Loading...
City Council_Complete Agenda_5/2/2017Joint City Council/SA Meeting May 2, 2017 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, May 2, 2017 Coronado City Hall Council Chamber 1825 Strand Way Coronado, California 92118 CLOSED SESSION SPECIAL MEETING – 3:15 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 LITIGATIONAUTHORITY:Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) NAME OF CASE: Nicholas Stein v. City of Coronado, et al. San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2017-00007613-CU-PN- CTL 2.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATIONAUTHORITY:Government Code Section 54956.9(a), (d)(1) NAME OF CASE: California-American Water Company Water Rate Application California Public Utilities Commission Proceeding A.16-07-002 (Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Authorization to Increase its Revenues for Water Service by $34,559,200 or 16.29% in the year 2018, by $8,478,500 or 3.43% in the year 2019, and by $7,742,600 or 3.03% in the year 2020.) Joint City Council/SA Meeting May 2, 2017 AS A COURTESY TO OTHERS, PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES 3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – INITIATION OF LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) One (1) Potential Case 4. 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 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 April 18, 2017. 4. CEREMONIAL PRESENTATIONS a. Proclamation: Bike Month. (Pg 1) b. Proclamation: Coronado Mental Health Month. (Pg 5) c. Proclamation: Peace Officers Memorial Day. (Pg 9) d. Proclamation: National Historic Preservation Month. (Pg 13) e. Presentation of Historic Preservation Plaques to Property Owners with Historically Designated Structures. (Pg 17) 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 19) Recommendation: Approve the reading by title and waive the reading in full of all Ordinances on the agenda. *b. Review and Approve that the Warrants, as Certified by the City/Agency Treasurer, are all Correct, Just, and Conform to the Approved Budget for FY 2016-2017. (Pg 21) Recommendation: Approve the Warrants as certified by the City/Agency Treasurer. Joint City Council/SA Meeting May 2, 2017 AS A COURTESY TO OTHERS, PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES c. Update on Actions Taken in Response to the Glorietta Sewer Main Emergency Repairs and Request for Vote to Continue the Repairs. (Pg 73) Recommendation: Accept the report and vote to continue the repairs to address the emergency. d. Authorization for the City Manager to Execute a Cooperative Purchase Agreement in an Amount Not to Exceed $200,000 for the Purchase and Outfitting of a Mobile Command Unit; and Approve an Appropriation of $45,000 in Asset Forfeiture Funds to Provide Gap Financing. (Pg 77) Recommendation: (1) Authorize the City Manager to execute a cooperative purchase agreement in an amount not to exceed $200,000 for the purchase and outfitting of a Farber Custom Command Vehicle; and (2) Approve an appropriation of $45,000 in asset forfeiture funds to provide gap financing. e. Authorization for the City Manager to Execute a Cooperative Purchase Agreement with Siemens Industry Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $103,444 for Annual Fire and Life Safety Systems Maintenance and Certification for all City Facilities. (Pg 83) Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute a cooperative purchase agreement with Siemens Industry Inc. in an amount not to exceed $103,444 for annual fire and life safety systems maintenance and certification for all City facilities. f. Approval of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado Authorizing Submittal of an Application to the California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Payment Programs for Approximately $6,300 and Related Authorizations for Litter Abatement in City Beaches and Parks. (Pg 85) Recommendation: Approve “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado Authorizing Submittal of an Application for California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Payment Programs and Related Authorizations for Litter Abatement in City Beaches and Parks for Fiscal Year 2016-2017, or any Subsequent Funding Cycle.” g. Approve a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado Declaring Its Intent to Issue Tax Exempt Obligations for the Financing of the Reclaimed Water Treatment Plant Project and Associated Golf Course Improvements, and to Reimburse Project Costs Incurred Prior to the Issuance of Obligations with Proceeds of the Obligations. (Pg 89) Recommendation: Approve “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado declaring its intention to issue tax exempt obligations for the financing of the Reclaimed Water Treatment Plant Project (RWTP) and associated Coronado Municipal Golf Course improvements and to reimburse project costs incurred prior to the issuance of obligations with proceeds of the obligations.” Joint City Council/SA Meeting May 2, 2017 AS A COURTESY TO OTHERS, PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES 6. COMMUNICATIONS - ORAL: Each person wishing to speak before the City Council on any matter shall approach the City Council, give their name, and limit their presentation to 3 minutes. State law generally precludes the City Council from discussing or acting upon any topic initially presented during oral communication. (ORAL COMMUNICATIONS WILL BE LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF 10 MINUTES; ANY FURTHER COMMUNICATIONS WILL BE HEARD PRIOR TO THE MEETING ADJOURNMENT) 7. CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: a. Report to the City Council on Police Department Enforcement. (Pg 95) 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. 9. COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS: None. 10. CITY COUNCIL: a. Council Reports on Inter-Agency Committee and Board Assignments. (Questions allowed to clarify but no responses, discussion or action.) (Pg 97) b. Communication to the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Regarding the Naval Air Station North Island Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. (Pg 101) Recommendation: Receive a report from staff on the development of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for Navy Air Station North Island (NASNI) and authorize correspondence to the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA) Board to communicate the City Council’s frustrations with the ALUCP’s draft plan policies and process. c. Consideration and Adoption of City Council Policy #136 “City-Issued Mobile Device Policy for City Councilmembers.” (Pg 137) Recommendation: Consider and adopt City Council Policy #136 “City-Issued Mobile Device Policy for City Councilmembers” to be effective immediately. d. Provide Direction on the Type of Scientifically Valid Citizen Survey the Council Would Like to Conduct in 2017. (Pg 141) Recommendation: Receive report and provide staff direction. Authorize additional funding if the Council decides to conduct a customized citizen satisfaction survey. e. Consider the Recommendation of the Cultural Arts Commission (CAC) to Implement a Pilot Public Art Project “Sit A Spell And Play A Tune,” an Artfully Wrapped Public Art Piano in Coronado Rotary Plaza; Accept a Donation of a Console Piano from Fire Chief Mike Blood for this Project; and Approve the Expenditure of $2,500 in Contributions made in Memory of Jim and Barbara Darnell for this Project. (Pg 151) Recommendation: Approve the recommendation of the CAC to implement “Sit a Spell and Play a Tune,” a pilot public art project and direct the Cultural Arts Commission to create, operate, and maintain a piano installation through December 2017 and return to the Council in January 2018 to report on the project and make future recommendations on this program. In addition, accept a donation of a console piano from Fire Chief Mike Blood for this project and sanction the expenditure of $2,500 in contributions made in memory of Jim and Barbara Darnell for this public art project. Joint City Council/SA Meeting May 2, 2017 AS A COURTESY TO OTHERS, PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES 11. CITY ATTORNEY 12. COMMUNICATIONS - WRITTEN: a. Consideration of Councilmember Sandke’s Request that the City Council Agendize Consideration of Directing the City Staff to Formally Request Caltrans to Treat the San Diego-Coronado Bridge as a Vital Seven Day a Week Transportation Asset with Regard to the Lane Divider. (Pg 165) 13. 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 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 96 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 April 18, 2017 96 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, April 18, 2017 Mayor Bailey called the meeting to order at 3:15 pm. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION AUTHORITY: Government Code Section 54956.9(a),(d)(1) NAMES OF CASES: a. City of Coronado v. San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission United States District Court, Southern District of California Case No. 3:16-cv-03020-CAB-WVG City Attorney Johanna Canlas was recused from this item. Special Counsel John Bakker participated by phone. b. California-American Water Company Water Rate Application California Public Utilities Commission Proceeding A.16-07-002 (Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Authorization to Increase its Revenues for Water Service by $34,559,200 or 16.29% in the year 2018, by $8,478,500 or 3.43% in the year 2019, and by $7,742,600 or 3.03% in the year 2020.) City Attorney Johanna Canlas was recused from this item. Special Counsel John Bakker participated by phone. 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – INITATION OF LITIGATION AUTHORITY: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) One (1) Potential Case Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 97 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 April 18, 2017 97 3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION AUTHORITY: Government Code Section 54956.9(e)(3) CLAIMANT: Bluewater Boathouse Restaurant 4. COMMUNICATIONS - ORAL: Kevin Tilden, Cal-American Water, regarding Item 1b. In the general rate case that the City is intervening in, Cal-Am files every three years. They filed in May 2017. The PUC spends about 18 months reviewing the application for rates to go into effect January 2018. Cal-Am proposed, in the rate case, to study doing a wastewater treatment project that we would build ourselves in Imperial Beach. We have since decided, and communicated to the City, that we will not build our own project. We would propose to serve Coronado, Imperial Beach, and about 10,000 homes in the City of San Diego we serve with treated wastewater which we would purchase from the City of San Diego. The source water from that would come from Otay Water District, Chula Vista, and San Diego. We believe we have identified a substantial supply to do that and we are in negotiations with the City. I know the City has its own plans to build a wastewater treatment plant. I talked with Mr. King this morning. The City is using a law firm that we have used in the past for a similar issue. Our outside attorneys had an issue with that; thought it was a conflict. We still believe it is a conflict but we are sending a letter to Meyers Nave saying we will agree to waive the conflict at least through May 10 so that they can represent you during the settlement process during the PUC rate case. We would like to come to resolution on this soon. There is an issue that I want to make you all aware of. The amount of water we sell to the Golf Course is about $800,000-$900,000 a year. If we were not to sell that water to you, some of those costs would go away for us because we would not be purchasing the water from the City of San Diego. Some of the costs are fixed; they would not go away. Those costs would be spread among our other customers in Coronado, Imperial Beach, and San Diego including the other accounts the City has with us. When we talk in negotiations about remuneration for the company, what might happen with lost revenue, it is really our company would not make any more or less money - the PUC regulates that. It is really making the rest of the customers whole for any lost income in this district. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION 3:18 p.m. RECONVENE AND ANNOUNCE ACTION 3:53 p.m. The Mayor reported that direction had been given to staff. Mayor Bailey called the meeting to order at 4 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers/Agency Members Benzian, Donovan, Downey, Sandke and Mayor Bailey Absent: None Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 98 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 April 18, 2017 98 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 the invocation and Mayor Bailey led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. MINUTES: The Council approved the minutes of the Regular meeting of April 4, 2017. MSUC (Sandke/Downey) moved to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council/the City Council Acting as the Successor Agency of April 4, 2017, as submitted. The minutes were so approved. The reading of the minutes in their entirety was unanimously waived. AYES: Benzian, Donovan, Downey, Sandke, Bailey NAYS: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None 4. CEREMONIAL PRESENTATIONS: 4a. Proclamation: National Volunteer Week. Mayor Bailey presented the proclamation to volunteers from the Police and Recreation departments. City Manager Blair King announced the volunteer webpage on the City website. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: The City Council approved, adopted and/or accepted as one item of business Consent Agenda Items 5a through 5k with the exception of Items 5e, 5h and 5j and the addition of Item 12a. Councilmember Downey requested that Items 5e and 5h be removed. Councilmember Donovan requested that Item 5j be removed. Councilmember Sandke suggested the addition of Item 12a. MSUC (Benzian/Downey) moved that the City Council approve the Consent Calendar Items 5a through 5k with the exception of Items 5e, 5h and 5j and the addition of Item 12a – Legislative Correspondence Signed by the Mayor; Assembly Bill 342 (CHIU): Automated Speed Enforcement; to Include Coronado as a Participating Agency. AYES: Benzian, Donovan, Downey, Sandke, Bailey NAYS: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 99 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 April 18, 2017 99 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. 10118835 thru 10119141. The City Council approved the warrants as certified by the City/Agency Treasurer. 5c. Authorization for the City Manager to Execute a Contract with Downstream Services, Inc. for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $376,750 for the Cays Sewer Main Cleaning Project. The City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract with Downstream Services, Inc. for a not-to-exceed amount of $376,750 to perform pipeline cleaning services for the Cays Sewer Main Cleaning project. 5d. Update on Actions Taken in Response to the Glorietta Sewer Main Emergency Repairs and Request for Vote to Continue the Repairs. The City Council accepted the report and voted to continue the repairs to address the emergency. 5e. Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado Approving the 2017 Coronado Apartment Vacancy Factor Pursuant to Subsection 82.40.100(F) of the Coronado Municipal Code. Senior Planner Jesse Brown provided a brief report. Councilmember Downey asked if, during his tenure in Coronado, we have ever had a vacancy rate greater than one percent. Mr. Brown responded that we have not. Ms. Downey said the rule that says if you don’t have greater than a five percent vacancy rate you can’t do apartments to condominiums is part of our General Plan. She wondered if it is required under State law. City Attorney Johanna Canlas responded that it is not that she is aware of but it is part of our General Plan and our zoning regulations. Ms. Downey understands that many cities have the same requirement and that was to be able to have a varied housing stock so that there would be places available for people to rent. When an apartment owner can’t convert to condominiums, the hope was that would help to keep apartments available or places that were lower cost housing for anyone that wanted to rent. Ms. Canlas agrees that was part of the intent. She also feels it is a way of regulating what is currently in stock because you don’t want certain things to be converted when they are not eligible. Ms. Downey added that there is nothing that prevents an apartment owner from tearing down their apartment and doing something else with their lot should they want to. This doesn’t stop them from tearing down and building four cloud condos in the same location. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 100 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 April 18, 2017 100 Ms. Canlas agreed that there are no restrictions for that. Ms. Downey asked if, other than the historic apartments that have gotten permission to go to condos, is Mr. Brown aware of any other apartment to condominium conversions. Mr. Brown is not. Ms. Downey added that in the last year we have lost at least two apartments that have converted to single-family residences in this fiscal year alone. Those will generally be much bigger than the apartments that they replace. They also typically sell for greater than $1 million each. Ms. Downey commented that the intent behind this provision was to keep more housing stock and rental opportunities. This provision actually hasn’t gotten us any more rental property at all and, as a matter of fact, if we allowed the conversion from apartments to condominiums, they would possibly be available to be purchased because they would be at a lower cost than if they tear the apartment down and build cloud condominiums or single-family homes. She wanted the Council to think about whether it wants to keep this provision going forward. MSUC (Downey/Sandke) moved that the City Council adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO ADOPTING THE 2017 CORONADO APARTMENT VACANCY FACTOR PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 82.40.100(F) OF THE CORONADO MUNICIPAL CODE. The Resolution was read by title, the reading in its entirety unanimously waived and adopted by City Council as RESOLUTION NO. 8852. AYES: Benzian, Donovan, Downey, Sandke, Bailey NAYS: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None 5f. Approve Canceling the July 4 and August 1 Regularly Scheduled City Council Meetings. The City Council canceled the first City Council meetings in July and August (July 4 and August 1) consistent with past practice. 5g. Appointment of Councilmember Mike Donovan to the Grand Caribe Task Force. The City Council appointed Councilmember Donovan to serve as the City’s representative to the Grand Caribe Task Force. 5h. Accept a $3,000 Donation from the Glorietta Bay Inn for the Purpose of Purchasing Furniture, Fixtures or Any Items that are Needed for the John D. Spreckels Center. City Manager Blair King provided comments. Claudia Ludlow, General Manager of the Glorietta Bay Inn, made remarks and presented the check to the Mayor. MSUC (Downey/Bailey) moved that the City Council accepted the donation of $3,000 from the Glorietta Bay Inn and authorized the expenditure of funds, as needed, for the John D. Spreckels Center in Fiscal Year 2017. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 101 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 April 18, 2017 101 AYES: Benzian, Donovan, Downey, Sandke, Bailey NAYS: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None 5i. Adoption of a Resolution Ratifying the Arts Administrator Professional Services Agreement. The City Council adopted A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO AUTHORIZING THE RATIFICATION OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KELLY PURVIS AS ARTS ADMINISTRATOR. The Resolution was read by title, the reading in its entirety unanimously waived and adopted by City Council as RESOLUTION NO. 8853. 5j. Award of Professional Services Contract to Brezack & Associates Planning in the Amount of $345,865 for the Development of Bridging Documents for a Recycled-Water Treatment Plant (RWTP) to be Located on the Coronado Municipal Golf Course and Appropriation of $250,000 to the Project Account. City Manager Blair King introduced Director of Public Services & Engineering Cliff Maurer who provided the report. Councilmember Donovan believes that we handle the Navy’s sewage as well and transport it to the San Diego facility. Mr. Maurer confirmed that and commented that the Navy pays us to do that. Mr. Donovan asked if this effort is going to include the sizing of the plant or the capacity or has that already been decided. Where are we on that? Mr. Maurer explained that this effort will decide that. We know what our usage is. The primary areas this will service are the golf course, the Orange Avenue medians, and the parks in the Village area to include Bradley Field. Mr. Donovan understands that the plan is to include this on the golf course somewhere but the facilities will be underground. Mr. Maurer responded by saying that the size of the facility would fit in Council Chamber. The above ground portion of it could be designed to look like any golf course facility. Mayor Bailey asked Mr. Maurer if it is safe to say that the visual impact would be minimal and that the odor would be nonexistent. Mr. Maurer commented that is the objective and added that the architectural design would be in concert with something we would expect on our golf course. It would fit in and look appropriate. City Attorney Johanna Canlas reminded the Council of the action before the Council today. All design components would be evaluated as we move forward with this item. Mr. Donovan added that the public will have at least three public forums to weigh in on this along with other design reviews. