language 2. Draft Ballot Measure Language 3. Regional Salaries of Councilmembers in Smaller Jurisdictions in San Diego CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK NA NA JNC MLC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 281 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 282 12/06/16 Attachment 1 ORDINANCE NO. ___ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 2, CHAPTER 2.02 OF THE CORONADO MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 2.02.030 TO ADJUST THE AMOUNT OF MONTHLY COMPENSATION PAID TO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AS AUTHORIZED BY GOVERNMENT CODE §36516 WHEREAS, the City Council has not increased the amount of monthly compensation paid to its members since 1996 and desires to provide a salary increase as authorized by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously established the salary of its members at $435 per month. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION ONE. That Title 2, Chapter 2.02, Section 2.02.030.A. is amended to read as follows: A. Each member of the City Council shall receive as salary the sum of $______ per month. SECTION TWO. This Ordinance was introduced on December 6, 2016. SECTION THREE. This ordinance shall become effective only on and after the date upon which one or more members of the City Council becomes eligible for such increase pursuant to Government Code Section 36516.5 by virtue of beginning a new term of office following the election which was held in November 2018. Within fifteen days after its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published pursuant to state law. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ___________ 2016, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Casey Tanaka, Mayor of the City of Coronado, California ATTEST: Mary L. Clifford, CMC City Clerk 283 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 284 12/06/16 Attachment 2 DRAFT Ballot Language Should the City of Coronado amend Title 2 Chapter 2.02 Section 2.02.030 of the Coronado Municipal to increase the base salary of City Councilmembers pursuant to California Government Code Section 36516(a)(4) with an automatic adjustment of ___% that would go into effect following each General Election of the City, to become effective after the November 3, 2020 General Election? 285 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 286 12/06/16 Attachment 3 REGIONAL SALARIES OF COUNCILMEMBERS IN SMALLER JURISDICTIONS IN SAN DIEGO1 CITY COUNCIL SALARY MAYOR SALARY SOURCE Del Mar $300.00 per month $350.00 per month Municipal Code § 2.20.020(A) – Amount was subject to a vote of the people in 1988 Lemon Grove $803.00 per month $1,405.25 per month Municipal Code §§ 2.16.010(A), 2.16.030(A)2 Solana Beach $712.58 per month $712.58 per month Municipal Code § 2.04.020 – Implemented in 2008 Imperial Beach $300.00 per month $1,100 per month Published in a compensation schedule on Imperial Beach’s website National City $1,081.62 per month $4,120.12 per month3 Published in compensation history on National City website San Marcos $977.64 per month ($11,732.00 per year) $977.64 per month ($11,732.00 per year) Municipal Code § 2.08.030; Also published in compensation schedule on San Marcos website 1 This table does not reflect other benefits councilmembers may receive such as retirement and health benefits. 2 Lemon Grove City Council voted for a salary increase to $803.00 from $705.00 for Councilmembers and to $1,405.25 from $1,234.00 for the Mayor in June 2015. The monthly car reimbursement allowance will also increase from $150.00 to $175.00. These increases will go into effect after the 2016 elections. 3 The Mayor is a full-time position in National City. 287 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 288 12/06/16 INTRODUCTION OF “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, REMOVING SECTION 56.28.010(F), OF CHAPTER 56.28 OF TITLE 56 OF THE CORONADO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SKATEBOARDS, ROLLER SKATES AND OTHER SIMILARLY WHEELED DEVICES AND AMENDING SECTION 56.28.030 OF CHAPTER 56.28 OF TITLE 56 OF THE CORONADO MUNICIPAL CODE” ISSUE: Whether the City Council should amend the Coronado Municipal Code to remove section 56.25.010(F) to eliminate a prohibition of skateboards or similar devices, excluding motorized skateboards, on streets and roadways and whether section 56.28.030 should be amended to provide all persons using a skateboard or similar devices on a street or roadway must obey all California Vehicle Code laws as applicable. RECOMMENDATION: Introduce “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, removing Section 56.28.010(F), of Chapter 56.28 of Title 56 of the Coronado Municipal Code regarding skateboards, roller skates and other similarly wheeled devices and amending Section 56.28.030 of Chapter 56.28 of Title 56 of the Coronado Municipal Code.” (Attachment 1) FISCAL IMPACT: None anticipated. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: Introduction of an ordinance amending the Municipal Code is a legislative action. Legislative actions tend to express a public purpose and make provisions for the ways and means of accomplishing the purpose. Legislative actions involve the exercise of discretion governed by considerations of public welfare, in which case, the City Council is deemed to have “paramount authority” in such decisions. Vehicle Code Section 21967 authorizes local authorities to adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution prohibiting or restricting persons from riding or propelling skateboards on highways, sidewalks, or roadways; however, this authorization does not extend to motorized skateboards as provided by California Vehicle Code Section 21968. PUBLIC NOTICE: None required. CEQA: This project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines in that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. BACKGROUND: Section 56.28.010(F) of Chapter 56.28 of Title 56 of the Coronado Municipal Code prohibits skateboards, roller skates and similarly wheeled devices from being ridden upon any street or roadway. At its November 1, 2016 meeting, the City