City Council Minutes - 03/06/2007back
REGULAR MEETING OF THECITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CORONADOCoronado City Hall
1825 Strand Way
Coronado, CA 92118
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Mayor Smisek called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Councilmembers Downey, Monroe, Ovrom, Tanaka and
Also Present: City Manager Mark Ochenduszko
City Attorney Morgan Foley
City Clerk Linda Hascup
2. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Chuck Howe provided the invocation and Mayor Smisek led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 20, 2007, were approved as submitted. The reading of the minutes in their entirety was unanimously waived.
Councilmember Monroe requested a clarification to the minutes. He referred to page 81 of the minutes from February 20, 2007. The minutes read, "Mr. Monroe added that second story additions are not allowed throughout the Cays." He clarified that there are special situations in the Cays where second story additions are not permitted. In particular, waterfront homes in Bahama cannot have a second story.
MSUC (Monroe/Downey) moved that the City Council approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 20, 2007, a copy having been provided Council prior to the meeting, as submitted with a clarification from Councilmember Monroe now on the record.
AYES: Downey, Monroe, Ovrom, Tanaka and Smisek
4. CEREMONIAL PRESENTATIONS:
4a. Proclamation and Presentation of Awards for the Poster Contest for "Take My Hand, Coronado: A Weeklong Celebration of Peace in Human Relationships." Debbie Schwartz explained how "Take My Hand, Coronado" came about and introduced the poster contest winners. She also announced that City Manager Mark Ochenduszko was selected as a member of the community who contributed significantly to peace and resolution of conflict in the City of Coronado.
Mayor Smisek kicked off "Take My Hand, Coronado" Week and presented the proclamation to Debbie Schwartz of the Coronado Human Relations Commission, who introduced the "Take My Hand" program and other members of the Commission.
Mr. Monroe presented the awards to the winners from Kindergarten through 2nd Grade.
3rd place Juliana Solinap Village Elementary
2nd place Clare Walls Village Elementary
1st place Ashley Kekeisen Village Elementary
Mr. Tanaka presented the awards to the winners from 3rd through 5th grade.
3rd place D'amy Steward Village Elementary
2nd place Jack Balfour Village Elementary
1st place Christina Kunes Sacred Heart Parish School
Mr. Ovrom presented the awards to the winners from 6th through 8th grade.
3rd place Team SAFE: Joshua Abrantes, Natalie Bailey, Astrid Baldouf, Emily Bodkin, Sergio Flores, Caleb French, Mariel Gomez Hall, Nate Hoffman, Melissa Lewis, Annie Lovering, Olivia Nebo, Andrew Ovrom, Shane Owens, Dylan Palmer, Danielle Swanson, and Julia Varboncoeur.
2nd place Jenny Anderson Christ Church Day School
1st place Iker Garcia Sacred Heart Parish School
Ms. Downey announced the grand prize winner.
Marie Balfour Village Elementary
5. CONSENT CALENDAR: The City Council approved, adopted and/or accepted as one item of business Consent Agenda Items 5a through 5g.
MSUC (Monroe/Downey) moved that the City Council approve the Consent Calendar Items 5a through 5g.
AYES: Downey, Monroe, Ovrom, Tanaka and Smisek
Councilmember Downey said that she had received several phone calls on Item 5g and requested an explanation of which beach projects are going to remain on schedule and which will be combined for the environmental review that is ongoing.
City Attorney Morgan Foley explained that the recision of the prior resolution is to comply with a court order in the case of Citizens for the Protection of Coronado Beach v. City of Coronado. The City is pulling the lifeguard public safety service building out of the combined three building project. The tower project and the North Beach restroom project will proceed as originally planned. The lifeguard public safety service building will wait until the Environmental Impact Report is completed and the City Council approves it before any action is taken again to approve the design and construction.
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. Approval of Warrants. The City Council ratified payment of warrants Nos. 10056384 thru 10056395 audited and approved by the Audit Committee, provided there are sufficient funds on hand. The City Council approved the warrants.
5c. Request From the Coronado Floral Association to Waive Alcohol Prohibition for a Wine and Cheese Reception at the Site of the Flower Show in Spreckels Park on Saturday Evening, April 28, 2007. The Coronado Flower Show is an annual two-day event of significant importance, interest, and participation in the community. The Coronado Floral Association sponsors this event partially with membership fees and admission charges to the Flower Show. They would like to include a wine and cheese reception in the tented area on Saturday evening, April 28, 2007, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. as part of their fundraising efforts. Alcoholic beverages will not be allowed out of the serving area, and the Floral Association will obtain special insurance and any required licensing from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. This will be the seventh consecutive year the wine and cheese reception has been held. No problems or issues have been reported in the past. The City Council waived the alcohol prohibition and allowed the Floral Association to hold a wine and cheese reception for invited guests within the tented Flower Show area at Spreckels Park.
5d. Award of Contract to Stay Green, Inc. to Trim 261 Trees of Various Heights and Species on the Coronado Golf Course. In response to the published request for bids, eight tree-trimming contractors submitted proposals.
Arbor West Tree Surgeons $78,655.00
Green Horizon $49,925.00
Greenbrier Lawn $23,590.00
Atlas Environmental $22,395.00
Andre Landscape Service $66,000.00
Stay Green, Inc. $18,655.00
American Landscape & Tree Service $80,680.00
Tree Pros, Inc. $65,250.00
Stay Green, Inc. has previously performed tree trimming services for the Golf Course with satisfactory results. The City Council awarded the contract to Stay Green, Inc. in the amount of $18,655.00 to trim the trees.