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 102 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 April 18, 2017 102 Mr. Maurer explained that this project will go through the normal process. It will require environmental review, which will come back to the Council along with Design Review and Planning. Councilmember Sandke shared that the Golf Course Advisory Committee heard a very generic version of this project proposal and were very supportive of moving ahead with it. He is happy we are pursuing this. One of the comments he received in an email is whether the water would be safe to have in environments where children and families are playing. Mr. Maurer responded by saying that is what Title 22 in the California Code requires. Yes. It would be safe. The intent for reclaimed water is not to purposely have regular contact with it but inadvertent contact with the water directly or recreating on… Ms. Downey interrupted and commented that the feasibility study will look at all of that. We are getting ahead of ourselves. Mr. Sandke feels that this is a legitimate resident concern and he thought the question deserved to be asked in a public forum at this point. MSUC (Sandke/Donovan) moved that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Brezack & Associates Planning in the amount of $345,865 for the development of bridging documents for the RWTP and appropriated $250,000 to the project account. Mayor Bailey commented that there are not too many instances where we have projects that would be potentially good for the environment and potentially great for our taxpayers so he is fully supportive of moving forward at this time. AYES: Benzian, Donovan, Downey, Sandke, Bailey NAYS: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None 5k. Authorize the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with Capital Advocacy for State Legislative Services. The City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a one-year agreement with an option for two, one-year extensions for state lobbyist services with the firm Capital Advocacy. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: a. Gregg Anderson wanted to follow up on the property at 711 A Avenue that was discussed a couple of weeks ago. He has heard a lot that says there isn’t anything we can do but he hasn’t seen anyone try to do anything. The transitional housing issue is open and shut as far as he is concerned. If it is transitional housing, then that part of it is done. But that does not begin to answer everything that is involved in this. He looked up some statutory things he thinks are applicable. He is not an expert in this. There are licensing questions here. At his wife’s son’s facility, there are supervisory people, medical people, vocational people, and Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 103 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 April 18, 2017 103 transportation all providing these services. He has heard nothing about the Generate Hope project that says they will do all of that. If you look at the definition in the statutes of the California Health and Safety Code Section 1500, they talk about what a community care facility is and it sounds an awful lot like what this is. So that is a question. Does it need a license? He also doesn’t know if Coronado is the one to ask that question. But no one has done that. He finds that to be a problem. He also finds it a problem that no one has specifically investigated whether or not this is a business. He understands that if this is a business then the transitional housing piece is no longer controlling. He read the definition of business in the municipal code and it talks about support people in their living. There will be two people, at least, in this facility who do make a living as a result of working there. He doesn’t know why we haven’t looked into that. The City Council works for the citizens of Coronado and not for Generate Hope and not for whoever it is who bought that home and wants to convert it to something. He asked the Council to do more. He doesn’t think it has done enough. There are things that need to be done. He also found that there are situations that conditional use permits that have been put in place. b. Carolyn Rogerson finds it heartbreaking to see how fractured Coronado is becoming over what was a charitable intention. The sad fact is that no Coronado City official, prior Mayor, prior Council, no City office, no City ordinance and no City Attorney has control over transitional housing. The things she has read are really shocking. This all came about when Democratic Governor Jerry Brown and the Democratic legislature passed the transitional housing laws around 2007/2008. They didn’t consult anyone or put it up to a vote. If you are angry with this, direct your outrage, concerns and opinions to Jerry Brown and your representatives. This is not a situation where the City Council is controlling your life. People need to educate themselves and speak up before legislation is enacted. It is time for the City to come together to find an equitable compromise for how to make this work. c. Wayne Strickland is a retired Coronado firefighter. He pointed to the brand new fire truck outside. Things have changed. Sometimes change is good. He is also the president of the Coronado/San Diego Bridge Collaborative for Suicide Prevention. When the bridge was built in 1969, it did not include a barrier separating the two directions of traffic. A citizen group helped get that in place. On the Strand there was not a barrier to prevent head on collisions. It took a citizens group to get that on. Now a citizens group is working on a suicide barrier on the bridge. He shared some good news. He spoke with the Chief of Staff for State Senator Ben Hueso and Caltrans is going to do a high level feasibility study for a suicide barrier. He thanked the Council for the support they have shown for this effort. d. Javier Gomez, Assemblymember Todd Gloria’s office, provided an update on SB 1, the transportation funding package, and a ballot measure for November 2018 that will protect the funds from SB 1. He also provided an update on SB 54, Law Enforcement Sharing Data. Assemblymember Gloria would appreciate everyone’s feedback on SB 54. e. Kathryn Blitt agrees with the speaker who said Coronado needs to come together on the 711 A issue. She asked that the City hold a public forum for the citizens of Coronado. Generate Hope should be invited to attend as well to be able to answer questions. She does not think it is their responsibility to hold another public forum. 7. CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: The City Manager announced the Seniors Out and About program; discussed the new Cultural Arts Commission banners; and announced that the new Pierce fire truck was on display outside the Chamber. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 104 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 April 18, 2017 104 The City Council went into recess at 4:48 p.m. The City Council reconvened at 4:56 p.m. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8a. Public Hearing: Approval of a Resolution Adopting a Revised Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program Fee to Mitigate the Impacts of Development of Residential Units on the San Diego Regional Transportation Arterial System for FY 2017/18. City Manager Blair King introduced City Engineer Ed Walton who provided the report. Mayor Bailey 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 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO ADOPTING A REVISED SCHEDULE FOR A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FEE TO MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION ARTERIAL SYSTEM FOR FY 2017/18, INCREASING THE EXISTING UNIFORM TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE BY TWO PERCENT FROM $2,357 TO $2,404.14 FOR EACH NEWLY CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL UNIT. The Resolution was read by title, the reading in its entirety unanimously waived and adopted by City Council as RESOLUTION NO. 8854. AYES: Benzian, Donovan, Downey, Sandke, Bailey NAYS: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None At this point in the meeting, Mayor Bailey took Item 10c, Status Update on the Coronado Gateway Project, out of order. 9. COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS: None. 10. CITY COUNCIL: 10a. Council Reports on Inter-Agency Committee and Board Assignments. Mayor Bailey asked Councilmembers to submit their reports in writing. 10b. Approval of the Annual Report/Management Plan from the Coronado Tourism Improvement District (CTID) Advisory Board and Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado Declaring Its Intent to Continue to Levy Two One-Half Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 105 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 April 18, 2017 105 Percent (0.5%) Assessments on Four Hotel Businesses within CTID I and CTID II during Fiscal Year 2017-18. Councilmember Sandke noted that, because a portion of his income came from the Hotel del Coronado and the Loews Coronado Bay Resort in the past 12 months, he has to recuse himself from this item. City Manager Blair King introduced the item. Assistant City Manager Tom Ritter gave a report. CTID Executive Director Todd Little gave a presentation. Mayor Bailey thinks it would be an understatement to say that tourism is an important part of our economy. It makes up a significant share of our City’s tax revenue. That helps us keep our sales and property taxes at the levels they currently are. He thinks that, in the past, the City Council has been a bit tone deaf to how we actually market ourselves. In the past, we really made an effort to try to attract day trippers. We really exacerbated the problem of tourism instead of mitigating an impact on our residents. He thinks that the proposal from CTID really addresses the concerns residents have been raising and that the previous Council raised in 2016. He applauded the CTID for that. He directed attention to page 155 where the report went into actually how they responded to the City Council by eliminating the local marketing fund, eliminating social media, and a reallocation of the holiday season campaign which was a previous radio campaign that attracted more people over here and so he thinks that in the eyes of our residents we weren’t hearing what they had to say. He thinks it is important for this Council to reemphasize that this is the direction it wants to see the CTID go. We realize tourism is important to our economy but we don’t want to exacerbate the problem of day trippers on our residents. If the Council is in favor, he would like to double down on this effort and really reemphasize that is our focus and direction for going forward. Councilmember Donovan agrees with everything Mayor Bailey said. He pointed out that some of the local shops have felt as if the Council, last year when they asked the CTID to stop the local advertising, felt like we were hurting them and he thinks the way the CTID is approaching this by going after groups and corporate meetings will still help the local businesses. He thinks that is still to be determined and we ought to give that a couple of years. He noted that on page 162 that they are looking at other non-marketing programs that generate customers for local shops and patrons for Coronado restaurants. He wants the residents to know that he thinks the CTID is on a very good strategy to bring in the tourism dollars we want but focusing on the high quality tourists that will help not only the four big hotels but the other hotels and the local shops in our City. He would like to recommend one minor change to the resolution. On page 134, section 5, it states, “…CTID I and II shall be activities to enrich our community by positioning Coronado, and its resorts, as a premier meeting destination in a way that directly benefits the assessed hotels located and operating within each CTID boundary.” He would like to add in there not only benefit the hotels but other local shops and businesses within our City to make that a more complete statement in the resolution. Mayor Bailey asked the City Attorney to weigh in on that. City Attorney Johanna Canlas commented that there is a distinction. CTID I was established prior to the law changing in November 2010. As a result of that change, it limits what CTID II can do and under Prop 26, the issue is CTID is limited to actually benefitting just the assessees. That is Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 106 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 April 18, 2017 106 the distinction between CTID I that was actually grandfathered in because it was established earlier on before the law changed. So if we can craft something where we can make that distinction that would be okay legally but having a blanket statement would potentially risk CTID I. Mr. Donovan pointed out that right now it says directly benefits the assessed hotels. Could we use terminology like ‘secondarily assists the local shops’ or something along those lines? Mr. King believes that if you put language that the assessees can determine ways in which it benefits them to assist local businesses you would meet the test of the City Attorney. Originally this came from the concept of Business Improvement Districts. BIDs had the sense that assessees could best determine how to market their own businesses. Over the course of time, people accused cities of trying to use assessments as a back door to tax and then tightened the law to say that you can’t assess anything unless the assessees are benefitting. If you say that the assessees are determining that the benefit to them is by providing assistance to local businesses, he thinks that might meet the requirements of the City Attorney. Ms. Canlas commented that is because of state law requirements. She would propose that a revision to section 5, after the quotation, in a way that directly benefits the assessed hotels, and assists the local economy as determined by the assessees. Mr. Donovan feels that is fine. He didn’t mean to make this a big deal but he just wants to be sure that the local businesses haven’t gotten the feeling that we deserted them by asking the CTID not to do the local advertising. He believes there are still other things we can do to support them. Just because we are not spending money to advertise in San Diego County, outside of Coronado, he still thinks they will be able to benefit. He wants to recognize that and be sure that the CTID understands that he and the rest of the Council do still want to support them. Mayor Bailey asked if Mr. Donovan is suggesting that funding be diverted from the workplan that would otherwise go to attracting more business conventions be diverted to helping the local businesses. Mr. Donovan is not trying to give direct guidance to CTID but he remembers that they have a certain amount of money set aside for other non-marketing programs to support our local shops. He isn’t trying to change anything. He just wanted to recognize in the resolution that we haven’t deserted our local shops just because we asked them to stop local advertising. Mayor Bailey confirmed that Mr. Donovan would leave it up to the discretion of the CTID to determine the best way to implement that. Councilmember Downey commented that when the City Council approved the first CTID, the economy was down and our room rates were down. This was also seriously affecting our local businesses. They joined in helping the hotels convince us that this was worthwhile to let the hotels do this. We thought it would improve everything for everyone. She wants it on the record that is why she has supported this. She completely agrees that once the economy was recovering, it was time to do the pivot that the CTID did and has been doing and it has been very successful. She is glad that the presentation pointed out that even though a lot of us feel like we have lots and lots of tourists and it seems like there are more than last year, the numbers suggest that we are actually down a little and that is the reason you have to keep doing this. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 107 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 April 18, 2017 107 MSUC (Donovan/Downey) moved that the City Council approve the Annual Report and Management Plan of the CTID Advisory Board and adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO CONTINUE TO LEVY ASSESSMENTS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 ON CERTAIN HOTEL BUSINESSES WITHIN CORONADO TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT I AND CORONADO TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT II. The Resolution was read by title, the reading in its entirety unanimously waived and adopted by City Council as RESOLUTION NO. 8855. The Resolution will be amended in Section 5 by adding the words in the sentence that says, “The City Council hereby declares the types of activities to be funded by the levy of assessments against the assessed hotels in CTID I and CTID II shall be activities to enrich our community by positioning Coronado and its resorts as a premier meeting destination in a way that directly benefits the assessed hotels and assists the local businesses as determined by the assessees located and operating within each CTID boundary.” Mr. Benzian agrees with Mr. Donovan and thinks it is an important change to make. That is why the CTID was created years ago. We don’t want to lose sight of the small businesses and we need to support them the best we can. Mayor Bailey pointed out one last time that this motion would not give the CTID permission or our blessing to advertise to day trippers or any type of group other than business conventions. Mr. Donovan and Ms. Downey confirmed that was not their intention. AYES: Benzian, Donovan, Downey, Sandke, Bailey NAYS: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None 10c. Status Update on the Coronado Gateway Project. City Manager Blair King provided an overview and introduced City Engineer Ed Walton. Mr. Walton then introduced Rob Gehrke, of Michael Baker International, who provided a presentation. Mayor Bailey asked if Mr. Gehrke is suggesting that we retain a graphic artist to help design the marquee sign or to create better conceptual drawings than we have already seen. Mr. Gehrke responded that it would be on the marquee sign and having that concept person coming through and they have a lot better skill set for creating this. Right now, it is left up to him and a few other people as to how this would look but they may come up with ideas on the signage itself, the type of sign, the lettering and everything. It would be more for the signage. , Councilmember Sandke commented that his gut tells him that, of the entire project, the sign is going to be the most controversial. He admires that the consultant is reaching up into the Village Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 108 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 April 18, 2017 108 with the project. Our Fehr and Peers study includes a significant modification to the engineering on the roadway just a little bit north of there, not quite to B, and includes some modifications to that intersection. He is wondering if there is an opportunity for us to incorporate just a little further north the pedestrian and vehicle safety improvements that were suggested in Fehr and Peers for that particular extension in the project area. He requests that at least be considered. He is really happy Caltrans is being cooperative. Mr. Gehrke thinks that makes a lot of sense. You really want to have the project connect everything. With Caltrans, it is the substation below the project that is the key element for them. Councilmember Benzian added that he concurs with Mr. Sandke’s comments to see how far up we can go. Councilmember Donovan referred to the Phase 3 slide that showed the underpass. He asked if Mr. Gehrke has an estimate of what the distance is between the entrance and exit to that underpass. Mr. Gehrke responded that he thinks it is 120 feet. It could be 150 feet. Mr. Donovan asked if we have changed the intersection there so that now you can turn left on Glorietta from Third Street. Mr. Gehrke explained that you cannot turn left there. It is the same configuration and precludes a left turn on Glorietta. Mr. Donovan commented that the Council is being asked whether to spend money on whether to do a graphic rendering. Are these guys still under contract to continue with a more detailed design on any of this or are they at the end of their contract and now we are just going to do some artist renderings? Mr. King responded by saying that the scope of work was the high level. The Council directed that this parkway plan be done. Then it was to take that into schematic plans and interact with Caltrans. We now have enough of a plan, a project, so we are meeting that magic threshold pursuant to CEQA where we now have a project. Then we need to do an Initial Study. We keep an open mind while we do the IS. The IS will tell us what level of environmental review is needed. Michael Baker will help us conduct the IS and then, based on the level of environmental review, if we need to then we can make project modifications at that level and then we start moving into the preparation of actual encroachment and construction plans. The working assumption is that Michael Baker actually has been engaged with this project not as Michael Baker but as RBF beginning about eight years ago. We have tried to keep the same consulting team involved and would continue to try to do that. Mr. Donovan is just not clear on whether we are stopping now to do the environmental impact. Mr. King clarified that this is not stopping. It is just a part of the continual flow but we just wanted to let the Council know that we are at that threshold now to begin the environmental review. Mr. Gehrke added that this was just a break with where we are with schematics. We still have a little bit of work to finish up with schematic design. We are planning, once we get your feedback, Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 109 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 April 18, 2017 109 to go back to Caltrans and continue the process and not really stop. Design development will be part of these next steps. Mr. King also commented that will be a bit of an iterative process with Caltrans. He pointed out that we still do not own this and even if we were to pursue a relinquishment, we would not own this. We are doing a favor for the state of California. Mr. Donovan knows there is a long history but remembers the direction from a year ago to move along smartly on this. Mr. King stated that it will be in phases. Mr. Sandke noticed no dollar amount in this. Mr. King commented that at this point in time we still don’t have a dollar amount. We have a funding source identified and magnitude of cost dollar amounts. The source of funding is the bridge toll funds that we currently have that were made available as the result of the lawsuit to mitigate the impact of the removal of the tolls. Mr. Sandke clarified that he was just speaking about this agenda item and not the project as a whole. City Attorney Johanna Canlas commented that in the event that the contracts contemplated exceed the City Manager’s authority for purchasing that would come back to Council for approval. Mr. Sandke would be comfortable making a motion to go ahead but his only reticence was are we ready to hire a graphic designer. If the consultant is recommending it is time to get him involved so that it unifies the project, he is not willing to stop the project because he is not ready for the graphic designer. Councilmember Downey doesn’t remember when we were talking about this project for six or seven years…we have always talked about it in phases but as we are going to be moving into the environmental process, we are going to have to put more details on that. The Council has not yet made any decision in terms of wanting to break it up into phases. She wanted to clarify that the Council hasn’t officially done that. Mr. Walton agreed that there has been no official Council action to break it into phases. It has been presented as ways it can be accomplished through various phases. Ms. Downey continued by saying that on that note she heard her colleagues on the Council adding to the scope of the project and that concerned her a little bit. At some point, if we wish to expand and maybe it is just the trees and that is one thing as opposed to, she thinks it is actually more in terms of Fehr and Peers recommendations. She just wanted to clarify that we are only talking about this proposal. If we wanted to add additional traffic calming measures that would amend this and would require additional work. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Page 110 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 April 18, 2017 110 Mr. Walton agreed that it would. He believes Mr. Sandke was talking about B and Third and possibly reconfiguring and closing a lane off. That is not included in this scope and would have to be authorized for additional work. Ms. Downey continued by saying that when we do the environmental process, we could choose to actually review, and her recommendation would be the entire project as we’ve scoped it, and then we could decide from a budgeting process if we want to break it up in phases but not to say that is the project that has to be done in these phases. Mr. Walton agreed and thinks that doing the IS will help us make that determination. MSUC (Sandke/Benzian) moved that the City Council move forward with the project as described in the staff report. AYES: Benzian, Donovan, Downey, Sandke, Bailey NAYS: None ABSTAINING: None ABSENT: None 11. CITY ATTORNEY: None. 12. COMMUNICATIONS - WRITTEN: 12a. Legislative Correspondence Signed by the Mayor; Assembly Bill 342 (CHIU): Automated Speed Enforcement; to Include Coronado as a Participating Agency. Under Consent, the City Council received the letter as an informational item. 13. ADJOURNMENT: The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 5:51 p.m. Approved: (Date), 2017 ______________________________ Richard Bailey, Mayor City of Coronado Attest: ______________________________ Mary L. Clifford, CMC City Clerk THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 05/02/17 PROCLAMATION: BIKE MONTH The Mayor will present the proclamation to Alex Fitzpatrick, chair of the Bicycle Advisory Committee; Andy Hanshaw, Executive Director of the San Diego Bike Coalition; and Coronado Active Transportation Planner Allie Scrivener. 1 4a THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 4 05/02/17 PROCLAMATION: CORONADO MENTAL HEALTH MONTH The Mayor will present the proclamation to Georgia Ferrell, Executive Director of Coronado SAFE. 5 4b THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 6 7 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 8 05/02/17 PROCLAMATION: PEACE OFFICERS MEMORIAL DAY The Mayor will present the proclamation to members of the Coronado Police Department. 9 4c THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 10 1 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 12 05/02/17 PROCLAMATION: NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION MONTH The Mayor will present the proclamation to Historic Resource Commission Chair Dave Gillingham; Coronado Historical Association Board Vice President Jami Teagle-Burgos, and Coronado MainStreet Board President Mark Andrews. 13 4d THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 14 1 5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 16 05/02/17 PRESENTATION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAQUES TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITH HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED STRUCTURES The City of Coronado is committed to its Historic Preservation Program and the Historic Preservation Plaque is one way the City can recognize property owners for supporting Historic Preservation within the community. To date, over 200 Historic Resources have been designated in the City of Coronado. The City appreciates the contribution these property owners have made to Historic Preservation in Coronado through the historic preservation of their properties, which enhance the City’s unique charm, character, and village atmosphere. Historic Resource Commission Chair Dave Gillingham, Coronado MainStreet President Mark Andrews, and Coronado Historical Association Vice President Jami Teagle-Burgos will stand with the Mayor for the reading of the Historic Preservation Month proclamation. Historic Resource Commission Chair Dave Gillingham will assist the Mayor with the distribution of the plaques. Owner’s Name Address Year Built Architectural style Claudia and Noah Hansen 455 A Avenue 1914 Craftsman Margaret and John Duncan 802 Adella Avenue 1903 Colonial Revival Kelly and Brian Gilhooly 211 Alameda Boulevard 1926 Spanish Eclectic Alexa Kollmeier and Mateo Cattaneo 825 Alameda Boulevard 1935 Monterey Kevin and Nancy Murray 1315-1319 Fifth Street 1920 Craftsman Bungalows Trent and Sharla Sisemore 500 Glorietta Boulevard 1927 Tudor Susan Heavilin 1144 Isabella Avenue 1887 Queen Anne Victorian 17 4e THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 18 05/02/17 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. 19 5a THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 20 2 1 5 b 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 6 9 7 0 7 1 7 2 05/02/17 UPDATE ON ACTIONS TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO THE GLORIETTA SEWER MAIN EMERGENCY REPAIRS AND REQUEST FOR VOTE TO CONTINUE THE REPAIRS ISSUE: This report provides the City Council with an update on actions taken since the last City Council meeting on April 18, 2017, regarding the Glorietta Sewer Main Emergency Repairs. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the report and vote to continue the repairs to address the emergency. FISCAL IMPACT: The FY 2015/16 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) allocated $145,000 toward inspection of the sewer main and an additional $150,000 was allocated at FY 2016/2017 Mid-Year for a total budget of $295,000 (Project Account # 510781-9888-16016). Design services related to the original scope of work for the project were underway when an emergency was declared. In addition, costs associated with initial actions taken to address structural deficiencies in the pipeline had been incurred prior to an emergency being declared. Accounting for the most recent project expenditures, emergency repair costs have now exceeded the budget for the original inspection project. The increased project costs are recommended to be accounted for from the FY 2016/17 Wastewater Improvement Project (Project Account # 510781-9788-17020), a project with a $1.2M budget that has not yet been started and was to repair/replace gravity sewer lines throughout the City. The following table accounts for all costs to date: Date Description Total Contract Amount Invoiced To Date 3/31/16 Executed Work Order for Design Services Phase 1 $54,265 $54,265 11/31/16 Executed Work Order for Design Services Phase 2 $51,900 $12,970 2/16/17 Filed Noise Permit Application for CCTV Inspection by Downstream Services $77 $77 2/21/17 Authorized Downstream Services to Conduct CCTV Inspection at “Access Point 1” $33,130 $0 Subtotal $139,372 $67,312 3/09/17 City Emergency Declared 3/09/17 Authorized Downstream Services to Conduct CCTV Inspection at “Access Point 2” $36,075 $0 3/13/17 Filed Noise Permit Application for CCTV Inspection by Downstream Services $77 $0 3/27/17 Authorized Downstream Services to Replace 35 Linear Feet of Failed Pipe At Second Street; (not to exceed) $45,789 $0 3/30/17 Authorized Downstream Services to Obtain Signed/Stamped Liner Design Calculations $1,200 $0 4/4/17 Filed Noise Permit Application for Replacement of 35 Linear Feet of Pipe by Downstream Services $77 $0 4/7/17 Approved Liner Design, Authorized Downstream to Order and Prepare for Installation $279,479 $0 Subtotal $362,697 $0 Total $502,069 $67,312 CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: California Public Contract Code Chapter 1, Article 4, Section 20168 states: In case of an emergency, the legislative body may pass a resolution by a four-fifths vote of its members declaring that the public interest and necessity demand the immediate expenditure of public money to safeguard life, health, or property. Upon adoption of the resolution, it may expend any 73 5c 05/02/17 sum required in the emergency without complying with this chapter. If notice for bids to let contracts will not be given, the legislative body shall comply with Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 22050). Pursuant to Section 22050(c) of the Public Contract Code, the City Council is to review all actions taken to address the emergency at every meeting to determine, on a four-fifths vote, if continued action is required. PUBLIC NOTICE: None required. BACKGROUND: The City’s Glorietta Sewer Main transports sanitary sewage from the Glorietta Bay pump station in Glorietta Bay Park (which includes sewage generated from the Coronado Cays, Naval Amphibious Base, The Shores, the Hotel del Coronado Laundry Facility, and the area in the vicinity of City Hall/Community Center) to the Transbay pump station at the north end of B Avenue. In the last week of December 2016, City crews located a pipe failure in the Glorietta Sewer Main near the intersection of B Avenue and Second Street. Since that time, City staff has been coordinating a pipe inspection and repair project with its contractor, Downstream Services, Inc. The City Council officially declared the situation an emergency at its meeting on March 21, 2017, and authorized the City Manager to forego the competitive bidding process for the procurement of construction services to repair the main. This report is intended to provide the City Council with an update on actions taken since the last update provided on April 18, 2017, and to request that the City Council vote to continue the repairs to address the emergency. ANALYSIS: Approximately 20 linear feet of the Glorietta Sewer Main near the intersection of Second Street and B Avenue was replaced during the week of April 10, 2017; the strong odors that had been affecting the surrounding neighborhood have been eliminated as a result of this repair. However, adjacent sections of pipe are in critically poor structural condition and if not repaired immediately, will likely fail and result in heavy sewer odors and possible release of sanitary sewer effluent. Final design calculations were reviewed and approved for the structural liner for the remainder of the Glorietta Sewer Main between First Street and a high point in the line halfway between Fourth and Fifth Streets on B Avenue. The liner has been ordered and is expected to be delivered in early May. Preparatory work and installation of the liner will follow and should be completed by May 19. The final cost for the materials and labor to install the liner is $279,479. However, this does not include the cost to operate a sewer bypass system during installation of the liner. The design of the required bypass operation is still being determined. A status update and request for a vote to continue repairs will be provided to the City Council at each City Council meeting until the emergency has been addressed. ALTERNATIVE: None at this time. Submitted by Public Services and Engineering/Newton Attachment: Map of Sewer Main Location to be Slip-Lined N:\All Departments\Staff Reports - Drafts\2017 Meetings\05-02 Meeting SR Due April 20\SR Glorietta FM Emergency Update.docx CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR JK JNC MLC NA EW NA NA NA CMM NA 74 05/02/17 REPAIRED SEGMENT (92+70 - 92+88) 7 5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 76 05/02/17 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A COOPERATIVE PURCHASE AGREEMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $200,000 FOR THE PURCHASE AND OUTFITTING OF A MOBILE COMMAND UNIT; AND APPROVE AN APPROPRIATION OF $45,000 IN ASSET FORFEITURE FUNDS TO PROVIDE GAP FINANCING RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) Authorize the City Manager to execute a cooperative purchase agreement in an amount not to exceed $200,000 for the purchase and outfitting of a Farber Custom Command Vehicle; and (2) Approve an appropriation of $45,000 in asset forfeiture funds to provide gap financing. FISCAL IMPACT: The total cost of the proposed Mobile Command Vehicle is $200,000. The Vehicle Equipment Replacement (VER) Fund 135-330 contains an appropriation of $100,000 for replacement of the prior mobile command unit (Unit 2-19) and the Police Department’s Asset Forfeiture Fund 230221 budget for FY 16-17 contains an appropriation of $55,000 for outfitting costs, leaving a funding gap of $45,000. Staff requests Council authorization to appropriate an additional $45,000 from the Asset Forfeiture Fund for the mobile command unit. The table below compares the amount budgeted for the vehicle as well as outfitting costs. Mobile Command Unit Cost Analysis Proposed Purchase Budgeted Cost Outfitting Costs Total Cost Difference between Budgeted and Total Cooperative Purchase Agreement Source & Contract No. Purchase & Outfitting of Farber Custom Command Vehicle $ 155,000 $108,077 $91,923 $200,000 $45,000 GSA Contract #GS-30F-0008N 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: This vehicle will replace the prior mobile command center that was outfitted in a 1996 motorhome, which was retired in November 2016. The proposed command vehicle will be built on a Sprinter van platform and is smaller than the prior unit, much easier to operate, and less costly than if it was replaced with a new, similar model motorhome. ANALYSIS: Purchase of Farber Custom Command Vehicle (Unit 2-19): Staff is requesting authorization to purchase and outfit a Farber Custom Command Vehicle to be used as a mobile base of operations for critical incidents, natural disasters, special events, and situations involving public safety. Since retiring unit 2-19, the City has been without a mobile command center. The Farber Custom Command Vehicle will provide the Police Department with tools necessary for the effective management of a variety of public safety needs. It is anticipated the Command Unit will be used for critical incident management, traffic collision investigations, missing 77 5d 05/02/17 persons, fire and natural disasters, and City events. It will provide added functionality to Police Department operations, and can serve as a back-up dispatch center and mobile operations center. In addition, the Command Vehicle will provide incident support to the Fire Department, as well as other City departments engaged in planned or unplanned events/incidents of an extended duration or that would benefit from the resources included in the vehicle. Outfitting Costs Only of Farber Custom Command Vehicle: Staff proposes to outfit this van with the equipment necessary to communicate with other public agencies in emergency situations. This includes workstations for two operators, cameras, and a range of computing functions. In addition, radio equipment will be included. Storage space will contain equipment to aid in nighttime operations and the investigation of serious traffic collisions, adding additional functionality not available in the previous unit. 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, lead agencies are able to negotiate for lower unit costs. Staff will be able to purchase the proposed Farber Custom Command Vehicle at competitive pricing from the GSA Cooperative Purchasing Contract #GS-30F-0008N. ALTERNATIVE: The City Council could choose to not authorize the purchase or outfitting of this vehicle or could recommend that staff use the Request for Bids (RFB) process instead. Submitted by Public Services & Engineering/Maurer Attachment: Command Vehicle Photos and Schematics CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR JK JNC MLC NA NA NA NA JF CMM NA 78 7 9 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 80 8 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 82 05/02/17 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A COOPERATIVE PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH SIEMENS INDUSTRY INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $103,444 FOR ANNUAL FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS MAINTENANCE AND CERTIFICATION FOR ALL CITY FACILITIES RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the City Manager to execute a cooperative purchase agreement with Siemens Industry Inc. in an amount not to exceed $103,444 for annual fire and life safety systems maintenance and certification for all City facilities. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed agreement is currently budgeted in the FY 2016-2017 Facilities Division contract services account (100315-8030), and programmed into the FY 2017- 18 budget, pending Council approval. It is anticipated that this agreement can be funded through the allocated budget amount. Year Annual Base Bid 10% Contingency Total Notes 1 $94,040 $9,404 $103,444 Year 1 includes initial cost of 5-year inspections, which will streamline schedule. 2 $76,400 $7,640 $ 84,040 3 $76,400 $7,640 $ 84,040 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 give greater deference 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 City Council approval 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 services for maintenance and certification of fire systems from the National Joint Purchasing Alliance (NJPA) cooperative purchase contract #031913-SIE. The City has procured fire systems maintenance and certification services on an as- needed basis with the current vendor for approximately five years. ANALYSIS: A well-functioning fire and life safety system is integral to the City’s ability to protect people, property, and assets. Currently, many City facilities have antiquated fire control systems that need to be upgraded for both wet and dry systems. Some of the older fire panel models used in City facilities do not allow for date and time stamp events which complicates staff’s trouble-shooting of system issues. The proposed contract for fire and life safety system testing, certification, and maintenance will allow City staff to proactively manage this vital function, at 83 5e 05/02/17 multiple locations, more effectively. The scope of work for City facilities will be more comprehensive and include enhanced customer and system support not provided by the current vendor. This includes 24/7 customer support from the vendor’s technical staff as well as annual and semi-annual testing and inspection to ensure optimal system performance. Staff recommends the City enter into a contract with Siemens Industry, Inc., under NJPA contract #031913-SIE. The initial year’s cost estimate is $94,040, decreasing to $76,400, respectively, for years two and three. Costs in year one are higher due to five-year certification costs. City staff conducted reference checks on the proposed vendor, and results were favorable. ALTERNATIVE: The Council may elect to defer or reject the bid from Siemens Industry, Inc. and to bid the project. 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 NA NA NA CMM NA 84 05/02/2017 APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES, RECYCLING AND RECOVERY (CALRECYCLE) PAYMENT PROGRAM FOR APPROXIMATELY $6,300 AND RELATED AUTHORIZATIONS FOR LITTER ABATEMENT IN CITY BEACHES AND PARKS RECOMMENDATION: Approve “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado Authorizing Submittal of an Application for California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Payment Programs and Related Authorizations for Litter Abatement in City Beaches and Parks for Fiscal Year 2016-2017, or any subsequent funding cycle.” FISCAL IMPACT: The California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) has estimated that approximately $6,300 of funding is available to the City of Coronado in Fiscal Year 2016-2017. CalRecycle is a State program with specific spending requirements and is not available for general purposes. Funds will be released in the fall of 2017. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: Approval of a grant application is a legislative action. Legislative actions tend to express a public purpose and make provisions for the ways and means of accomplishing this purpose. Legislative actions involve the exercise of discretion governed by consideration of public welfare, in which case, the City Council is deemed to have “paramount authority” in such decisions. PUBLIC NOTICE: Not required. BACKGROUND: The City of Coronado has participated in the CalRecycle Program for 14 years. In the past, these funds have been used to purchase trash/recycle receptacle lids, conduct public education and outreach, and enhanced litter abatement services. The State requested the City to select a project for Fiscal Year 2016-2017. Historically, CalRecycle funding is from the current, not the upcoming, fiscal year. Staff recommends the best use of these funds is for litter abatement in City beaches and parks, which is an eligible expense. ANALYSIS: Staff recommends using CalRecycle Program funds to pay for labor expenses for approximately nine beach or parks cleanups. Each cleanup will be staffed by one supervisor and five maintenance workers and/or seasonal workers, for a five-hour shift each. The City will spend the $6,300 grant funds within the two-year timeframe as required by the CalRecycle program. ALTERNATIVES: The Council may elect not to apply for these CalRecycle or may apply them to another eligible activity. Submitted by Public Services & Engineering Department/Maurer Attachment: Resolution CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR JK JNC MLC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A CMM N/A 85 5f THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 86 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO, AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES, RECYCLING AND RECOVERY (CALRECYCLE) PAYMENT PROGRAMS AND RELATED AUTHORIZATIONS FOR LITTER ABATEMENT IN CITY BEACHES AND PARKS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017, OR ANY SUBSEQUENT FUNDING CYCLE WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 48000 et seq., 14581, and 42023.1(g), the Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) has established various payment programs to make payments to qualifying jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of this authority, CalRecycle is required to establish procedures governing the administration of the payment programs; and WHEREAS, CalRecycle’s procedures for administering payment programs require, among other things, an applicant’s governing body to declare by resolution certain authorizations related to the administration of the payment program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Coronado is authorized to submit an application to CalRecycle for any and all payment programs offered; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager, City of Coronado, or his/her designee, is hereby authorized as Signature Authority to execute all documents necessary to implement and secure payment; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this authorization is effective until rescinded by the Signature Authority or this governing body. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of May 2017, by the City Council of the City of Coronado, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: _____________________________________ Richard Bailey, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Mary L. Clifford, CMC City Clerk 87 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 88 05/02/17 APPROVE A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO DECLARING ITS INTENT TO ISSUE TAX EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS FOR THE FINANCING OF THE RECLAIMED WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT AND ASSOCIATED GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS, AND TO REIMBURSE PROJECT COSTS INCURRED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS WITH PROCEEDS OF THE OBLIGATIONS RECOMMENDATION: Approve “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Coronado declaring its intention to issue tax exempt obligations for the financing of the Reclaimed-Water Treatment Plant Project (RWTP) and associated Coronado Municipal Golf Course improvements and to reimburse project costs incurred prior to the issuance of obligations with proceeds of the obligations.” FISCAL IMPACT: The approval of this resolution does not obligate the City Council to proceed with external financing or have a direct fiscal impact at this time. However, if the City does issue long term debt it will have a fiscal impact directly dependent on the nature of the long-term financing used to finance the cost of the RWTP. The primary elements driving the amount of fiscal impact are the rate of interest, the term over which the principal will be repaid and the principal amount which will be borrowed. Those elements are not possible to determine at this time and therefore determination of the fiscal impact from borrowing funds is not feasible at this time. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: Adoption of the Resolution of Intent 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. PUBLIC NOTICE: None required for this action. BACKGROUND: On April 18, 2017, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Brezack & Associates Planning for the development of bridging documents for a RWTP and associated Golf Course improvements. Anticipated within the scope of that agreement is a determination of the design elements and a preliminary budget for this project. At this time, a rough estimate of the project cost is $20,000,000. Although it may be feasible for the City of Coronado to finance this project internally with unencumbered cash reserves, there may be other uses of those cash reserves that would better fulfill the short- and long-term operating and capital needs of the City. Therefore, external financing may be more feasible than internal financing of the cost of this project. Before the financing question (whether to finance internally or externally) can be resolved, staff will need to receive information from Brezack about the timing and scope of the project. Within the next few months, these data elements will be available and at that time staff will report back to the City Council on the merits of external or internal financing. However, it is prudent at this time to retain all available options including external financing. The primary purpose of the resolution is to allow for the reimbursement from a non-taxable bond issue the project costs incurred before and after the issuance of tax exempt municipal bonds. Tax exempt bonds (bonds that provide income tax advantages to the holder) are typically issued at a lower interest cost than taxable bonds. In order to comply with Treasury Regulation § 1.150-2 of the Internal Revenue Service relating to the qualification 89 5g 05/02/17 for reimbursement from the bond proceeds, an inducement resolution needs to be passed no later than 60 days after any eligible costs are incurred by the bond issuer. To date, there have been minimal costs that are eligible for reimbursement. The only significant costs at this time on the project that would be eligible for reimbursement from debt proceeds are payments to Brezack. Any other reasonable costs associated with this project which are incurred from the date of the resolution through the completion of construction (with some exceptions) will be eligible for reimbursement. ANALYSIS: The analysis of the merits of either external or internal financing is not practicable at this time and, therefore, this analysis is not intended to be for that purpose. However, it is advisable that the option for external financing be retained until the analysis of those merits is practicable. The approval of this resolution does not obligate the City Council to proceed with external financing. It is staff’s recommendation to approve this resolution and to allow for the reimbursement of project costs from the issuance of bonds (if bonds are used as the financing mechanism for this project). ALTERNATIVE: Wait to approve this resolution until after the decision is made on whether external financing will be used for the project. If no external financing is used, then this resolution will not be necessary. However, if the City Council decides at a later date to utilize external financing and waits until that time to approve this resolution, there may be costs incurred that will not be eligible for reimbursement from debt obligation proceeds. Submitted by Administrative Services/Krueger Attachment: Resolution CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR JK JNC MLC NA NA NA NA NA CMM NA 90 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ISSUE TAX EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS FOR THE FINANCING OF THE RECLAIMED-WATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT (RWTP) AND ASSOCIATED CORONADO MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS AND TO REIMBURSE PROJECT COSTS INCURRED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS WITH PROCEEDS OF THE OBLIGATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Coronado (the “Issuer”) desires to finance the costs of acquiring certain public facilities and improvements, as provided in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Issuer intends to finance the acquisition of the Project or portions of the Project with the proceeds of the sale of obligations the interest upon which is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes (the “Obligations”); and WHEREAS, prior to the issuance of the Obligations, the Issuer desires to incur certain expenditures with respect to the Project from available monies of the Issuer which expenditures are desired to be reimbursed by the Issuer from a portion of the proceeds of the sale of the Obligations. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, ORDER AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Issuer hereby states its intention and reasonably expects to reimburse Project costs incurred prior to the issuance of the Obligations with proceeds of the Obligations. Exhibit A describes either the general character, type, purpose, and function of the Project, or the fund or account from which Project costs are to be paid and the general functional purpose of the fund or account. SECTION 2. The reasonably expected maximum principal amount of the Obligations is $15,000,000. SECTION 3. This resolution is being adopted on or prior to the date (the “Expenditures Date or Dates”) that the Issuer will expend monies for the portion of the Project costs to be reimbursed from proceeds of the Obligations. SECTION 4. Except as described below, the expected date of issue of the Obligations will be within eighteen months of the later of the Expenditure Date or Dates and the date the Project is placed in service; provided, the reimbursement may not be made more than three years after the original expenditure is paid. For Obligations subject to the small issuer exception of Section 148(f)(4)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code, the “eighteen-month limit” of the previous sentence is changed to “three years” and the limitation of the previous sentence beginning with “; provided, . . . .” is not applicable. SECTION 5. Proceeds of the Obligations to be used to reimburse for Project costs are not expected to be used, within one year of reimbursement, directly or indirectly to pay debt service with respect to any obligation (other than to pay current debt service coming due within the next succeeding one year period on any tax-exempt obligation of the Issuer [other than the Obligations]) 91 2 or to be held as a reasonably required reserve or replacement fund with respect to an obligation of the Issuer or any entity related in any manner to the Issuer, or to reimburse any expenditure that was originally paid with the proceeds of any obligation, or to replace funds that are or will be used in such manner. SECTION 6. This resolution is consistent with the budgetary and financial circumstances of the Issuer, as of the date hereof. No monies from sources other than the Obligation issue are, or are reasonably expected to be reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside by the Issuer (or any related party) pursuant to their budget or financial policies with respect to the Project costs. To the best of our knowledge, this City Council is not aware of the previous adoption of official intents by the Issuer that have been made as a matter of course for the purpose of reimbursing expenditures and for which tax-exempt obligations have not been issued. SECTION 7. The limitations described in Section 3 and Section 4 do not apply to (a) costs of issuance of the Obligations, (b) an amount not in excess of the lesser of $100,000 or five percent (5%) of the proceeds of the Obligations, or (c) any preliminary expenditures, such as architectural, engineering, surveying, soil testing, and similar costs other than land acquisition, site preparation, and similar costs incident to commencement of construction, not in excess of twenty percent (20%) of the aggregate issue price of the Obligations that finances the Project for which the preliminary expenditures were incurred. SECTION 8. This resolution is adopted as official action of the Issuer in order to comply with Treasury Regulation § 1.150-2 and any other regulations of the Internal Revenue Service relating to the qualification for reimbursement of Issuer expenditures incurred prior to the date of issue of the Obligations, is part of the Issuer’s official proceedings, and will be available for inspection by the general public at the main administrative office of the Issuer. SECTION 9. All the recitals in this Resolution are true and correct and this City Council so finds, determines and represents. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____day of May 2017, by the following votes, to wit: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ____________________________________ Richard Bailey, Mayor City of Coronado ATTEST: __________________________________ Mary L. Clifford, CMC City Clerk 92 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT CONCEPT Using a design-build contracting method, construct a reclaimed water treatment facility and associated infrastructure in the vicinity of the Coronado Municipal Golf Course to treat Coronado wastewater to produce sufficient recycled water, meeting all appropriate standards and regulations, to irrigate the City’s Golf Course. Coincident to the construction of the reclaimed water facility will be required modifications to the Golf Course and possible opportunities to make economical and efficient Golf Course infrastructure improvements. 93 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 94 City Manager’s Office Memorandum DATE: May 2, 2017 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Blair King, City Manager BK SUBJECT: Report to the City Council on Police Department Enforcement __________________________________________________________________________________ The table below compares traffic enforcement data from 2016 as a year-over-year comparison to 2017. Description March 2017 Citation Total March 2016 Citation Total % Change March 2017 Warning Total March 2016 Warning Total % Change Driving Under the Influence 1 2 -50.00% 0 0 Traffic - Hazard - Auto Right of Way 4 3 33.33% 1 0 Traffic - Hazard - Speeding 175 163 7.36% 24 43 -44.19% Traffic - Hazard - Following too Close 0 0 0 0 Traffic - Hazard - Violation Signals/Signs 162 186 -12.90% 35 38 -7.89% Traffic - Hazard - Unsafe Backing/Starting 0 0 0 0 Traffic - Hazard - Improper Turn 10 6 66.67% 4 1 300.00% Traffic - Hazard - Improper Driving 115 54 112.96% 14 3 366.67% Traffic - Hazard - Unsafe Lane Change 1 2 -50.00% 0 0 Traffic - Hazard - Improper Passing 3 7 -57.14% 0 0 Traffic - Hazard – Pedestrian Right of Way 1 0 0 0 Traffic - Hazard - Pedestrian Violation 0 1 4 1 300.00% Traffic - Non-Hazard - Alcohol Related 0 0 0 0 Traffic - Hazard - Other 3 7 -57.14% 1 1 0.00% Traffic - Non-Hazard - License/Registration 76 92 -17.39% 1 4 -75.00% Traffic - Non-Hazard - Equipment 106 62 70.97% 9 16 -43.75% Traffic - Non-Hazard - Littering 1 1 0 0 Traffic - Non-Hazard - Other 61 33 84.85% 1 3 -66.67% Traffic - Non-Hazard - Seatbelt 19 11 72.73% 1 3 -66.67% Traffic - Parking - Gridlock 4 4 0 0 Totals 742 634 17.03% 95 113 -15.93% Source: Coronado Police Department, April 21, 2017. 95 7a THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 96 05/02/17 COUNCIL REPORTS ON INTER-AGENCY COMMITTEE AND BOARD ASSIGNMENTS 97 10a THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 98 05/02/17 Councilmember Bill Sandke – “Other Agency” Report 03/04/17 to 04/27/17 3/6 Meet with Aileen Oya concerning Coronado Gym 3/8 ALUCP Working Group 3/9 MTS Board meeting Meet with Steve Padilla on MTS lease disagreement Meet with Brag Gerbel and Kelly Sarber – Coronado Historical Open House for Assemblymembers Todd Gloria and Lorena Gonzalez City Commissioners Dinner 3/13 League of CA Cities Lunch 3/14 FBI Citizens Academy 3/15 SANDAG Transportation Agenda Briefing 3/17 SANDAG Transportation Committee 3/18 City Arbor Day Celebration Historical Association Dinner 3/22 Lobbyist selection committee 3/23 Meet with Greg Cox and Bike/Ped Tube committee Coronado Hospital Foundation Reception 3/26 to 3/29 Mexico City with San Diego Chamber Delegation 3/30 MTS Mobile Ticketing news conference 3/31 Represent MTS at League of CA Cities Press Event for SB1 Meet with Brag Gerbel and Kelly Sarber – Coronado Historical Police volunteer dinner 4/6 Metro JPA 4/7 Albondigas luncheon Lobbyist selection committee Friends of Library Book Sale ambassador 4/9 Rotary Pancake Breakfast 4/12 Affordable housing briefing Sharp Foundation Luncheon 99 05/02/17 4/13 MTS Board Meeting Golf Course Advisory Meeting 4/14 SANDAG Board Meeting 4/18 Transportation Committee agenda briefing FBI Citizens Academy 4/19 Meet with Mr. and Mrs. Curtiss 4/21 SANDAG Transportation Committee SD Chamber Congressional luncheon 4/22 Club Room and Boathouse Open House 4/24 Naval Complexes meeting 4/25 FBI Citizens Academy 4/24 Port Masterplan workshop 100 05/02/17 COMMUNICATION TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY REGARDING THE NAVAL AIR STATION NORTH ISLAND AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN RECOMMENDATION: Receive a report from staff on the development of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for Navy Air Station North Island (NASNI) and authorize correspondence to the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA) Board to communicate the City Council’s frustrations with the ALUCP’s draft plan policies and process. FISCAL IMPACT: Unknown at this time. In addition to considerable staff time and resources, approximately $20,000 in consultant services has been expended through April 30, 2017, on review of the SDCRAA’s draft ALUCP policies. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: Providing direction on the NASNI ALUCP is a policy decision and an advisory action reflective of the Council’s legislative role. Legislative actions tend to express a public purpose and make provisions for the ways and means of accomplishing this purpose. Legislative actions involve the exercise of discretion governed by consideration of public welfare, in which case, the City Council is deemed to have “paramount authority” in such decisions. PUBLIC NOTICE: None required. BACKGROUND: In 2011, the Department of the Navy prepared an Air Installation Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) update for NASNI, which included changes to locations and sizes of the Clear Zone (CZ) and Accident Potential Zones (APZs) within the City of Coronado’s jurisdiction (Attachment 2). The 2011 AICUZ was intended to replace the previous 1984 AICUZ. Although the state suspended the mandate to prepare an ALUCP for NASNI in 2010, in 2015 SDCRAA staff began work on a Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) based on the Navy’s 2011 AICUZ which reflects planned fixed wing and rotary aircraft operations at NASNI through the year 2020. The ALUCP is intended to be consistent (to what extent is unclear) with the safety and noise standards of the AICUZ. As part of the ALUCP preparation process, the SDCRAA established a Working Group to solicit input on the policy content of the plan in order to address community concerns and potential stakeholder impacts. In November 2015, the City Council provided the SDCRAA a list of potential Working Group members that represented a wide range of likely affected stakeholders including residential and commercial property owners, business owners, and various associations that could be impacted as a result of the ALUCP. The SDCRAA used the City’s input to establish the membership of the NASNI ALUCP Working Group. Since 2016, City staff has participated in 10 meetings of the Working Group. Working Group meeting topics have included issues related to existing and future land uses, public safety, noise, airspace protections, and overflight compatibility. City staff has also participated in more than 12 meetings with the staff of the SDCRAA and attended each of the 9 public community meetings hosted by the SDCRAA (Attachment 3 list). 