Council directed staff to draft this ordinance amendment for consideration. The City’s regulations related to the use of skateboards are codified in Title 56, Traffic Code; Chapter 56.28, Rollerskates and Skateboards, of the City Municipal Code. Coronado Municipal Code Chapter 56.28 addresses prohibited locations for use, right-of-way, prohibition of ramps, regulations for the skateboard facility, and the seizure of evidence related to these laws. 289 11f 12/06/16 The community has experienced at least two significant accidents involving skateboard riders, neither of whom was wearing a helmet. On March 5, 2015, a 28-year-old female was found in the 1500 block of Tenth Street with severe injuries from what was determined to be a fall from a skateboard. The second incident occurred in the 900 block of Tenth Street on July 14, 2016. In this incident, a 16-year-old male was being towed by a car at or near the speed limit when the skateboard rider fell, striking his head on the asphalt, causing severe injuries. Both of these incidents occurred while a skateboard was being ridden on a roadway. ANALYSIS: At its November 1, 2016 meeting, the Council expressed a desire to have skateboarding added to the Coronado Comprehensive Active Transportation Plan, but also directed staff to take more immediate action by bringing forth for discussion an ordinance that eliminates Sub-Section (F) of Section 56.28.010, which prohibits the use of skateboards upon any City street or roadway. (Attachment 2) Staff has found only three other local communities that prohibit skateboarding on public streets or roadways (La Mesa, Oceanside, and National City). Permitting skateboards, roller skates and other similarly wheeled devices on streets and roadways can create enforcement and efficient traffic flow concerns. One way to address some of these concerns, as provided in the current ordinance, is to include a regulation requiring skateboard riders to not interfere with pedestrians on the sidewalks, nor to interfere with vehicle traffic on roadways. These provisions provide some level of control, but leave to interpretation what types of actions “interfere” with vehicles and/or pedestrians. In addition, the proposed ordinance includes a requirement for skateboarders to obey the rules of the road similar to a vehicle, with the provision that, “A person upon, riding, or using a skateboard, roller skates or similarly wheeled device on a roadway or street must obey all Vehicle Code laws applicable to the driver of a vehicle, except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application” (Attachment 3). This language would provide guidance to riders of skateboards, roller skates, and similarly wheeled devices; improve safety; and provide law enforcement the ability to address safety concerns through appropriate enforcement. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council could choose one of the following options: 1. Introduce the ordinance as presented in Attachment 1, without the additional proposed language added to Section 56.28.030 as shown in Attachment 3. 2. Take no action. Submitted by Police Department/Froomin Attachments: 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. Version showing edits to Section 56.28.010 3. Version showing edits to Section 56.28.030 CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR NA JNC MLC NA NA NA NA JF NA NA 290 12/06/16 Attachment 1 ORDINANCE NO. ______________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, REMOVING SECTION 56.28.010(F), OF CHAPTER 56.28 OF TITLE 56 OF THE CORONADO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SKATEBOARDS, ROLLER SKATES AND OTHER SIMILARLY WHEELED DEVICES AND AMENDING SECTION 56.28.030 OF CHAPTER 56.28 OF TITLE 56 OF THE CORONADO MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, Chapter 56.28 of the Coronado Municipal Code, which regulates the use of skateboards, roller skates and similarly wheeled devices, sets forth in section 56.28.010(F), a prohibition of the use of these devices on any street or roadway; and WHEREAS, skateboards, roller skates and similarly wheeled devices may be used as modes of transportation; and WHEREAS, prohibition of these devices on streets and roadways restricts their ability to be used for regular transportation; and WHEREAS, the use of these devices contributes to a reduction of motorized vehicles on our roadways; and WHEREAS, promoting the use of non-motorized transportation contributes to improving our environment; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City to eliminate the prohibition of operating skateboards, roller skates, and similarly wheeled devices on City streets and roadways, with the exception of motorized skateboards as use of motorized skateboards on City streets and roadways is specifically prohibited by the California Vehicle Code Section 21968; and WHEREAS, it is also the intent of the City that all persons riding or using a skateboard, roller skates, or similarly wheeled device on a roadway or street must obey all California Vehicle Code laws applicable to the driver of a vehicle, except where those provisions which by their nature can have no application. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION ONE: The adoption of the ordinance is not subject to CEQA pursuant to section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. This ordinance permits the use of skateboards, roller skates, and similarly wheeled devices on City streets and roadways. 