5e. Approval and Acceptance of the Completion of the Glorietta Bay Master Plan Playhouse Restoration Project. PCL Construction Services, Inc. was issued a contract on September 9, 2006. The project was completed in accordance with the project plans and specifications, and inspected/approved by the City on February 12, 2007. This included relocating the five sprinklers to prevent them from being accidentally discharged again as well. On February 21, 2007, the Insurance Adjuster conducted a final inspection of the Coronado Community Playhouse. A recommendation for reimbursement will be issued to the Property Insurance Claims Administrator in the next few weeks. The City Council accepted the project and directed the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion.
5f. Approval of an Amendment to the City's 2007 Legislative Policy Guidelines to Support Legislation to Update the Geographic Practice Cost Index for Healthcare Reimbursements. The San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Military Affairs Council is supporting legislative efforts to update the reimbursement schedules for San Diego County. The overall concern is that by inadequately reimbursing doctors for services provided to Medicare and Medicaid patients, fewer doctors will be able and willing to provide services to such patients. This could potentially result in insufficient resources to provide health care to Medicare and Medicaid patients. Additionally, informally, executive staff of the Sharp Coronado Hospital has indicated concern about the outdated reimbursement schedule and supports efforts to seek updated reimbursement schedules. The City Council approved the amendment to amend the City's 2007 Legislative Policy Guidelines to include support of legislation to update the Geographic Practice Cost Index and to provide for adequate reimbursement schedules for physicians who treat Medicare and Medicaid patients in San Diego County.
5g. Adoption of Resolution to Rescind Resolution No. 8050 Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lifeguard Public Safety Service Building Project and Rescinding City Council Action to (1) Approve the Lifeguard Service Building Design, and (2) Recombine the Lifeguard Public Safety Service Building Project with the Lifeguard Tower and North Beach Restroom Project. The modified judgment of the trial court is an order that must be complied with by the City of Coronado, and the Coronado City Council. Failure to comply with the orders contained in the modified judgment could result in contempt citations from the court. The City, through the City Attorney and special counsel, will prepare the appropriate response to the trial court once a new decision is made involving the Project and if the City Council approves the draft environmental impact report. In the meantime, the City Attorney has prepared a resolution consistent with the modified judgment. Wile approval of the Project was not part of Resolution No. 8050, the approval of the design and location of the Project, at the same meeting, is being rescinded as part of this same resolution. The City Council adopted A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 8050, RESCINDING THE APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN OF THE LIFEGUARD PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICE BUILDING DESIGN AND RESCINDING THE RECOMBINATION OF CERTAIN PROJECTS. The Resolution was read by Title, the reading in its entirety unanimously waived and adopted by Council as RESOLUTION NO. 8201.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Margaret Quackenbush, 440 Pomona Avenue, said she is having trouble accepting the idea that politics are more important than safety in Coronado. The Council has stonewalled her request to not permit afternoon northbound commuter to use Pomona as a shortcut to the Bridge and have the traffic remain on Glorietta. She asserted that no one on this Council or the former Council, both headed by Mayor Smisek, has any expertise or training regarding traffic management. This was illustrated by the installation of the diverters on A and B. This Council has the authority to ignore any proposal regarding traffic, not put it on the agenda, not take a vote or refer it to the Traffic Committee. She said that Pomona is an accident waiting to happen.
b. Patricia Shea, Pomona Avenue, spoke about traffic safety and ways to deal with the situation on Pomona. She hopes someone is addressing this situation proactively.
c. Dennis Dorman, Pomona Avenue, son of former mayor R. H. Dorman, said he has been asked by many to try to get the record clear on who created the Community Development Agency and numerous other things that happened on his father's watch. He has never been remembered for so much that happened in such a short time frame or honored for what he did. He provided background information on what his father had done for Coronado before he left office after having a severe stroke.
d. Sean Cary, Pomona Avenue, commented that accidents do happen on Pomona. There is a present danger and he is in support of Mrs. Quackenbush about mitigating the traffic dangers that exist there and the fact that there are measures that can be taken. He added that there are issues on the weekends in addition to the peak hours.
e. Gail Brydges, Coronado City staff, announced her retirement from the City of Coronado and thanked the Mayor and City Council for the privilege of serving the City for the last 24 years.
f. Councilmember Monroe announced that the potential for putting in a traffic circle on Pomona is being explored.
7. CITY MANAGER:
7a. Update on Council Directed Actions and Citizen Inquiries. No report.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
8a. Consideration of a Draft General Plan Housing Element and Authorization to Forward the Draft for Comment to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (PC 1-07, City of Coronado). Tony Pena, Director of Community Development, provided background information. He said it is on today's agenda in order to get authorization from the City Council to forward the Draft Element to the State Housing and Community Development to begin the review period. Unlike other elements of the General Plan, this is not only a mandated element, but it is under the authority of the State that certifies Housing Elements State wide. It is important to get the Draft to them and to receive their comments before the City Council proceeds with the adoption process. A good part of the Element was prepared by staff, primarily Senior Planner Ed Kleeman and Director of Redevelopment and Housing Rachel Hurst. He also introduced Mike McLaughlin, consulting through SANDAG and Sourcepoint, who has been working with staff on the Element. He was the Director of Planning for SANDAG for many years and the City benefited from his experience in preparing housing elements. Mr. Pena explained that this Element is very difficult to prepare. The State has set criteria. The regional body, SANDAG, develops very complex tables for the Element to be based on, such as the Regional Needs Assessment. Staff anticipates that the State will take 60 days to get this back from the State. At that time, staff will bring this back to the City Council and initiate the adoption process.