101 10b 05/02/17 In March 2017, the SDCRAA staff presented to the Working Group “Draft NASNI ALUCP Policies” and requested review and input by Working Group members. City staff has prepared a report which summarizes the overarching comments and concerns of City staff and of other Working Group members. The comments will be reviewed with the City Council. ANALYSIS: City staff has been actively and consistently participating in the ALUCP process for more than one year in a focused effort to ensure that the City’s interests and objectives are embodied in the NASNI ALUCP. Despite City staff’s active and consistent participation in the process to ensure that the draft ALUCP reflects the City’s goals and interests, the SDCRAA has not been receptive to these efforts. As written, the ALUCP is in direct conflict and wholly inconsistent with the City’s long-term land use plan and vision for the community as embodied in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the ALUCP in its current form cannot be supported or implemented by the City. The SDCRAA’s efforts on an unfunded state mandate may also be moot because the AICUZ’s planned operational horizon year is 2020. With less than three years from the planned operation term, it is unlikely that the current ALUCP process would be concluded by that time given that the state and federal environmental review processes have not yet begun. The NASNI ALUCP may be rendered obsolete prior to its adoption. To date, City staff is aware that three other members of the NASNI ALUCP Working Group have submitted comment letters (included as Attachment 4) including the Hotel del Coronado, Ms. Angela Yates (local resident and attorney), and Mr. John. M. O’Brien (local home builder). Although the comment letters submitted by members of the community raise slightly different issues, it is clear that from a practical standpoint, there is significant confusion and concerns about the application of the ALUCP policies to existing residential and commercial development and the potential for adverse effects on future opportunities for redevelopment, modernization, and overall economic viability within the City. The purpose of bringing this information to the City Council’s attention at this time is threefold: (1) to consider sending a letter (Attachment 1) requesting the SDCRAA Board to change the direction of the ALUCP preparation to address the City’s concerns with both the process and draft policies regarding land use consistency and unnecessarily onerous requirements; (2) to direct staff to compile and submit a comment letter to the SDCRAA Board; and (3) to direct City representatives to begin working directly with the SDCRAA Board to develop a path forward that is consistent with the City’s long-term land use plan and vision for the community. Submitted by: Community Development/Hurst and City Attorney/Canlas Attachments: 1. Draft City of Coronado letter 2. Map of Safety zones 3. Community Meetings 4. Letters from ALUCP Working Group participants 5. Staff Comment Letter Draft I:\Staff\Jesse\NASNI ALUCP\SR-NASNI ALUCP status (FINAL).docx CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR NA JNC MLC RAH NA NA NA NA NA NA 102 May 2, 2017 Board of Directors San Diego County Regional Airport Authority P.O. Box 82776 San Diego, CA. 92138-2776 SUBJECT: North Island Naval Air Station (NASNI) Air Installation Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Process Honorable Chair Boling and Members of the Board: The City of Coronado (City) appreciates the opportunity to address the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA) on its effort to draft an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI). As the elected representatives of the City, we bring to the Board’s attention our concerns and those voiced by our constituents regarding the NASNI ALUCP process. For more than a year, City staff actively and consistently participated in the ALUCP process in a focused effort to ensure that the City’s interests and objectives are embodied in the NASNI ALUCP. The objective of the Working Group, established more than a year ago, was supposed to be a collaborative effort among stakeholders on the goals, needs and desired outcomes of the process. Despite City staff’s and the Working Group’s active and consistent participation in the process, including attendance to 10 Working Group meetings and 9 community meetings hosted by SDCRAA staff, the current draft ALUCP does not reflect Coronado’s goals and interests nor does it include the invaluable input provided by City staff and the stakeholders. Based in part on feedback received from members of the Working Group and our own staff’s experience, the City is troubled with the direction the planning process has taken. Questions have been raised whether the preparation of the NASNI ALUCP is, in fact, mandated. If mandated, it has been suggested that the outcome is predetermined and exceeds SDCRAA’s limited jurisdiction. As noted, the draft policies fail to include and does not reflect input from City staff and the stakeholders in the Working Group. The state mandate to prepare an ALUCP for NASNI was suspended in 2010. As it stands today, preparation of the NASNI ALUCP is an unfunded mandate. Therefore, SDCRAA is not under statutory obligation to prepare the NASNI ALUCP. Attachment 1 103 Chair Boling Page 2 May 2, 2017 Additionally, the planned operational horizon year for the 2011 Air Installation Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) for NASNI, which is the basis for the ALUCP is 2020. With less than three years from the end of the planned operation horizon term, it is unlikely that the current ALUCP process would be completed in time when state and federal environmental reviews have yet to commence. The NASNI ALUCP may be moot and/or obsolete prior to its adoption. As written, the draft ALUCP exceeds the SDCRAA’s limited scope and authority to conduct airport land use compatibility planning within areas around public airports to the extent that those areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. In its current form, the draft plan policies go beyond SDCRAA’s authority because areas already fully developed with land uses that are incompatible with the noise and safety standards of the AICUZ are identified. Existing uses and vested rights that are consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning regulations are not subject to SDCRAA’s jurisdiction. The City of Coronado is a fully built-out community, with existing land uses that have not changed in decades and are not planned to change. The City and naval aviation have co-existed for over a century. The fundamental flaw in the draft ALUCP is that it would have the net effect of super-imposing public safety hazards and noise overlays onto existing patterns of land use and development that predated the air installation. Therefore, the draft NASNI ALUCP in its current form automatically changes the status of a significant number of existing structures and land uses as non-conforming. This undermines the future economic viability of our community. Such policies would detrimentally affect private property rights and investment-backed expectations without compensation. Whether such actions can be supported legally is questionable when even SDCRAA staff acknowledges it has no jurisdiction over NASNI. While the City will submit a comprehensive comment letter on the Draft Policies distributed to the Working Group on March 2017, the City shares the comments submitted to SDCRAA by the Hotel del Coronado, Ms. Angela Yates, and Mr. John O’Brien. Specifically, the Hotel del Coronado has participated actively in the Working Group and has worked tirelessly with SDCRAA staff to collaborate on draft policy language that recognizes the Hotel del Coronado’s status as a world renowned National Historic Landmark and its rights under state law and the City’s General Plan and Zoning regulations to develop, redevelop, renovate, and maintain the existing resort use. We reiterate HDC’s dismay that all previous references and draft policy language previously worked on in cooperation with SDCRAA staff were omitted in the most recent draft. The failure to recognize the Hotel del Coronado’s development rights under its Master Plan, Development Agreement, Coastal Development Permits, City’s General Plan and Zoning unduly clouds and adds uncertainty to its ability to rely on previous entitlement approvals. 104 Chair Boling Page 3 May 2, 2017 As Ms. Yates and Mr. O’Brien noted, the draft policies place an undue burden on single-family homes. Adding onerous requirements, such as FAA approval, when one is not required today equates to unnecessary delay and added expense. Moreover, the draft policies include an ability of the Commanding Officer of NASNI to have a role in, or worse, to have veto power over, local land uses in Coronado regardless of consistency to the General Plan and Zoning Regulations approved and adopted by the City Council. This is without legal precedent and amounts to preempting the City’s land use authority. We continue to value the merit of joint planning. We ask that you provide SDCRAA staff direction to change the course of the planning process to address our concerns. We reiterate that, should you decide to pursue the unfunded mandate of preparing the NASNI ALUCP, the policies need to be consistent with the City’s long-term land use and vison for its community as embodied in the General Plan and Zoning Regulations and to reduce the onerous requirements in the current draft. If remained unchanged, the current draft NASNI ALUCP cannot be supported or implemented by the City. Sincerely, Richard Bailey Mayor RB/mlc 105 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 106 A t t a c h m e n t 2 1 0 7 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 108 Community Meetings The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (Airport Authority) is beginning to prepare the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI). The ALUCP will play an important role in ensuring that new development in the vicinity of NASNI is compatible with Naval aviation operations and is safe for people and property on the ground and in the air. The Airport Authority, acting as the Airport Land Use Commission, is responsible for preparing ALUCPs for all 16 airports in San Diego County. This is the final plan to be completed. The Airport Authority is hosting a series of informational community meetings that will provide opportunities for public input during the planning process. Each meeting will focus on a specific topic so participants can attend meetings of interest to them. Meetings are open to the public. For more information, call (619) 400-2462 or email alucpcomments@san.org. Public Information Meeting Schedule DATE & TIME TOPIC LOCATION Tuesday, March 22, 2016 Presentation will be repeated every hour at 4 p.m. / 5 p.m. / 6 p.m. Introduction and Overview of NASNI ALUCP Process View Presentation Coronado Cays Yacht Club 30 Caribe Cay Blvd. Coronado, CA 92118 Wednesday, April 27, 2016 Presentation will be repeated at 5:30 p.m. / 6:30 p.m. Safety View Presentation Coronado Public Library, Winn Room 640 Orange Avenue Coronado, CA 92118 Wednesday, May 25, 2016 Presentation will be repeated at 4 p.m. / 5 p.m. Safety View Presentation Coronado Public Library, Winn Room 640 Orange Avenue Coronado, CA 92118 Monday, June 27, 2016 Presentation will be Safety Draft Policies View Presentation Coronado Public Library, Winn Room Attachment 3 109 DATE & TIME TOPIC LOCATION repeated at 4 p.m. / 5 p.m. 640 Orange Avenue Coronado, CA 92118 Monday, July 25, 2016 Presentation will be repeated at 4 p.m. / 5 p.m. General Review Policies and Procedures Draft Policies View Presentation Coronado Public Library, Winn Room 640 Orange Avenue Coronado, CA 92118 Wednesday, August 31, 2016 Presentation at 5:30 p.m. Noise Compatibility Factor Draft Policies View Presentation Sound Insulation Methods Coronado Public Library, Winn Room 640 Orange Avenue Coronado, CA 92118 Thursday, September 29, 2016 Presentation at 5:30 p.m. Airspace Compatibility Factor Draft Policies View Presentation Coronado Public Library, Winn Room 640 Orange Avenue Coronado, CA 92118 Wednesday, October 26, 2016 Presentation at 5:30 p.m. Overflight Compatibility Factor View Presentation and Draft Policies Coronado Public Library, Winn Room 640 Orange Avenue Coronado, CA 92118 Wednesday, November 30, 2016 Presentation at 5:30 p.m. Policies, Procedures & Outstanding Items View Presentation Coronado Public Library, Winn Room 640 Orange Avenue Coronado, CA 92118 110 A t t a c h m e n t 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 5 1 1 6 1 1 7 1 1 8 1 1 9 120 121 122 1 2 3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 124 Page | 1 May 2, 2017 C. April Boling, Board Chair Members of the Board of Directors San Diego County Regional Airport Authority P.O. Box 82776 San Diego, CA 92138-2776 Also Submitted Via Email to: Alucpcomments@san.org SUBJECT: Preliminary Comments from the City of Coronado on the North Island Naval Air Station (NASNI) Air Installation Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Draft Policies Provided to ALUCP Working Group Members on 3/3/2017 Dear Ms. Boling and Members of the Board: The City of Coronado (City) appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the draft materials distributed to NASNI ALUCP Working Group members by the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA) at the meeting held on March 3, 2017. The following are our preliminary comments which address the City’s primary, overarching substantive and procedural comments and questions, as well as other technical comments and questions. The City reserves the right to amend these comments as additional materials are made available. General Comments and Main Concerns: 1.The SDCRAA draft policy documents need to correctly state that the SDCRAA’s responsibility to conduct airport land use compatibility planning within areas around publicairports is limited to the extent that those areas are not already devoted to incompatibleuses. The draft policies and plan must demonstrate compliance with this finite scope andauthority. In its current form, the draft plan policies exceed SDCRAA’s jurisdiction because it identifies areas already fully developed with land uses that are incompatible with the noise and safety standards of the AICUZ. Existing uses that are consistent with theCity’s General Plan and zoning are not subject to SDCRAA’s jurisdiction. Attachment 5 125 Page | 2 2. The State of California suspended the mandate to prepare ALUCPs in 2010. The draft plan policies incorrectly state SDCRAA is under a state mandate to prepare an ALUCP for NASNI. 3. The City’s primary goals are to have an AICUZ that reflects a good faith effort to acknowledge and incorporate the on-the-ground existing pattern of land use and development which supports the important continued operational capabilities of both the City and Navy co-existing for the long-term as compatible neighbors. 4. It is unclear whose “Goals” are articulated on page 1. The City’s goals are not reflected in the box on page 1 nor do they appear to have been considered by SDCRAA through their process and efforts to prepare an ALUCP based on the NASNI AICUZ. 5. The Draft ALUCP should clearly state that the City of Coronado is fully built out in a manner that is consistent with the underlying general plan land use and zoning designations which embody the City’s long-term land use and development vision. 6. The ALUC review needs to be limited to proposed changes in land use designations as opposed to changes to existing structures not involving a change to the land use itself. The AICUZ and ALUCP should be developed consistent with existing land use and development patterns and based on City input. 7. Based in part on comments made by members of the Working Group on March 3, 2017, and our own experience, the City is concerned that the valuable input provided by the Working Group is being summarily dismissed. The goal of the Working Group, which has now been convened for more than a year, was intended to provide for stakeholder collaboration on the goals, needs and desired outcomes of the process; however, it appears that most if not all input is being disregarded by the SDCRAA which raises questions about the process and whether it is meaningful or substantive or has a predetermined outcome. 8. A fundamental flaw of the ALUCP is that it would have the net effect of super-imposing public safety hazards and noise overlays onto existing patterns of land use and development and would instantly convert a significant number of existing structures and land uses into non-conforming land uses and structures. The SDCRAA lacks authority to create such a condition (when the SDCRAA acknowledges it has no jurisdiction over NASNI) which would result in a significant but unenforceable burden on the City. 9. NASNI has been operating concurrently with existing City land uses for many decades and the AICUZ is now six years old. It is doubtful that the Navy would subject its pilots, crews, residents, and visitors to Coronado to an unacceptable level of risk. Therefore, establishment of an AICUZ with a CZ and APZs that are fully built out with existing structures must not pose a significant threat to Navy personnel. It is the choice of the Navy (and now the SDCRAA vis-a-vis the ALUCP process) to create a situation where overflight operations and existing land uses and structures are viewed as incompatible; it is the Navy that should make necessary modifications to ensure pilot safety and public safety by 126 Page | 3 modifying the flight path either through a landing pattern localizer offset or establishment of a displaced landing threshold since it is a change to Navy operations that is triggering the “incompatibilities.” 10.In addition, the 2011 AICUZ has a stated operational planning horizon year of 2020. Since2020 is now 2.5 years away, and the draft ALUCP still must undergo CEQA and NEPAreview processes which can take a year or more to complete, it is likely that the draftALUCP would not be completed and available for formal public review and comment until sometime around 2020 or later. By then, the ALUCP would be based on a NASNI AICUZthat is no longer valid from an operational standpoint and would be outdated. 11.The SDCRAA proposed process will add excessive delay and additional costs (includingboth processing costs and interior construction-related noise attenuation costs) to City residents, property owners and businesses. Mitigation funds should be provided to offsetthe additional financial burdens that would occur if the ALUCP were to be implemented. 12.In a letter to the City from the Navy (dated March 3, 2017), the Navy indicates that it willbe conducting an Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to NEPA to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with transitioning the C-2A Greyhound aircraftto the newer V-22 Osprey aircraft. The Proposed Project in this case includes theestablishment of a Navy Fleet Replacement Squadron to train pilots and crew, a school formaintenance personnel and related construction of new facilities, and renovation ofexisting facilities at NASNI. This is a contemporary example of a planned modification at NASNI which highlights the ability of the Navy to make important facility changes whenneeded. The City is currently awaiting the results of the EA to determine if this proposedchange would trigger a modification to the NASNI AICUZ. 13.It appears as though the FAA would have to conduct coordination activities with the Navy for ministerial permits within the City. This is unacceptable, lacks legal support, andamounts to preemption of the City’s land use authority. Detailed Comments 1.Because it is so critical to the City of Coronado, we would like to verify that the 65 CNELcontour is positioned correctly. This contour is a function of the input data to the computermodel outputs. Consequently, with this letter we are requesting a copy of the input/outputof the computer model plus any field measurements that were taken. 2.The Clear Zone (CZ), Accident Potential Zone I (APZ) and APZ II encroach on existingland uses and structures in the City. According to Figure 5-3 in the 2011 AICUZ (pages5-7), the CZ covers an area that is more than 103 acres in size, APZ I covers 344 acres, andAPZ II covers 482 acres in size for a combined total of 929 acres or more in size. Theseencroachment estimates are approximate based on the AICUZ and the handouts provided to date. The full proposed dimensions of these zones as well as the proposed noise contoursmust be fully quantified and described in the text (in terms of total acreage and number of 127 Page | 4 structures affected) to support the mapping shown in the figures and in the interest of complete public disclosure. 3. Figure 5-3 on Pages 5-7 of the 2011 NASNI AICUZ includes a note that states “Aerial depiction is for planning purposes, specific real estate decisions should be confirmed by normal surveying.” The areas proposed to be included in the ALUCP CZ, APZ I and APZ II should be clearly defined by a professional land surveyor and the numbers above should be confirmed or corrected. 4. SDCRAA staff provided an example of how to implement their proposed policies (City to adopt ordinance that requires property owner to enter into an agreement with the Navy). While this may be applicable for a public use airport, it is not applicable for a military airport like NASNI. Requiring an agreement between the airport (Navy) and property owner by the jurisdiction (City) is not appropriate since the City is neither the owner nor the operator of NASNI. 5. The list of “Exemptions from ALUC Review” that is provided on page 3 is not exhaustive nor a complete list and contains only a few examples. This list should be more fully thought out and expanded in the next iteration. 6. It is not clear why “tenant changes” are considered potentially incompatible with NASNI operations. Tenant changes could result in a reduction in development intensity or density. This is an arbitrary distinction and the reference should be removed or evidence of its relevance provided. 7. A change in land use type (e.g., from residential to industrial or commercial) may trigger a conformity review with NASNI operations; however, it is unclear why changes within an existing structural envelope, or addition of a modest amount of square footage or a modest height increase would be automatically incompatible within the CZ or APZ zones. We disagree that an increase in the presumed safety risk would occur based solely on a tenant change. 