291 12/06/16 SECTION TWO: Sub-Section (F) of Section 56.28.010 is eliminated and the remainder of Coronado Municipal Code Section 56.28.010 will read as follows: 56.28.010 Prohibition – Locations. It shall be unlawful for any person to be upon, ride or use any skateboard, rollerskates, or other similarly wheeled devices: A. Upon any public sidewalk or bikepath which is within any designated business district; B. Upon any public sidewalk or bikepath which is adjacent to any commercial building or business, public library, fire station, police station, senior citizens center, hospital, school auditorium, school office, school passenger loading zone, or school bus loading zone; C. Upon any public or private parking lot, parking facility, sidewalk, walkway, path, ramp, bridge, plaza, mall, quadrangle, or patio when signs prohibiting such activity are displayed; D. Upon any public property when signs prohibiting such activity are displayed; E. Upon any public property, to include without limitations sidewalks and bikepaths, during the hours of darkness. SECTION THREE: Section 56.28.030 of Chapter 56.28 of Title 56 of the Coronado Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 56.28.030 Prohibition – Violation. A. It shall be unlawful for any person who is upon, riding or using any skateboard, rollerskates or other similarly wheeled device while on a sidewalk or within a crosswalk to fail to yield the right-of-way to all pedestrians within or approaching the area. B. It shall be unlawful for any person who is upon, riding or using any skateboard, rollerskates or other similarly wheeled device while upon a public street or alley to interfere with the movement of vehicles thereon. C. A person upon, riding, or using a skateboard, roller skates or similarly wheeled device on a roadway or street must obey all Vehicle Code laws applicable to the driver of a vehicle, except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application. SECTION FOUR: This ordinance was introduced on December 6, 2016. 292 12/06/16 SECTION FIVE: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Coronado hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION SIX: This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. Within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, the City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of _____ 2016, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Casey Tanaka, Mayor of the City of Coronado, California ATTEST: Mary L. Clifford, CMC City Clerk 293 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 294 12/06/16 Attachment 2 56.28.010 Prohibition – Locations. It shall be unlawful for any person to be upon, ride or use any skateboard, rollerskates, or other similarly wheeled devices: A. Upon any public sidewalk or bikepath, alley, street, or highway which is within any designated business district; B. Upon any public sidewalk or bikepath, alley, street or highway which is adjacent to any commercial building or business, public library, fire station, police station, senior citizens center, hospital, school auditorium, school office, school passenger loading zone, or school bus loading zone; C. Upon any public or private parking lot, parking facility, sidewalk, walkway, path, ramp, bridge, plaza, mall, quadrangle, or patio when signs prohibiting such activity are displayed; D. Upon any public property when signs prohibiting such activity are displayed; and E. Upon any public property, to include without limitations sidewalks and bikepaths, during the hours of darkness; and F. Upon any street or roadway. (Ord. 1760; Ord. 1461; Ord. 1441) 295 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 296 12/06/16 Attachment 3 56.28.030 Prohibition – Right-of-way Violation. A. It shall be unlawful for any person who is upon, riding or using any skateboard, rollerskates or other similarly wheeled device while on a sidewalk or within a crosswalk to fail to yield the right-of-way to all pedestrians within or approaching the area. B. It shall be unlawful for any person who is upon, riding or using any skateboard, rollerskates or other similarly wheeled device while upon a public street or alley to interfere with the movement of vehicles thereon. C. A person upon, riding, or using a skateboard, roller skates or similarly wheeled device on a roadway or street must obey all Vehicle Code laws applicable to the driver of a vehicle, except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application. 297 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 298 12/06/16 CONSIDERATION OF COUNCILMEMBER DOWNEY’S REQUEST TO AGENDIZE CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION CONCERNING RECONSIDERING THE DECISION TO PUT A TRAFFIC LIGHT AT FOURTH AND ALAMEDA Please see attached request from Councilmember Downey. CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 299 13a THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 300 12/06/16 From: Coronado City Councilwoman Carrie Downey Date: November 29, 2016 To: Blair King, Coronado City Manager Casey Tanaka, Coronado Mayor Sub: CIP Project – Traffic Light at 4th and Alameda ISSUE: 50+ Residents living in the vicinity of the planned traffic light at 4th and Alameda have signed a petition requesting the Council reconsider placing a traffic light at that location. They are concerned that the Council voted on a suite of traffic calming measures to make it safer to cross 4th street between Orange and the bridge but included the light at Alameda without proof it would make crossing 4th safer. They would like us to reconsider the 4-1 decision to put the first stop light in a residential zone. All other stop lights are in the business district. BACKGROUND: The Fehr and Peers Study recommended several traffic lights on 4th to create a platooning effect and create spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists to more safely cross 4th. Because residents along the cross streets complained that the lights would cause traffic leaving Coronado to divert to the side streets to avoid the delay, the Council did not approve the recommended lights at any location other than Alameda and 4th. The Council majority believed that as long as traffic was queuing on the base, it would not create more traffic diversion than already exists but would provide safer opportunities to cross 4th Street. Residents have requested the safety justification for installing the light if only one light is placed so far away from the problem crossings at C, B and A. RECOMMENDATION: Request staff prepare a safety justification, if any, for the placement of the lone traffic light at 4th and Alameda, along with any possible mitigation to prevent or lessen traffic diversion to allow the new City Council to review the advisability of the CIP project. Respectfully, /s/ Carrie Downey 301