Mike McLaughlin, Sourcepoint, 401 B Street, provided the City Council with an overview of the Housing Element requirements and content. It is one of the seven elements of the General Plan that is required by State law. It is different from other elements in the General Plan from two perspectives. Unlike the other Elements, this Element has to be updated every five years. The second distinction is that the Element is submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for a compliance determination, unlike all of the other elements, which generally fall under the purview of the Office of Planning and Research. Mr. McLaughlin stressed that the State HCD does not approve the Housing Element - that is a local government action and the City Council does that. The Council provides its best judgment as to how well the Element complies with the State law. A finding of compliance from HCD is very advantageous to the City from a litigious and a funding perspective.
Councilmember Tanaka asked what happens if there are one or two things that HCD isn't comfortable with and if they will say the Housing Element is in compliance overall.
Mr. McLaughlin responded that there is either a determination of compliance or there is not. The State will send the Draft back with a list of additional items the City will have to do in order to receive the determination of compliance. He thinks the City is in a fairly good position at this point because it has dealt with the tough issues.
He went on to say that the State review is required. The City must respond to the findings and consider revisions. The City does not necessarily have to make those revisions based upon the State's comments; however, it is to the advantage of the City to try to reach agreement with the State in terms of that finding of compliance. It will come back to the City Council after City staff has negotiated with the State regarding those comments and how to resolve them. Once the City Council approves the Housing Element, the City will then go on a list of cities with housing elements that comply with State law.
An important input to this process, and probably one that causes the most difficulty for most jurisdictions is that not only does the City have to comply with State law, SANDAG has certain requirements it must meet as part of that same State law. Part of those requirements is what is referred to as the Regional Share. SANDAG identifies the number of new units that need to be constructed during the Housing Element period for four income groups. SANDAG identified a total of 64 units that was for a 7 ½ year period and an adjustment was made to reflect the 5-year period. The net result is that the Housing Element has to identify how it is going to construct 55 new units distributed in those income categories during the Housing Element period. One of the required components, under that State law, is a detailed Needs Assessment on population and households that were broken down into three categories - land use, employment, and housing stock. Another requirement is that the previous element, the last 5 years, have to be evaluated. An inventory of resources has to be completed and especially critical in that is the land inventory - the number of vacant or available, developable sites that will give a yield in terms of the Regional Share number. Both governmental and non-governmental constraints have to be identified. Goals, policies and programs are established as well as the quantified objectives. Staff is recommending that the City Council authorize the Draft Element be sent to HCD for comments.
Councilmember Ovrom noticed that the push is for more population and units regardless of what the real situation is and asked if that is that correct. Mr. McLaughlin responded that that is the difficult part of the process in terms of those regional numbers. The regional need is assessed and then allocated to each jurisdiction. In his experience, there is always a reason why each city should be exempt from that requirement. Those numbers are still real, though.
Councilmember Monroe commented that the Draft is late in submitting. That should be acknowledged. On page 4 of the Draft it states that there are 14 acres of developable land in Coronado. Later on in the document it is pointed out that even though it is reported that there are 70 acres of developable land, they are really under development - some are being torn down, some are vacant while plans are being processed. The reality is, as he understands it, there are not 14 area/acres of pristine, developable land in Coronado. It is all taken.
Mr. McLaughlin thinks that there is a difference between the potential the City has to develop and the reality of what it is. They have to demonstrate that there is a theoretical potential to address those numbers.
Mr. Monroe continued and returned to page 4, "Coronado has a low supply, 14 acres, of vacant, developable land%u2026" and even though it was in the SANDAG survey, he thinks that statement sends an incorrect message. He would like to be shown where they are and that they are zoned this way. Goal #2, on page 7, is to "provide a broad range of affordable housing and opportunities that adequately serve the needs of the people that work and live in the community." It seems to him that one of the issues the City faces is that when there is affordable housing and the City determines who can get into that affordable housing it has to be opened up to everyone and not necessarily be restricted to Coronado's own residents. Mr. Monroe heard the term, "living and working in Coronado" and he would like the City's affordable housing to go to the City's people. He is told that the new Senior Housing project could be available for people all over San Diego County. Mr. Monroe continued and moved to Goal #3. "To provide equal housing opportunities accessible to all segments of the society." He thinks that 'all segments of the society' is too broad an expression. He prefers to talk about all segments of the society of Coronado that are eligible for housing. Mr. Monroe doesn't want to draw any lines, but he feels that Coronado has enough qualified people in Coronado to meet all of these requirements. Somehow, because of that, there should be a way to restrict this to the City's own residents.
Mr. McLaughlin responded that the City cannot do that. Both of those comments deal with the need to avoid discrimination to any segments, whether they exist or potentially could exist, within the City. This is a requirement that every city and county in the State of California and across the country have to adhere to.