8. The Draft Policies document includes two sets of guidelines: interim guidelines and those that would apply after ALUCP adoption. Clarification should be provided as to who will be subject to the guidelines and who will implement them. 9. It appears that the ALUCP process would make some currently “ministerial” permits such as building permits “discretionary.” This is legally questionable and unenforceable. The SDCRAA has no authority to change a ministerial permit to a discretionary permit or to impose conditions or request the City to impose conditions on a ministerial permit. 10. The ALUCP policies may be in conflict with other City policies including historic preservation rules and regulations. Implementation of the ALUCP could result in the loss of historic resource status or the loss of potential for historic resource qualification or designations to occur. Historic preservation policies and programs are a key component of 128 Page | 5 retaining community character within the City and the SDCRAA will need to clearly articulate how the ALUC would review historic properties and assure the City that this process would not be jeopardized or otherwise adversely affected by imposition of an ALUCP. 11. The Draft ALUCP should specify that approval of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are now ministerial under recently enacted State law (effective 1/1/17) and the City does not have the ability to regulate ADUs or apply additional development standards. 12. Post-construction, the City does not regulate existing structures. Further, it is beyond the purview of the City to make a finding that existing legal structures are “non-conforming” if they comply with existing City land use policies, zoning regulations and development standards. 13. The reference to “project sponsors” is misleading. The correct term should be “project applicant.” The City is neither a project sponsor nor a project applicant. 14. Table 1 on page 5 of the handout creates confusion as it does not reflect existing City land use/zoning designations but instead uses U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) land use categories. This will create opportunity for interpretation and confusion. 15. The previous comment notwithstanding, according to page 2 of the handout, tenant changes are exempt from review. This is one example of internal inconsistency within the draft materials. 16. Section 4.1.2.1 is new and has not been previously discussed by the SDCRAA staff with the Working Group. It is unclear where this information is memorialized and what exactly the process entails. A Special Workshop on “Hazards to Air Navigation” and “FAA Notification Requirements” should be conducted for the Working Group and a second corresponding public informational meeting should be held to introduce this information to the public and describe the role of the FAA and the FAA review process to the stakeholders. 17. Section 4.1.2.1 is all about process but no timeline is given. Information shared at the last Working Group meeting indicated the process could take up to 16 weeks or longer. This process is arbitrary and capricious and places an undue burden on the City to administer and an unfair burden for applicants wanting to repair, maintain or improve their private property. 18. All forms that are referenced in the handout (e.g., FAA Form 7460-1 and ALUC Application for Consistency Determination) should be included as part of the materials made available for public review for clear understanding of the paperwork burden that would be generated. These materials should be distributed at the upcoming Working Group and Public Meeting. The Draft ALCUP should include sample copies of all forms that would need to be completed by project applicants in a technical appendix for public 129 Page | 6 review to facilitate a comprehensive and complete informational process for the public. 19. The discussion on FAA Notification Requirements (Subsection 4.1.2.1) in Airspace Protection Boundary (Section 4.1.2) should clarify that the notice tool on the FAA website provides an extremely high number of false positives and that project applicants are better served by making notification decisions based on the specific requirements in the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 (14 CFR 77). 20. The subsection on Conditionally Compatible Obstructions (Subsection 4.1.2.3) also in Airspace Protection Boundary implies incorrectly that the FAA’s regulatory review under 14 CFR 77 would examine whether or not a construction proposal would affect NASNI operational efficiency and capacity. The regulation relates to height and safety issues for the navigable airspace, rather than for the airfield’s operational integrity. This should be clarified. 21. The document states under Section 4.1.3 that there are alternative acceptable methods of providing overflight notification that the ALUC may approve; these should be fully enumerated in the next iteration of materials. The examples shown in Section 4.1.3 are inappropriate and impractical. Real estate disclosures are already in place and other options would place an unnecessary burden on the City. 22. Section 4.2 describes a process that would inappropriately delegate local land use permit review and issuance authority to the FAA and the Navy and impose a significant procedural and substantive burden on the City. 23. Sections 4.1.1 and 4.2 refer to an Appendix; however, the Appendix was not provided for review and comment and should be included with the next iteration. 24. Under Section 5.1 of the handout, it is not clear if additional residential square footage would be perceived as a “change in density” and how this scenario would be evaluated by the ALUC staff. It should be clarified that it is not considered a change in density. 25. Exhibit 2 uses City land use zoning designations but other information relies on USDOT land use classifications creating confusion for the public and lack of internal consistency. 26. Figure 1 on (page 17, not numbered) should be revised to state “Project Applicant” rather than “Project Sponsor.” 27. Figure 1 should be revised to clarify if the ALUC box on the process flowchart refers to ALUC staff level review or full ALU Commission review. The Figure should also clearly state what type of project, criteria, thresholds, and findings would trigger an ALUC staff level review versus a full ALU Commission review. 28. Figure 2 (possibly on page 18) should be modified to include overall approximate worst case (or regulatory maximum) timelines for the various processes and paths from start to 130 Page | 7 finish to assist in understanding those processes and for purposes of setting public expectations. 29. Figure 2 should be revised to also include the “overrule” process that was discussed as an option for the City. 30. The lack of consistency in formal terms in the handout (i.e., remodel, repair, alter, modify, and reconstruct) creates significant confusion and room for interpretation. The Draft ALUCP will need to include a chapter on definitions if defined terms are to be used in the document. 31. The ALUCP should clarify that roof top solar (USDOT category 47, 48) is an allowed/compatible/consistent structure. 32. Under the “Trade” Category 50 (USDOT) the land use names need to be separated out. 33. Detailed information regarding parcels split by a noise contour line is provided in the handout. The same level of detail should be provided for lots split by the safety contours. 34. Rather than split any parcels, the contours should follow existing streets and parcel lines such that no split parcel conditions are created by the ALUCP. The models are not so advanced or scientific such that any split lots should be created by overlaying graphics of noise or safety contours. 35. Due to the small size of most lots, if the entire lot is not within a noise or safety contour, the proposed rules should not apply. 36. The figures on page 7 of the handout are unclear and should be clarified in the next iteration of materials provided for review and comment. 37. The City disagrees with the statement contained in paragraph 3 on page 4 under Section 4.1.1 which reads “Because expansion of non-residential uses would increase the level of existing incompatibility, floor area increases of non-residential structures are not compatible within the CZ or APZ I or II. 38. It is unclear why Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a relevant criteria or threshold for compatibility as indicated in Table 3 in the handout. This needs to be substantiated. 39. We disagree that Commercial land uses should be subject to a different standard for compatibility review when compared to residential land uses. 40. If ALUC has a review right, they also have veto power or the ability to deny a project. This should be clarified in the interest of full public disclosure. 41. The term “incompatible” should be included as a defined term in the Draft ALUCP. It 131 Page | 8 should clarify if the incompatibility is related to safety, noise, both, or other criteria. The document should also clarify the distinction between “incompatible” and “inconsistent.” 42. The draft document uses the terms “existing uses” and “existing structures” interchangeably. The two terms are not interchangeable. Existing uses relate to the underlying land use designation or category (i.e., residential, commercial, etc.). Existing structures refer specifically to the physical structures in the built environment such as a single family home, resort, restaurant, etc. This should be clarified in the document so that use of appropriate nomenclature is internally consistent. Detailed Questions 1. Why isn’t the U.S. Navy listed as a Stakeholder on page 1 since the NASNI AICUZ is the subject of the ALUCP and the NASNI Commander is proposed to be fully involved with FAA coordination for what appears to be almost every project? 2. The AICUZ was developed in 2010 (seven years ago) and, based upon the previous observations, the estimates of future noise levels may no longer be accurate and valid. Before the ALUCP is finalized, the noise estimates used to develop the 65 dB contour should be updated using the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) which has incorporated the best available science and is a more accurate noise model than the FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM), and presumably any other noise models available seven years ago. The modeling should reflect current knowledge about estimated prospective future operations at NAS North Island. The modeling should include changed information (since 2010 information was the basis of the AICUZ) about the number of aircraft operations, the type of operation, aircraft fleet mix, flight path/procedures, and day/evening/night mix of operations that would also affect the CNEL noise contours. Without this update, the 65 dB CNEL contour planning area covered by the ALUCP would be out of date and boundaries would not be accurate and valid. 3. As indicated in the draft ALUCP materials, the location of the 65 dB CNEL contour line is critical in determining whether noise policies and standards apply to a project. The reliance on the accuracy of the 65 dB CNEL contour is immediately obvious in the example provided in Section 4.1.1 (Noise and Safety Compatibility) of slight shifts in the 65 dB CNEL contour. Slight shifts of the contour line determine whether noise policies and standards would apply to a new or reconstructed building. It is critical that these lines be drawn using the most accurate information. The update of the 65 dB CNEL contour needs to be undertaken in the near term before the ALUCP is finalized. 4. The analysis of total operations should also consider Civilian Aircraft and other cumulative noise generators. Table 3-1 included air carrier and general aviation operations, but these operations are for NASNI and are not included in Table A-3. What were the assumptions for the civilian aircraft in determining the NASNI 65 dB CNEL contours in the 2011 AICUZ? Have those projections been verified recently? Those aircraft operations should be updated in the anticipated update of the 65 dB CNEL projections based on the Navy’s 132 Page | 9 planned aircraft transition (C2-A to the V-22). 5. What are the criteria that would be used by the NASNI Commander in his/her proposed review capacity and what findings would need to be made? This process needs to be outlined in detail. 6. Why would the City agree to transfer the burden from the Navy to the property owners for noise attenuation or mitigation for existing structures when it is not the presence of the existing structures that is creating the issue but rather the effect of changing NASNI operations as outlined in the AICUZ (and potentially an ALUCP)? 7. How were the safety and noise contours developed? Are they based on flights using the loudest or maximum mission aircraft? The methodologies used and assumptions employed should be fully explained. A complete list of the aircraft, including airplanes and helicopters, that were used as the basis of the safety and noise modeling should also be provided for reference. 8. It is not clear on page 2 if a complete teardown and rebuild in place within the existing/previous height and square footage or floor area would be approved by the ALUC or ALUC staff. 9. What is the extent of the review of the ALUC and what are the “findings” that need to be made? This must be enumerated in full. 10. Why are “tenant changes” to existing structures included in Table 1? This distinction is arbitrary and no rationale is provided or indication of why this would be an issue if a tenant change did not result in a land use change. 11. A non-compatibility conclusion following the resumption of a discontinued use after 24-months is arbitrary. What is the basis or justification of establishing a time limit? Why not 60 months or 72 months? No evidence or rationale is provided for establishing a time limit whatsoever. 12. What if a commercial use changes and the business has been operational the entire time but a previous use returns (e.g., restaurant to shopping to restaurant again)? This scenario needs to be described and evaluated. 13. How would parcels that are split by the CZ, or APZ I or APZ II or noise contours be affected or reviewed by the ALUC? As indicated previously, only under a condition where the entire parcel is affected should the ALUCP policies apply. Given the generally small lot sizes in the City, most property owners would not have the ability to move the structure to a different location, beyond the contour, on the same site. Because there are so few “split parcels” in the City, if the parcel is only partially covered it should not be affected by the ALUCP noise or safety regulations. 133 Page | 10 14. What is required to be submitted in order for an application to be “deemed complete” for processing by ALUC staff? This should be enumerated as a follow up to Figure 2. 15. Can the ALUC deem applications complete for processing (e.g., filed) if the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is non-responsive on a project review for a hazard determination? Is there a time limit where non-response is deemed concurrence? 16. Are the ALUCP, and any City action on the ALUCP, subject to review and concurrence by the California Coastal Commission? 17. Where does the California Coastal Commission (CCC) fit into this ALUCP process and what is their role? Did they conduct a Federal Consistency Determination for the NASNI AICUZ in 2011 or 2012? Have they been invited to participate as a key stakeholder in the current ALUCP process? 18. The CCC has the authority to appeal and/or modify projects that are located within the appealable area (as defined by the Coastal Act) in the City as well as projects within CCC original jurisdiction. Would an applicant be required to start over with the FAA and ALUC if a project approved by the City and the ALUC were to be modified by the CCC? This scenario analysis should be prepared and described by the SDCRAA. 19. How are “bird attractants” defined on page 9 of the handout? Examples should be provided for reference and clarification. 20. If “reconstruction” of existing uses is exempt from ALUC review per Section 3 of the handout, why is “reconstruction” in the name of the title of Table 1 (stand-alone 11x17 compatibility standards table)? This is another example of an internal inconsistency in the materials. However, since it has not been perfected it appears that ALUCP policies and contents are variable and there is substantial discretion inherent in the process of developing an ALUCP. 21. Is “reconstruction” the same as repair, maintenance and/or remodeling, alteration, modification? Each of these terms needs to be clearly defined. 22. What is the nexus between tenant changes and changes to safety risks if they involve no change to height or SF or a reduction in development? This should be clarified in the Draft ALUCP as it seems that tenant changes would be denied by the ALUC but the standards for determining this as well as findings that would have to be made are not specified. 23. Clarification for the tables in Sections 4.1 and 6.2 needs to be provided and shown how it is consistent with the State Law, which limits ALUC review to amendments of general or specific plans, and for the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation. It should also be clarified that the City adopting the newest iteration of the California Building Code (which comes out from the State of California every three years) is exempt from ALUC review, all General Plan Amendments or zoning code changes 134 Page | 11 would be subject to review by the ALUC if the ALUCP were to be in effect? This scenario needs to be fully explained and evaluated. The City appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments. As additional materials are made available for review, the City will provide additional comments and questions for consideration. Sincerely, Blair King City Manager BK/mlc 135 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 136 05/02/17 CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL POLICY #136 “CITY-ISSUED MOBILE DEVICE POLICY FOR CITY COUNCILMEMBERS” RECOMMENDATION: Consider and adopt City Council Policy #136 “City-Issued Mobile Device Policy for City Councilmembers” to be effective immediately. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of purchasing five mobile devices for the City Councilmembers is approximately $1,500 with annual wireless service plan charges at approximately $2,500. It is expected that the cost of providing the mobile devices will be outweighed by the savings in staff time when responding to Public Records Act requests. PUBLIC NOTICE: None required. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: Adopting an administrative policy is an administrative decision not affecting a fundamental vested right. When an administrative decision does not affect a fundamental vested right the courts give greater deference to decision makers in administrative mandate actions. The court will inquire (a) whether the city has complied with the required procedures, and (b) whether the city’s findings, if any, are supported by substantial evidence. BACKGROUND: City Councilmembers are elected to conduct the people’s business in the City of Coronado. This important role in the community requires frequent and timely communications with City staff as well as members of the public. The City already provides email accounts and office phone numbers for the Councilmembers. The issuance of a mobile device will further communications with the Councilmembers as well as increase transparency. On March 2, 2017, the California Supreme Court unanimously held that when a city official or employee uses a personal account to communicate about the conduct of public business, the writings may be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. Issuing a City mobile device to each Councilmember will assist City staff in responding to Public Records Act requests for communications that may involve the Councilmembers as all emails on the device will be sent through the City’s servers instead of through a private email account. The draft policy emphasizes that all information on the mobile device used for public business is potentially subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. ANALYSIS: The draft policy establishes procedures for all City Councilmembers to receive a mobile device for phone calls and emails related to City business. The issuance, maintenance, and return of the devices will be handled through the City Manager’s office with the assistance of the Information Technology Division. The default email program on the device will be the City email account for each Councilmember. Routine maintenance will be provided by the Information Technology Division. At the end of the Councilmember’s time and service in public office, the device will be returned to the City and the corresponding email address and mobile phone number will be terminated. The draft policy outlines the responsibilities and limitations on the use of City-issued mobile devices. 137 10c 05/02/17 ALTERNATIVE: The City Council could choose not to adopt a mobile device policy or provide alternative direction to City staff. Submitted by Office of the City Attorney/Canlas Attachment A: Draft City Council Policy #136 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 138 City of Coronado ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES Subject: CITY-ISSUED MOBILE DEVICE POLICY FOR CITY COUNCILMEMBERS Number: 136 Date: 05/2017 Page: 1 of 2 Approved by: City Council PURPOSE: To implement procedures for the effective use of mobile devices, communication services, and electronic equipment to increase the City’s operational efficiencies and increase transparency. GENERAL GUIDELINES: These guidelines set forth the policy regarding City-issued Mobile Devices for the City Council. “Mobile Devices” may include mobile phones and smartphones, tablet computers, laptops/MacBook-type of devices, wireless computer card “air cards or hot spots,” and related service plans, the cost of which is paid with public funds for City Councilmembers. Services may include, but are not limited to, email, text messaging, Internet access, and multi-media capabilities. A. Any and all information that is related to conducting City of Coronado business, whether on a City-owned or personally-owned device, may be accessible under the Public Records Act and potentially discoverable in the event of litigation involving the City. City records, whether paper or electronic, are governed by the public disclosure requirements of the Public Records Act. Disclosure may be required regardless of who sends or receives a communication or document. B. The City Manager’s Office will issue each City Councilmember an iPhone and a charger. This property will be returned to the City at the end of the City Councilmember’s term in office. Any additional iPhone accessories, such as protective case, keyboards, styluses, screen protectors, cables or adapters, shall be at an individual City Councilmember’s own expense and shall remain the property of the City Councilmember at the end of the City Councilmember’s term and service. C. The City Council acknowledges that only the City email accounts or other similar applications will be used to conduct City business. The associated mobile number and City email accounts will be terminated at the end of the Councilmember’s term and service to the City. D. Software will be downloaded on the iPhones for City of Coronado network and email connectivity and shall be used by City Councilmembers to send and receive emails relating to City business. E. The use of City-issued mobile devices shall be subject to any local, state or federal law. 139 City of Coronado ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES Subject: CITY-ISSUED MOBILE DEVICE POLICY FOR CITY COUNCILMEMBERS Number: 136 Date: 05/2017 Page: 2 of 2 Approved by: City Council F. City Councilmembers shall not use the iPhone in any way as to violate the public meeting requirements of the Brown Act. City Councilmembers shall not access the Internet or use the iPhone to communicate—via email, text, or other form of electronic communication— with any other City Councilmember or members of the public during public meetings. G. City Councilmembers do not have any personal privacy right in any matter created, received, stored in, sent from, and usage data of any City-issued mobile device. Any data stored or recorded by a City-issued mobile device is the sole property of the City. H. The video or photographic feature on the City-issued mobile device is only to be used in a manner that is consistent with the normal conduct of City business. I. The City reserves the right to implement security capabilities (e.g., remote wipe) and to perform periodic maintenance on all City-issued mobile devices. J. The City reserves the right to cancel mobile device service for any reason including, but not limited to, violation of this policy, abuse of mobile device privileges, or for budgetary constraints. K. While it is understood that incidental personal use of mobile devices may be necessary, City Councilmembers are expected to exercise prudent judgment in keeping such use to a minimum. L. Each City Councilmember is responsible for the general care of the iPhone that he or she has been issued. iPhones that malfunction or are damaged must be reported to the City Manager’s Office. M. All other City policies will continue to apply to a City Councilmember's conduct on the Internet and in the use of mobile devices. 140 05/02/17 PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE TYPE OF SCIENTIFICALLY VALID CITIZEN SURVEY THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO CONDUCT IN 2017 RECOMMENDATION: Receive report and provide staff direction. Authorize additional funding if the Council decides to conduct a customized citizen survey. FISCAL IMPACT: The FY 16/17 budget provides $25,000 for a citizen survey. The cost for the National Citizen Survey is $23,800. This cost includes 2-3 community specific questions, one open-ended question, and an on-site presentation of the results. Alternatively, depending on the length, sample size, question type (open-ended vs. multiple choice), and survey methodology, a customized survey can cost from $25,000 to $45,000. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: Review and direction related to a survey is a policy matter reflective of the Council’s legislative role. PUBLIC NOTICE: None required. BACKGROUND: In 2003, the City conducted a citizen satisfaction survey using the firm of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates at a cost of $37,000. In 2011 and 2014, the City conducted a satisfaction survey using the services of the National Research Center at a cost of approximately $18,000 each. The National Citizen Survey (NCS) is a randomized survey mailed to 1,500 homes that typically provides a margin of error of +/- 5 percent. On February 7, 2017, the City Council considered whether to conduct a citizen survey based on the National Citizen Survey that was conducted in 2011 and 2014. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to return with more options to conduct a survey that is primarily composed of customized survey questions on specific topics. The Council has also expressed concerns that previous surveys had not produced “actionable” results. ANALYSIS: There are many firms working in the private and public sector that conduct scientifically based surveys. Regardless of the survey methodology, they strive to achieve a margin of error of +/- 5% at the 95% confidence level. The collection and reporting portion of the survey process typically takes from two to three months depending on the methodology. This does not include the time it takes to develop the survey questions, which staff estimates will take a minimum of two Council meetings over a 30–45 day period to develop custom questions. A typical citizen survey can take from 15-20 minutes to complete. Any longer and the response rate begins to drop off reducing the ability to reach a representative sample pool. Depending on the complexity of the questions, a 20-minute survey can be anywhere from 5-7 pages in length. With regard to actionable items from previous surveys, the City saw statistically significant increases in 2014 as compared to the 2011 survey in opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities as shown in the below table: Community Characteristics by Facet Percent Positive 2011 2014 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 67% 76% 141 10d 05/02/17 Other actionable items from the 2011 and 2014 surveys included those areas that ranked lower in comparison to other communities as shown below: Measures that are lower or much lower than the National Benchmark Percent Positive Ranking Comparison to National Benchmark 2011 2014 2011 2014 Ease of travel by car in Coronado 51% 44% Similar Lower Ease of public parking NA 34% NA Lower Traffic flow on major streets 34% 28% Much Lower Lower Availability of affordable quality housing NA 15% NA Much Lower Cost of living in Coronado NA 19% NA Lower Work in Coronado NA 32% NA Lower Watched a local public meeting 28% 24% Much Lower Lower With regard to ease of travel and traffic flow on major streets, the City has several initiatives underway (Third and Fourth Streets Lighting enhancements; the Gateway Project; Third and Fourth Streets Traffic Calming) and completed (Pomona Roundabout; Wayfinding; intersection improvements at Tenth and Orange; intersection improvements at Second and Orange) that will or have helped mobility in the City. In addition, the City has been looking at ways to improve parking (smart parking meters and valet parking pilot project) to address concerns about a lack of convenient public parking. The City has also made investments in improving its Government television channel broadcast capabilities by increasing the number of Board and Commission meetings broadcast each month and creating an original weekly update video pushed out via our Facebook, Twitter, and email subscription list. The City is also working on live streaming its cable channel 24/7 over the Internet and developing an archive of previously broadcast Board and Commission meetings that residents can access via the City’s website. Moving forward, based on conversations with several firms, staff presents the following cost information to consider: Survey Type Estimated Cost Conduct National Citizen Survey $22,000-$23,800 Conduct a hybrid survey $26,000-$28,000 Conduct a completely custom survey $25,000-$45,000 National Citizen Survey The National Citizen Survey includes four pages of citizen satisfaction questions, one page of demographic questions, up to three closed-ended custom questions, and one open-ended question, for a total of five pages. In 2014, the survey included the open-ended question, “What are the top three issues you would like the City to address in the next year?” One of the advantages of using the National Citizen Survey is that standard questions are asked in multiple jurisdictions allowing Coronado’s survey results to be compared to a data base of nearly 500 National Benchmark communities and/or a subset of Resort Benchmark communities. Prior years’ results from 2011 and 2014 can also be compared to established trend lines. 142 05/02/17 Hybrid Survey Besides the National Citizen Survey, the National Research Center has experience conducting completely customized surveys which cost around $28,000. They also offered staff the option to conduct a hybrid survey by adding up to two additional pages (one, two-sided page) of closed-ended customized questions to the National Citizen Survey for an additional $4,050. The additional two pages of custom questions would be in addition to the one-half page of closed- ended custom questions and one open-ended question allowed in the standard National Citizen Survey instrument. Staff would recommend budgeting an additional $5,000 for a hybrid survey. Custom Survey A custom survey would give the Council the opportunity to ask about four to five pages of custom questions with one page for demographics. The greatest challenge in preparing a custom survey is to develop and test the specific wording for questions to ensure they are understandable and unbiased in a manner that accurately reflects public opinion. Costs escalate based on the number of open-ended versus closed-ended questions. Staff would recommend budgeting an additional $10,000 to conduct a scientifically valid custom survey. Below are some sample custom survey questions to give the Council an understanding of the types of questions you may want to include. If the Council does proceed with a custom survey, staff could return with a list of survey questions from the topics below and others the Council may want to suggest at this time. Sample Custom Survey Questions 1. Do you believe that short term rentals of less than 26 days should be allowed in residential zones within the City of Coronado? Yes No Unknown 2. If yes, what is the minimum number of days you believe is an acceptable amount of days for a short term rental stay in a residential zone within the City of Coronado? __________ days 3. Would you be willing to pay an additional tax assessment to remove telephone poles and underground overhead utility lines in Coronado? Yes No Unknown 4. If yes, what is the amount you would be willing to pay to underground all the utility lines in Coronado over the next 15 years? $__________ per year for the next 15 years 5. Do you believe residents should pay an assessment in relation to their property’s impact on clean storm water in Coronado? Yes No Unknown 6. If yes, what is the amount you would be willing to pay to maintain and improve the cleanliness of storm water discharged into the bay and ocean? $__________ per year Other potential areas of inquiry: • Bridge Suicide Barrier • Relinquishment • Noise Regulations/Concerns • Bike Lanes/Paths • Code Enforcement • Dog Park • Public Swimming Pool Subsidy • Community Grant Funding 143 05/02/17 ALTERNATIVES: Do not conduct a citizen survey at this time. Submitted by Assistant City Manager/Ritter Attachment: 2017 Generic National Citizen Survey 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 144 The XYZ of ABC 2017 Citizen Survey Page 1 of 5 Please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday. The adult’s year of birth does not matter. Please select the response (by circling the number or checking the box) that most closely represents your opinion for each question. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. 1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in ABC: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know ABC as a place to live ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Your neighborhood as a place to live................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 ABC as a place to raise children ........................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 ABC as a place to work ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 ABC as a place to visit ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 ABC as a place to retire ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 The overall quality of life in ABC ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to ABC as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Overall feeling of safety in ABC......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit ............................ 1 2 3 4 5 Quality of overall natural environment in ABC ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall “built environment” of ABC (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Health and wellness opportunities in ABC ........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall economic health of ABC ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sense of community ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall image or reputation of ABC ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don’t likely likely unlikely unlikely know Recommend living in ABC to someone who asks .................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Remain in ABC for the next five years ................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 4. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don’t safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know In your neighborhood during the day................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 In ABC’s downtown/commercial area during the day ............................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to ABC as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Traffic flow on major streets .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of public parking ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by car in ABC .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by public transportation in ABC ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by bicycle in ABC ........................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of walking in ABC ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of paths and walking trails .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Air quality .......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Cleanliness of ABC ............................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall appearance of ABC ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Public places where people want to spend time ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Variety of housing options ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality housing .......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) .......... 1 2 3 4 5 Recreational opportunities ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality food ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality health care ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of preventive health services ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality mental health care ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 145 Th e N a t i o n a l Ci t i z e n S u r v e y ™ • © 2 0 0 1 -20 1 7 Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Page 2 of 5 6. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to ABC as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 K-12 education .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Adult educational opportunities ......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities ......... 1 2 3 4 5 Employment opportunities ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Shopping opportunities ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Cost of living in ABC ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of business and service establishments in ABC ......................... 1 2 3 4 5 Vibrant downtown/commercial area ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of new development in ABC ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities ................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to volunteer ................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in community matters .......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Neighborliness of residents in ABC ................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 7. Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Made efforts to conserve water ................................................................................................................................1 2 Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient ..........................................................................................1 2 Observed a code violation or other hazard in ABC (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) .........................................1 2 Household member was a victim of a crime in ABC ...............................................................................................1 2 Reported a crime to the police in ABC....................................................................................................................1 2 Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency ..................................................................................................1 2 Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate ....................................................................................1 2 Contacted the XYZ of ABC (in-person, phone, email or web) for help or information ..........................................1 2 Contacted ABC elected officials (in-person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion ....................................1 2 8. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in ABC? 2 times a 2-4 times Once a month Not week or more a month or less at all Used ABC recreation centers or their services ................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Visited a neighborhood park or XYZ park ........................................................................ 1 2 3 4 Used ABC public libraries or their services ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in ABC ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 Attended a XYZ-sponsored event ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation instead of driving........................... 1 2 3 4 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone ...................................... 1 2 3 4 Walked or biked instead of driving .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in ABC .................................................... 1 2 3 4 Participated in a club ......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 Done a favor for a neighbor ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 9. Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a 2-4 times Once a month Not week or more a month or less at all Attended a local public meeting ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting ................................................... 1 2 3 4 146 The XYZ of ABC 2017 Citizen Survey Page 3 of 5 10. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in ABC: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Police/Sheriff services ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Fire services ........................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Ambulance or emergency medical services ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Crime prevention ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Fire prevention and education ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic enforcement ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Street repair ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Street cleaning ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Street lighting ..................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Snow removal .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sidewalk maintenance ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic signal timing ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Bus or transit services ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Garbage collection ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Recycling ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Yard waste pick-up ............................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Storm drainage .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Drinking water ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sewer services .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Power (electric and/or gas) utility ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Utility billing ...................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 XYZ parks ......