Mr. Monroe turned to page 10, Table 2. He requested clarification on New Construction, Rehabilitation and Conservation. Mr. McLaughlin responded that those are the SANDAG Regional Share numbers. New Construction is the number of new units that must be constructed within the 5-year period of the Housing Element. Rehabilitation is those units that have some state of disrepair that must be rehabilitated to be brought into suitable housing conditions. Conservation is the attempt to conserve the existing affordable housing opportunities within the City and, in this case, exist of conserving the section 8B Housing Assistance Monthly Assistance Payment Program. Those are the targeted goals that they translated into the City's program sets in order to address those quantified objectives. Mr. Monroe read the document to mean that the City is to new construct 55 units in the next 5 years. The Senior Housing Project takes care of 30 of those. Chapter 2 introduces the CDA and what it did and it introduces the word 'blighted'. People in Coronado wonder how the City could have an entire community that is 'blighted' and still be in Coronado. He thinks it would be appropriate to say something there that explains that, since the CDA was founded, the definition of blight has been changed by the State law. What was determined, to form the CDA as a blighted community and blighted conditions would not pass today.
Mayor Smisek and Councilmember Ovrom voiced their disagreement with the last comment by Mr. Monroe.
Councilmember Downey offered a suggestion to use the words that were originally used if they were 'blighted government facilities' or whatever they were - don't amend it, don't explain it.
Mayor Smisek thinks that the best course of action is to make comments and then have another look at it before it is sent up. Care needs to be taken when there is a move to redefine things. Undue attention is not desired.
Councilmember Tanaka wondered if it might solve Mr. Monroe's concern if that sentence was eliminated.
Mayor Smisek would prefer the CDA or City Attorney take a look at that.
Mr. Monroe reiterated that when he is out with people and talking about the CDA and that its function is to correct the blighted condition in Coronado, it simply doesn't pass the smile test. That is in this document and he has a problem if that is not at least addressed further. On page 15 there is a paragraph that reads, "%u2026since 1976, redevelopment and community development agencies have been required to assure that at least 30% of all new or substantially rehabilitated units developed by an Agency are available%u2026" That sort of says what the City had to do, but it doesn't tell if it was done or if it wasn't done. He asked if that is what the intent was at this point in the document. Mr. McLaughlin explained that it is a description of the requirements regarding redevelopment and community development agencies. Mr. Monroe thinks it would be helpful to have a pointer such as "Coronado's performance against these requirements is reflected in Chapter x" or something like that. Mr. Monroe asked about Navy barracks and whether or not Navy barracks counted as part of the City's low/moderate income housing. One of the laws governing community development agencies is that 50% of the units have to be either new construction or significantly rehabilitated. If the City bought an apartment building and turned it into low or moderate income housing, and it wasn't reconstructed new, sometimes that doesn't count unless there have already been 50% new or significantly rehabilitated units. He feels that is a constraint to the City. There are some units the City is buying that, once the Senior Center opens, they will be credited. That is an important issue with housing and CDAs. He would like to see some kind of a discussion on that. His recommendation is that the State should change the law. What are needed there are places for people to live. For a community with space to build, that is an easy thing to do. The Orange Avenue Specific Plan has been mentioned in a number of cases. The Orange Avenue Specific Plan really talked more about building limits than it did about housing. He is not sure that all the references to the Orange Avenue Specific Plan, or even to the RSIP, are really relevant to housing. They are relevant to buildings and building setbacks and FAR, but he doesn't see them as relevant to the housing situation.
Mr. McLaughlin commented that, as part of that State law, those kinds of explanations have to be provided about processes and building related to residential development regardless of whether it is related to housing or not.
Mr. Monroe read from page 17, at the bottom, "The public's housing concerns and goals are well known and do not require a new extensive outreach for this Housing Element." He is not sure that is true. He doesn't know if Mr. Average Citizen on the street has any clue as to what the City's housing needs are. In Chapter 3, in the second paragraph, when talking about the Navy, there is a statement that says, "%u2026over 1/3 of Coronado's population lives in these two census tracks." It seems to him that those two census tracks are Navy housing. He is surprised to hear it said that 1/3 of the population in Coronado is in Navy housing.
Mr. McLaughlin responded that is what the numbers show.
Mr. Monroe moved to page 44. He notices that there is a difference in the number of people called 'households' (7,734) in Coronado and then it says that there are 9,494 'housing units'. He asked for clarification on the difference between a 'household' and a 'housing unit'.
Mr. McLaughlin explained that sometimes, based upon the census, there is a distinction but also there is a distinction in terms of vacancy and units that are not occupied. There are some distinctions in terms of how a household is defined and how a housing unit is defined. This is the census definition of a household. Mr. Monroe doesn't understand why there is a difference of 1,800 in the number of households and the number of housing units. Mr. McLaughlin responded that he will plug in a definition or some explanation there. He will come back with an explanation.
Mr. Monroe noticed the statement, "3% or 299 acres are not developable within Coronado," on page 47. Mr. McLaughlin explained that those are estuaries, shorelines, and parks. On page 56 it reads, "Another 344 units between 2010 and 2030%u2026" Mr. Monroe would like to know if the City can gain those 344 units without a change in zoning. Mr. McLaughlin responded that the City can. Within the R-3 area and the R-4 area there is enough potential capacity to enable that to happen. Mr. Monroe said he as been asking this question for about 4 years. Mr. McLaughlin commented that the 344 represents the capacity that is in the City's General Plan today.
Mr. Pena explained that it is really important to emphasize that there is potential development remaining in R-3 and R-4. That has been justified in the Draft in pretty good detail including a walking tour of R-3 and R-4 that Ms. Hurst conducted. If the City doesn't show that growth potential in R-3 and R-4, it will have to go down further to the former R-1B, R-1A, R-1CC zones to show that there is growth potential there and throw that into the mix. Staff didn't want to do that, so it found that there was a sufficiency shown in R-3 and R-4.
Mr. Monroe moved to page 60. It pointed out that there are 44 units with no plumbing. Mr. McLaughlin responded that is what the census says. He went on to say that, as they build this document, the State has information available to it that it expects to see reflected in the document. In this particular circumstance, the State Department of Housing Community Development expects to see this information that came from the census information. If that isn't included, HCD will come back and say that the document doesn't identify the number of units with no plumbing from the 2000 census. In terms of anticipating that, they go through the check off list from the State, and then come up with an analysis that identifies the substandard unit that the census doesn't demonstrate based upon the staff's knowledge, previous surveys, etc. and then that is summarized to give a better sense of the housing conditions in the City. But that number has to be included. Mr. Monroe wants to do something if there are 44 places without plumbing. He wants to make a big issue about that. Mr. McLaughlin explained that there are about 75 units that do not meet minimum housing and building codes. Those 44 places came straight from the census and there will be a limit in terms of census confidentiality. They can be identified by census track, but can't be identified by specific unit.
Mr. Monroe moved to page 60. A lot of the City's pre 1940 homes are sold for scrapers. It is not the value of the house - it is the value of the property. This is a housing element. He doesn't think that point has been made quite strongly enough in this area. On page 62 there is the estimate provided of 75 units that are substandard and need repair. Page 67 talks about "a majority of owner occupied homes in Coronado are valued at $500,000 or more." He thinks that sends the wrong message. The Draft later goes on to talk about the median price of homes and the sales of the last three years. That is better information. In the Historic Element, page 94, he is not sure if it can be worked in because it is not an official City policy, but along with the Historic Element, there is a group that has formed a "Cottage Conservancy" and they are trying to preserve cottages. One of the things they will be asking the City to do is to work within the ordinances for certain waivers to preserve the cottages in Coronado. This seems like an opportunity to add the Cottage Conservancy initiative that might be helpful. He was surprised about the licensed residential care facilities. Program 27 says that the City has to do that. There are some residential care facilities in Coronado - The Villa and The Royale. The State law says that the City cannot prohibit residential care facilities from being in the R-1 zone. Mr. McLaughlin explained that the City would have to deal with that as it would all other residential developments. Additional requirements cannot be made for those kinds of facilities. Mr. Monroe asked about Page 111, talking about construction fees. There is a school fee of over $5,000 for construction. Total fees were around $11,000. He asked who sets the school fee and what triggers it. Mr. Ovrom responded that the schools do. The trigger is construction over 500 sq. ft. Mr. Pena added that the schools just increased the fees significantly. Mr. Tanaka asked if it is known what the fees are increased to. Mr. Pena explained that it is based on square footage but didn't have the number.
Mr. Monroe referred to page 112. He complimented the authors for what they said there about Proposition J and the pending litigation, why it is important, etc. He thinks that is a terrific write up about the legal challenge. There have been a few articles in the paper lately about how dumb the City is to be in court when the people overwhelmingly supported it, but there are some clear legal issues there and he thinks the write up was very good. When one looks at a Housing Element, they get focused on housing only. There are other things in Coronado that concern the City other than just housing such as the entire quality of life and how to keep Coronado a village and how to keep building standards so that it is a place everyone wants to live. He thinks that balance could be even stronger than it is and that would be helpful. He knows that HCD only wants to talk about housing and numbers, but Coronado wants to remain a village. He hopes that message can be kept in the Draft. Mr. McLaughlin commented that they tried to do that as part of the introduction and the summary. Mr. Monroe thinks it could be elaborated on a little bit and have a few examples included. Mr. Monroe wants to know what the tough spots will be when this goes to HCD.
Mr. McLaughlin responded by saying that, based on previous experiences, generally HCD's review will focus on the site analysis and the City's potential to meet the Regional Share numbers. He thinks there will probably comments because the reviewer will want more detail about the processes that the City uses to take residential development through the permitting process. They tried to provide as much detail as they could, but he has seen that this can push buttons so that they will want more information about the process and more reassurances that the City does have the potential to deliver the number of units identified in the Regional Share. Mr. Monroe feels the City is strong on process.
Mayor Smisek opened the Public Hearing.
Kelly Purvis, 560 C Avenue, said she is concerned about sending a document out if it isn't what the City wants to send. She appreciated Mr. Ovrom's comment that this is coming from the top down. She said the people of Coronado have been saying it for many years what they want. People don't want the density in the R-1 zone. She asked that the City have a method to bring the public into this comment period. There could be 30 days that people can look at the document. Then, after all the comments have been processed, it could be surer that this document is something that the community agrees on. She is concerned about the write up on Prop J. There is a legal challenge but it did win. There is a clear statement in an election. She would like to see the will of the people be supported by this community and this Council. The striking of the balance is important. It is her hope that this Council will work to ensure that the appropriate balance is maintained. She does not want to see Coronado overdeveloped under the pretense that the City needs to meet regional housing needs. Coronado is overcrowded now. The City's Housing Element should reflect what the people of Coronado want, and it should be fair.