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation programs or classes .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation centers or facilities ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Land use, planning and zoning .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Animal control ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Economic development ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Health services ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Public library services ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Public information services ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Cable television .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts ..... 1 2 3 4 5 ABC open space ................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 XYZ-sponsored special events ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall customer service by ABC employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know The XYZ of ABC .............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 The Federal Government .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 12. Please rate the following categories of ABC government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know The value of services for the taxes paid to ABC ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 The overall direction that ABC is taking ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 The job ABC government does at welcoming citizen involvement ................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall confidence in ABC government ............................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Generally acting in the best interest of the community ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Being honest ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Treating all residents fairly ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 147 Th e N a t i o n a l Ci t i z e n S u r v e y ™ • © 2 0 0 1 -20 1 7 Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Page 4 of 5 13. Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the ABC community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Very Somewhat Not at all Essential important important important Overall feeling of safety in ABC......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit ............................................ 1 2 3 4 Quality of overall natural environment in ABC ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 Overall “built environment” of ABC (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 Health and wellness opportunities in ABC ........................................................................ 1 2 3 4 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment......................................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall economic health of ABC ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Sense of community ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 xx. Custom Question #1 Custom Question #1 Custom Question #1 Custom Question #1 Custom Question #1 Custom Question #1 Custom Question #1 Custom Question #1 Custom Question #1 Custom Question #1 Custom Question #1 Custom Question #1 Custom Question #1 Custom Question #1 Custom Question #1 Custom Question #1 Custom Question #1  Scale point 1  Scale point 2  Scale point 3  Scale point 4  Scale point5 xx. Custom Question #2 Custom Question #2 Custom Question #2 Custom Question #2 Custom Question #2 Custom Question #2 Custom Question #2 Custom Question #2 Custom Question #2 Custom Question #2 Custom Question #2 Custom Question #2 Custom Question #2 Custom Question #2 Custom Question #2 Custom Question #2 Custom Question #2  Scale point 1  Scale point 2  Scale point 3  Scale point 4  Scale point5 xx. Custom Question #3 Custom Question #3 Custom Question #3 Custom Question #3 Custom Question #3 Custom Question #3 Custom Question #3 Custom Question #3 Custom Question #3 Custom Question #3 Custom Question #3 Custom Question #3 Custom Question #3 Custom Question #3 Custom Question #3 Custom Question #3 Custom Question #3  Scale point 1  Scale point 2  Scale point 3  Scale point 4  Scale point5 xx. OPTIONAL [See Worksheets for details and price of this option] Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open- Ended Question ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 148 The XYZ of ABC 2017 Citizen Survey Page 5 of 5 Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely anonymous and will be reported in group form only. D1. How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Recycle at home ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Purchase goods or services from a business located in ABC .......................... 1 2 3 4 5 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) ................... 1 2 3 4 5 Vote in local elections ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 D2. Would you say that in general your health is:  Excellent  Very good  Good  Fair  Poor D3. What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be:  Very positive  Somewhat positive  Neutral  Somewhat negative  Very negative D4. What is your employment status?  Working full time for pay  Working part time for pay  Unemployed, looking for paid work  Unemployed, not looking for paid work  Fully retired D5. Do you work inside the boundaries of ABC?  Yes, outside the home  Yes, from home  No D6. How many years have you lived in ABC?  Less than 2 years  11-20 years  2-5 years  More than 20 years  6-10 years D7. Which best describes the building you live in?  One family house detached from any other houses  Building with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium)  Mobile home  Other D8. Is this house, apartment or mobile home...  Rented  Owned D9. About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners’ association (HOA) fees)?  Less than $300 per month  $300 to $599 per month  $600 to $999 per month  $1,000 to $1,499 per month  $1,500 to $2,499 per month  $2,500 or more per month D10. Do any children 17 or under live in your household?  No  Yes D11. Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older?  No  Yes D12. How much do you anticipate your household’s total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.)  Less than $25,000  $25,000 to $49,999  $50,000 to $99,999  $100,000 to $149,999  $150,000 or more Please respond to both questions D13 and D14: D13. Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino?  No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino  Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino D14. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be.)  American Indian or Alaskan Native  Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander  Black or African American  White  Other D15. In which category is your age?  18-24 years  55-64 years  25-34 years  65-74 years  35-44 years  75 years or older  45-54 years D16. What is your sex?  Female  Male D17. Do you consider a cell phone or land line your primary telephone number?  Cell  Land line  Both Thank you for completing this survey. Please return the completed survey in the postage-paid envelope to: National Research Center, Inc., PO Box 549, Belle Mead, NJ 08502 149 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 150 05/02/17 CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION (CAC) TO IMPLEMENT A PILOT PUBLIC ART PROJECT “SIT A SPELL AND PLAY A TUNE,” AN ARTFULLY WRAPPED PUBLIC ART PIANO IN CORONADO ROTARY PLAZA; ACCEPT A DONATION OF A CONSOLE PIANO FROM FIRE CHIEF MIKE BLOOD FOR THIS PROJECT; AND APPROVE THE EXPENDITURE OF $2,500 IN CONTRIBUTIONS MADE IN MEMORY OF JIM AND BARBARA DARNELL FOR THIS PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: Approve the recommendation of the CAC to implement “Sit a Spell and Play a Tune,” pilot public art project and direct the Cultural Arts Commission to create, operate, and maintain a piano installation through December 2017, and return to the Council in January 2018 to report on the project and make future recommendations on this program. In addition, accept a donation of a console piano from Fire Chief Mike Blood for this project and sanction the expenditure of $2,500 in contributions made in memory of Jim and Barbara Darnell for this public art project. FISCAL IMPACT: Estimated cost of this project is $2,500 for the first year. (Attachment 1). The funding is available from contributions made to the City of Coronado in memory of Jim and Barbara Darnell for a public art project and sanctioned for this use by the family. The donation of the piano will be restricted for use on this project. PUBLIC NOTICE: Stakeholders within 300 feet of the proposed project site were noticed of the proposed project. (Attachment 2) In addition, CAC Chair Jeff Tyler briefed the Executive Directors of MainStreet, Ltd. and Coronado Historical Association, and the Coronado Flower Lady on the project. The project was presented and supported by the Parks and Recreation Commission at its April 10, 2017 meeting. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY: Whether to support the concept of providing “public art” is an administrative decision not affecting a fundamental vested right. When an administrative decision does not affect a fundamental vested right, the courts give greater deference to decision makers in administrative mandate actions. The court will inquire (a) whether the city has complied with the required procedures, and (b) whether the city’s findings, if any, (although not required) are supported by substantial evidence. The City Council has broad discretion in acceptance and appropriation of funds. BACKGROUND: In 2011, the Cultural Arts Commission (CAC) assumed responsibility for the city’s public art program and charged by the City of Coronado City Council to make recommendations to the City Council regarding the acquisition and placement of public art in the community. The mission of the CAC is to enhance the cultural and aesthetic quality of life in Coronado by actively pursuing the selection, acquisition, placement, and preservation of art in public spaces, and serving to preserve and develop public access to the art. Goals include encouraging the broad distribution of public art throughout Coronado, recommending the acquisition of a broad range of works of art of the highest quality, and encouraging human interactions with public places by the placement of public art. 151 10e 05/02/17 On August 25, 2013, the City Council adopted the Coronado Public Art Master Plan. The adopted plan is a road map to help City leadership understand and support the long-term value and direction of Public Art in Coronado, and is used by the CAC as a strategic and tactical tool to allow Public Art to flourish in Coronado. In fall 2016, the Commission learned of a public art project “Play Me I’m Yours” that placed artistically decorated pianos in public places throughout the world. Volunteers researched the feasibility of a similar program in Coronado. At the Cultural Arts Commission Regular Meeting of January 5, 2017, Chair Jeff Tyler presented the Commission with a public art proposal for a project “Sit a Spell and Play a Tune.” The Commission approved the proposal and directed Commissioner Tyler and staff to initiate the review and approval process for this project. Commissioner Tyler briefed MainStreet, Ltd. Executive Director Rita Sarich, Coronado Historical Association Executive Director Janet Francis, and the Coronado Flower Lady Shanel Albert on this project. Francis and Albert were supportive of the project without reservations. Director Francis presented the project to the CHA Visitors Services Committee who fully support the project. Although the MainStreet Director is “enamored” with the project, she expressed concerns about design, siting, and potential vandalism. However, because of the pilot status of the program, she remains open to this recommendation as the pilot installation may be observed, evaluated, and modified as warranted. The MainStreet Board did discuss the project but no formal vote was taken as this is a temporary installation. A recommendation from a MainStreet board member to utilize a console piano for the project to be sensitive to the Rotary Plaza site space conditions has been honored by this proposal. On April 10, 2017, the Cultural Arts Commission presented the project to the Parks and Recreation Commission because the number one site recommendation is for installation in Rotary Plaza. Three sites have been identified on the attached map and simulations of the installations are included. The sites are numbered in the order of preference by the commission. (Attachment 3) It is the jurisdiction of the Parks and Recreation Commission to review public art in all City of Coronado parks. This project did not require review by the Historic Resource Commission (HRC) as Rotary Plaza is not a designated historic resource. The CAC has secured the donation of a console piano for this project. The recommended artwork is by Coronado artist Jody Esquer and is a colorful collage of iconic images of Coronado. (Attachment 4) The design is to be transferred to a vinyl wrap applied to the piano identical to the wraps on the Portable Restroom Trailers. The wrap process was selected due to the durability of the product and the ability to repair and maintain the piece, if necessary. The average life of the vinyl wrap is a minimum of three years. Wraps create a beautiful, vibrant, consistent finished product, and enable the artist to design the work in studio and accomplish installation with a minimal amount of time. The use of financial contributions totaling $2,500 to the City of Coronado in memory of Jim and Barbara Darnell for use on a public art project is sanctioned by the Darnell Family to fund this project. The current balance of the fund is $2,500. 152 05/02/17 ANALYSIS: CAC’s goals for establishing this project are to provide access to musical opportunity, foster creativity, and build a sense of community among the public and, in the process, raise awareness for public art initiatives as well as music. The proposal before the Council is for a pilot program to allow the Commission to observe, evaluate, and assess a public art piano program for the community. If approved, the Commission has secured a donated piano, recommends local artist Jody Esquer’s design for the first piano, and has secured funding for the first year of a trial program. Working with local stakeholders and volunteers for the Commission, this pilot program will allow the Commission to test if a public piano program is an appropriate fit for the community and whether additional pianos and sites may be worth pursuing. Preparation and installation of the piano will take approximately two weeks upon approval. The piano will include a small plaque with brief instructions, sponsors, and artist as well as contact information for citizens to report an issue with the project. (Attachment 5) The piano will have a locking cover to protect it during inclement weather as well as control the hours of operation. Initial recommended hours of operation are Sunday through Thursday, 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Friday and Saturday, 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. The Cultural Arts Commission will monitor the installation, ensure it is covered/uncovered during the hours specified, and maintain the piano in good operating order. The Commission recommends installing the piano mid-May through early December and store it during the winter. In January 2018, the Cultural Arts Commission will prepare a report to the Council evaluating the program and provide a recommendation for the future of the program. ALTERNATIVE: The City Council could decide not to accept the recommendation of the Cultural Arts Commission. Submitted by the Contract Arts Administrator Kelly Purvis/Office of the City Manager Attachment 1: Project Budget Attachment 2: Project Summary Attachment 3: Site Map and Simulations Attachment 4: Piano Design Attachment 5: Piano Instruction Plaque CM ACM AS CA CC CD CE F L P PSE R/G BK TR JK JNC MLC NA NA NA NA NA CMM RAM 153 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 154 ATTACHMENT 1 05/02/2017 Sit a Spell and Play A Tune Budget Year One Item Cost Notes Piano and bench or seat $0.00 Donated Moving the piano $0.00 Unknown since the piano may already be in Coronado; future relocations could be done by a City crew Artist fee-honorarium $500.00 Recommended by the CAC Wrap $871.00 Cost estimate from Pixel Media Sponsor/Instruction plaque $15.00 Tune up - initial $150.00 Approximate cost of piano tuning Custom, locking, weatherproof cover $425.00 Cost estimate from National City Auto Trim Tune up – ongoing; estimate needing 1 additional first year $150.00 Tuning estimate Exterior maintenance 0.00 Unknown, but first year should have no additional maintenance Contingency $389.00 (Approximately 18% of total budget) First year cost estimate, including first year maintenance $2500.00 Follow-on Years Davis, CA, has a Painted Piano project through their Arts Commission. Their experience is that their five pianos have not needed any maintenance other than tuning. Item Cost Notes Re-siting the piano periodically TBD City crew moves the piano Tune up – ongoing; estimate needing 2 per year $300.00 Exterior maintenance $0.00 Unknown, however, based on contact with the city of Davis, CA, they have not had any maintenance issues; this proposed prototype will provide data on maintenance. Yearly cost estimate for maintenance $300.00 Potential Funding Sources: The CAC has identified contributions made to the City of Coronado in memory of Jim and Barbara Darnell for use on a public art project for this project. Current balance of the fund is $2500. The Darnell family has sanctioned the use of these funds for this project. 155 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 156 Sit a Spell & Play a Tune  The Coronado Cultural Arts Commission has unanimously approved pursuing a pilot temporary public art installation “Sit a Spell and Play a Tune.” Modeled after several successful Public Art Piano projects popping up throughout communities. They create a performance/inter-active temporary public art installation. City Manager Blair King spoke during Oral Communications at the Cultural Arts Commission on January 2017, in support of the program and suggested potential sites including Rotary Plaza. The Basics of the City of Coronado Pilot Public Art Piano Project An upright piano with bench/chair, art-wrapped and placed in public areas that “invite” passers-by to sit down and play the piano. The bench is secured to the piano to prevent theft. A locked cover for the piano when not in use, such as at night or bad weather. A custodian/steward for the piano to cover and monitor its condition. Periodic maintenance such as tuning, cleaning exterior of the piano and potential re-siting around town. Potential Sites: (in order of preference by Commission) 1. Rotary Plaza 2. Ferry Landing, potentially close to the compass rose paved area (Piano previously sited at Ferry Landing) 3. Hotel Del Coronado fountain on Orange Avenue and Dana Place (private property) 4. El Cordova Hotel Area (near fountain and in front of shops) 5. John D. Spreckels Center – front patio The Pilot Piano Donated piano - first piano has been offered for donation - small console. The pilot art recommended by the CAC is from local artist Jody Esquer installed as a digital wrap. (see image above) A locking, weatherproof, custom cover to be purchased. Proposed schedule for display of the Piano is April/May – December and stored January – March and acceptable hours of operation will be determined based on input from adjacent neighbors. A piano caretaker to donate their time to install the piano cover each night and monitor its condition. Most likely a business located near the piano location. A plaque located on the piano will name the sponsor, donor, artist and contact information. A donor to cover the first year of the program with an estimated cost of $2500 has been secured. The Cultural Arts Commission will be responsible for the maintenance of the piano. For more information contact Cultural Arts Commissioner Chair Jeff Tyler at (619) 865-7153 or jefftyler@msn.com Or the Contract Arts Administrator Kelly Purvis at (619)341.0137 (direct cell) or kpurvis@coronado.ca.us ATTACHMENT 2 05/02/2017 157 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 158 Rotary Plaza - Aerial View - Orange Avenue/Isabella Avenue and Park Place Red Stars indicate three potential sites. Attachment 3 05/02/2017 2 1 3 Rotary Plaza - Site 1 between benches adjacent to the Christmas Tree. 159 Rotary Plaza - Site 3 facing Park Place Liquor near the recycling canisters. Rotary Plaza - Site 2 - entrance to Plaza at Isabella and Orange Avenue. 160 Sit a Spell and Play A Tune Piano Wrap Design Coronado Artist Jody Esquer Attachment 4 05/02/2017 161 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 162 Sit a Spell and Play a Tune Take care of this piano Close the keyboard after playing. Cover me with the tarp in bad weather. Thank you! Share your performance at: http://fb.me/sitaspellandplayatune Generously funded by contributions in memory of Jim and Barbara Darnell Piano donated by Coronado Fire Chief Mike Blood Piano caretaker NAME/BUSINESS To learn more about this project visit: For inquires or to report an issue: info@coronadoarts.com Attachment 5 05/02/2017 163 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 164 05/02/17 CONSIDERATION OF COUNCILMEMBER SANDKE’S REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDIZE CONSIDERATION OF DIRECTING THE CITY STAFF TO FORMALLY REQUEST CALTRANS TO TREAT THE SAN DIEGO-CORONADO BRIDGE AS A VITAL SEVEN DAY A WEEK TRANSPORTATION ASSET WITH REGARD TO THE LANE DIVIDER Please see attached request from Councilmember Sandke. 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 165 12a THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 166 167