Suzanne Ramirez, 449 D Avenue, agreed with Ms. Purvis' comments. She learned of this item and called the Library to obtain a copy of the Draft. The Library didn't have one. She had trouble downloading it on her computer. On page 17 the document indicates that everyone knows what is going on housing-wise in Coronado and that therefore there is no need for public input. She could not disagree with that more. She has been intimately involved with Prop J since the beginning and she just found out about this a few days ago. It is a fabulous document, but there are numerous minor inaccuracies. She thinks that everyone should be given the opportunity to correct it. The more eyes that look at it, the better the document will be. She asked that time be given to the community, that notice be given so that people can review this and bring comments to the Council. She is very troubled about the write up of Prop J. She resents taking a negative position on Prop J in a document such as this that is going to the State level and she feels it is inappropriate to put the City Attorney's position in the document when it is nothing more than the City Attorney's position. It has not yet been decided in court and there are a number of attorneys who would disagree with his position. It is not only offensive to those people who worked so hard to get Prop J passed, but this calls undue attention to something. The less that is said about Prop J until it is upheld or overturned, the better off the City is. On page 112, in the Growth Management Measures section, the first couple of sentences describe Prop J. The part that goes into the City Attorney's legal analysis should be stricken. Then the part that explains that the Coronado City Council has initiated a legal challenge can be included and it should be included that it is premature to talk about what the ramifications are of Prop J on the Housing Element. That is a smarter way to deal with Prop J. She reiterated her request to allow the community to have the opportunity to read this.
Mayor Smisek closed the public hearing. He explained that this is not the final look. This is a draft that is being sent up for compliance to receive input from Sacramento. It will then be modified as necessary until a final document is completed that can then be presented to the public. They will have plenty of time to examine the final document and make suggestions because it can still be modified at that time. Then it will go through the Planning Commission process and they will hold public hearings and then it will return to the City Council for public hearings. There will be lots of exposure and it is always risky to put a draft out for people to punch holes in early on and he does not recall doing it this way in the past. He doesn't think a public hearing was required for this one. Mr. Pena concurred that it wasn't required at this point and the City self certified the last time which meant that the HCD hoops didn't have to be gone through. Mayor Smisek thinks that the points made by Council and the public should be looked at and incorporated where necessary. If there is disagreement, it may have to come back, but it can always be changed after it is sent up. He is not that concerned with this Draft Element at this point because, as Mr. McLaughlin said, the City needs to see what kind of reaction comes from HCD. He asked if the City is in compliance this time, does the self certification apply next time.
Mr. McLaughlin explained that the net result of the self certification process is that, despite the participation of the State HCD, they are doing just about anything they can to undermine the self certification process. His advice is not to pursue the self certification because it is not worth it. It puts the City at a disadvantage when it comes to funding purposes. The State Department works very hard to make sure the cities go through the compliance and not self certification to qualify for those funds. It still could be done, but he strongly recommends that the City not pursue self certification for a number of reasons.
Mayor Smisek also announced that, as part of the public hearing process, he was introducing a letter submitted by Mr. Orlowski for this item as well as CDA item 5a.
Mayor Smisek reiterated that the staff recommendation is to review the Draft, revise the Draft as deemed appropriate, and authorize staff to forward the Draft to California Department of Housing and Community Development for comment.
MSUC (Ovrom/Downey) moved that the City Council authorize staff to forward the Draft to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for comment.
Councilmember Monroe said he understands what Ms. Purvis is saying, and if he were to devise one of these things and say that the City can do it by itself, he would probably agree with a lot of what she said. The City can't do that. The City has to live with what the State tells it.
Councilmember Tanaka understands that this is an important document and thanked staff and the consultant for their efforts but feels that the process is absurd. He applauds anyone in the public who wants to read this document and he would be more than willing to wait another month to give people who are so inclined a chance to read it. He agrees with Mayor Smisek that some of these comments may not be desirable to include, but he doesn't see harm in waiting a month. He isn't going to hold up the motion on that. He does agree with Ms. Purvis that, as much as is possible, this should be a community document and it should reflect the community's goals as much as possible within compliance with State law.
Councilmember Downey agreed that she would like public comments but there is time for the public to review the document while it is being reviewed by HCD. The City has already missed one opportunity for funds from SANDAG for bike path issues. Every month the City keeps pushing this off it is losing funds. She would like to do the review at the same time and not delay in getting HCD's comments.
AYES: Downey, Monroe, Ovrom, Tanaka and Smisek
8b. Public Hearing: Consideration of an Initial Study and Determination Whether to Proceed by Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report for the Adoption of General Plan Housing Element (IS 1-07, City of Coronado). Director of Community Development Tony Pena explained that the Housing Element is a project under CEQA which means that the City has to address the CEQA requirements as to how to prepare a document that would be appropriate for the type of discretion and impacts that may be contained in the Housing Element. Staff has prepared a preliminary Initial Study that is provided in the staff report. The Initial Study appears to indicate very strongly that there are not going to be any significant negative environmental impacts with the eventual adoption of the Housing Element. This Element, as shown today, is somewhat different from others in the region and around the State. For example, there is a housing element being considered by Encinitas that has incorporated into it an increase in density in certain areas of the city. It is very controversial in that city and he can see where a Negative Declaration would not be appropriate there. In this case, there is no mandate that the City increase density with this Housing Element, therefore, there is nothing really to measure in terms of traffic increases, noise, other aspects dealing with an increase in density. Staff is recommending that the City Council direct that a Negative Declaration be prepared to accompany the Housing Element.
Councilmember Downey was curious about the first time the City established the zoning to learn what the Housing Element was in each zone, what environmental review was done at that time? Mr. Pena explained that a Master Environmental Assessment for the General Plan that included the Circulation Element, the Land Use Element. Incremental EIRs were done based on that. Ms. Downey explained that, for that reason, she will support the staff's recommendation.
Mayor Smisek opened the public hearing and seeing no one wishing to speak on the item, the public hearing was closed.
MSUC (Downey/Ovrom) moved that the City Council direct that a Negative Declaration be prepared.
AYES: Downey, Monroe, Ovrom, Tanaka and Smisek
9. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS: None.
10. COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS:
10a. Report from the Port Commissioner Concerning Port Activities. Port Commissioner Robert Spane reported on three items of interest to the City of Coronado. The first is the A8 anchorage. The Port voted, about 6 months ago, to do away with the A8 anchorage, which is the anchorage off of Chula Vista/National City. One of the options for that operation was to put buoy fields south of the Coronado Bridge to take those boats. The Port argued against that and seems to be making progress. Now there are two additional sites being considered. One is A3, Laurel Street, and the other is A1D, Shelter Island and the third is the A8 anchorage itself. The City of Coronado might want to write a letter expressing its appreciation for this turn.
The second item is the outside concert series that will go on. This will be up for a vote next Tuesday. The total number of concerts is being reduced from 85 to 37; 26 will be conducted by the symphony; 11 by Viejas; all except four will end at 10 p.m.; four will end at 10:30 p.m.; the speakers will be rotated 10 degrees towards the Convention Center to reduce the back scatter noise in Coronado; 5 symphony concerts and all the Viejas concerts will be monitored for sound levels; noise will not exceed 95 dba for 15 minutes; if the 95 dba is exceeded or the 15 minute time limit, the first time there will be a $5000 fine, the second time a $10,000 fine, the third time a $15,000 fine and a review of the existing contract will take place with the opportunity to cancel it all; and, there will be an enhanced hot line. If that is not what the citizens of Coronado or the City believes is an acceptable deal, the case needs to be made for what is desired at the Port meeting next Tuesday. Admiral Spane also announced that there is a meeting on the A8 anchorage tonight at the Port and one next week in National City.
The final issue is South Grande Caribe. Admiral Spane has been told that the citizens of the Cays and the Port are in reasonable agreement on that. He understands that South Grande Caribe will be in its altered but completed state by the end of May. The most important thing about that is that the Port staff is now talking about South Grande Caribe will look in its final mitigated state. The Cays homeowners need to be involved in that. He sees that as some sort of nature preserve.
Councilmember Ovrom said he attended the meeting on the noise issues. One of the discussion items seemed to be the type of bands. Admiral Spane responded that Viejas has agreed to no hard rock bands. He feels that the most important noise is the sound intensity level and how it is measured and whether or not these will be able to be enforced.
Mayor Smisek thanked Admiral Spane for his work on the anchorage issue and commented that he was pleased with how the meeting on noise went as well. This was a good response.
11. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS:
11a. Council Reports on Inter-Agency Committee and Board Assignments.
Councilmember Downey attended the SANDAG Shoreline Preservation meeting with Mr. Kleeman, Senior Planner, a MainStreet meeting as Mayor Pro Tem, Police Chief Crook's retirement dinner and the Military Ball planning meeting. She announced that the guest speaker will be the Commanding Officer of Balboa Hospital and will be speaking on what is being done at Balboa for those wounded in conflict. March 24th is the Military Ball date.
Councilmember Ovrom reported on meetings of the Tunnel Action Team, the CCHOA, the sewer line pull, a Prop 72 meeting, Chief Crook's retirement reception, Metro Wastewater, Little League with Councilmember Tanaka, the SCEDC and will be going to Washington, D.C. with Mayor Smisek.
Councilmember Tanaka attended the CIP meeting concerning art for the Marina, the Fire Dispatch meeting with the Fire Chief, the annual review parade of NJROTC, Chief Crook's retirement ceremony and the Little League Opening Ceremonies.
Councilmember Monroe went to the Golf Club for the Spring Barbecue with the Flower Show volunteers, a SANDAG Board meeting, a SANDAG Transportation meeting, watched the sewer line pull from both ends with the City Manager and Assistant City Manager.
Mayor Smisek went with the Port Commissioner on issues he reported on today and to receive advice for the Washington, D. C. trip, the South Bay Mayors lunch with Greg Cox as the host, a Navy Complexes Coordination meeting, met with Admiral Zortman regarding the third carrier coming, and his upcoming visit to Washington, D. C.. He met with Mayor Sanders and Ronnie Frohman about traffic mitigation in Coronado and their position on the third carrier. He also met with Chamber representatives and attended the CIP meeting with Mr. Tanaka regarding the marina project.
11b. Consideration of City Council Meeting Schedule for July and August, 2007. Mayor Smisek pointed out that the recommendation is to eliminate the second meeting in July and the second meeting in August.
MSUC (Tanaka/Monroe) moved that the City Council cancel the meetings scheduled for July 17, 2007 and August 21, 2007.
AYES: Downey, Monroe, Ovrom, Tanaka and Smisek
12. CITY ATTORNEY: No report.
13. COMMUNICATIONS - WRITTEN: None.
The City Council recessed to closed session at 4:58 p.m.
14. CLOSED SESSION:
a. CLOSED SESSION - CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
Subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9
NAME OF CASE: John Orlowski v. City of Coronado, et al.
San Diego County Superior Court Case No. GIC 8
The Regular Meeting resumed at 5:15 p.m.
City Attorney Morgan Foley announced that there was no action to report on the closed session item.
15. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 5:16 p.m.
Approved: March 20, 2007
Tom Smisek, Mayor
City of Coronado
Linda K. Hascup
MINUTES OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCYCITY OF CORONADO City Hall Council Chambers Coronado, CA 92118
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
The Community Development Agency regular meeting was called to order at 4:58 p.m.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Members Downey, Monroe, Ovrom, Tanaka and Smisek
Also Present: Executive Director Mark Ochenduszko
Agency Attorney Morgan Foley
Agency Secretary Linda Hascup
2. MINUTES: The minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 20, 2007, copies having been delivered to each member of the Community Development Agency prior to the meeting, the reading in its entirety unanimously waived, were approved as amended.
3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Mayor Smisek introduced Mr. John Orlowski's letter on CDA Item 5a into the record.
a. Executive Director: No written report.
b. Agency Secretary: No written report.
c. Agency Treasurer: Approval of Warrants - The Agency approved Warrants No. 90003221 through 90003245 as audited and approved by the Audit Committee, provided there are sufficient funds on hand.
d. Agency Attorney: No written report.
5. AGENCY BUSINESS:
a. Authorization to Distribute Request for Qualifications to Develop Affordable Rental Housing at 440-450 Orange Avenue and Establish a Subcommittee to Work with the Selected Developer on the Project Scope and Design. In 2004, the CDA acquired 440-48 Orange Avenue for affordable housing. The property is developed with five garden style apartments and five one-car garages built in 1949. In 2005, the adjacent property at 450 Orange Avenue was acquired by the Agency. It is occupied by a house built in 1926 and an additional dwelling unit over a two-car garage constructed in 1952. Both properties were vacant at the time of acquisition and, at that time, it was envisioned that all of the existing improvements would be demolished.
It should be noted that although 450 Orange Avenue is not on the Historic Resource Commission's list of historic homes, it is more than 75-years old. Therefore, demolition of the cottage would require a public review process as well as approval by the Historic Resource Commission.
The property is in the R-4 zone, and is a 75' x 140' parcel, totaling 10,500 square feet. The number of dwelling units allowed by the site's zoning is nine. A 35% density bonus would provide for 13 units on the site. State law provides for density bonuses in excess of 35% to be granted at the discretion of the local jurisdiction. State law and local ordinance also provide for incentives or concessions to development standards to be granted for affordable housing.
These properties were acquired by the CDA to provide an opportunity for the Agency to fulfill its obligations to provide affordable housing. State law requires the Agency to produce affordable housing for specific income groups, and to expend its resources on affordable housing in proportion to the community needs. State law also determines the number of affordable units the Agency is required to provide. The Agency's obligations are not static but change over time. To date, the Agency has provided 125 affordable units through a variety of means. Currently, the Agency is obligated to provide 138 affordable units, half of which must be created through new construction or substantial rehabilitation of existing units. When the senior housing units are constructed and the substantial rehabilitation of the units at 525 Orange Avenue is completed in 2008, the Agency will have fulfilled its current obligations. However, it is anticipated that the Agency's obligations will continue to increase annually. Not less than 15% of all newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated dwellings within the Redevelopment Project Area must be affordable to low and moderate income households. Furthermore, the Agency is subject to regulations regarding timeliness of expenditures and other restrictions, which make it prudent to continue to pursue affordable housing projects as opportunities arise.
In September 2006, staff began to consider development approaches for the 440-450 Orange Avenue site. To assist in considering potential scenarios, staff contracted with Studio E Architects to prepare a site plan that illustrated a possible configuration of parking and dwelling units if the cottage was retained on site. In November 2006, the Citizens' Advisory Committee (the "CAC") considered a range of alternate development scenarios for the site and recommended that the Agency Board consider fostering development that maximizes new construction with ground level parking and retains the cottage, if it is cost effective to do so.
MSUC (Downey/Tanaka) authorized staff to distribute the RFQ, and approved a subcommittee to work with the selected developer on the project scope and design, and selected Agency Member Al Ovrom to chair the subcommittee.
AYES: Downey, Monroe, Ovrom, Tanaka, and Smisek
Agency recessed to Closed Session at 5:02 p.m.
6. CLOSED SESSION:
a. CLOSED SESSION - CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9
NAME OF CASE: John Orlowski v. City of Coronado, et al.
San Diego County Superior Court Case No. GIC 8
The regular meeting resumed at 5:15 p.m., and announced that there was no action taken.
7. ADJOURNMENT: The Agency adjourned its meeting at 5:16 p.m.
Approved: March 20, 2007
Tom Smisek, Chair
Linda K. Hascup, Agency Secretary