City Council Minutes - 06/05/2007

back
Date of Record: 2007-06-05
                                                                                                     MINUTES OF A

REGULAR MEETING OF THE

                                                                                            CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF CORONADO

                                                                                                   Coronado City Hall

1825 Strand Way

Coronado, CA 92118

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

Mayor Smisek called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.

1. ROLL CALL:

Present: Councilmembers Downey, Monroe, Ovrom, Tanaka and

Mayor Smisek

Absent: None

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 May 15, 2007 were approved as amended. The reading of the minutes in their entirety was unanimously waived.

MSUC (Downey/Tanaka) moved that the City Council approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 15, 2007, a copy having been provided Council prior to the meeting, as amended.

AYES: Downey, Monroe, Ovrom, Tanaka and Smisek

NAYS: None

ABSENT: None

4. CEREMONIAL PRESENTATIONS:

4a. Proclamation: "Coronado High School Navy Junior ROTC Day." Mayor Smisek presented the proclamation to Captain Lee Pontes, USN (Ret.) and cadets of the NJROTC unit.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR: The City Council approved, adopted and/or accepted as one item of business Consent Agenda Items 5a through 5i.

MSUC (Downey/Monroe) moved that the City Council approve the Consent Calendar Items 5a through 5i.

AYES: Downey, Monroe, Ovrom, Tanaka and Smisek

NAYS: None

ABSENT: None

DISQUALIFIED: Smisek, on Item 5e

Mayor Smisek recused himself from voting on Item 5e due to conflict of real property ownership.

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. 10058238 thru 10058493 audited and approved by the Audit Committee, provided there are sufficient funds on hand.

5c. Filing of the Quarterly Treasurer's Report on Investments with the City of Coronado City Council for the Quarter Ending March 2007. The report is for the three-month period January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2007 respectively. The summary page identifies all investments including those not under management with PFM. These include LAIF, Union Bank, and CAMP funds. This report also highlights the year to date interest earned relative to budget. For the quarter ending March 31, 2007, the City's investment portfolio has earned $2,262,154.78 in investment earnings compared to an annual budget of $1,514,800.00. The portfolio earnings have exceeded budget by 74%, which reflects the longer duration of the portfolio and the rise in interest rates. The City Council examined the quarterly Report on Investments and ordered it filed.

5d. Adoption of a Resolution Temporarily Suspending or Modifying Section 40.48.012 C of chapter 40.40 of the Coronado Municipal Code (CMC) as it Relates to Public Rights-of-Way for the Parade on July 4, 2007. This report is consistent with the recommendation of the Police Department last year as there were no problems noted. The City Council adopted A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO TO TEMPORARILY SUSPEND SECTION 40.48.012 C OF CHAPTER 40.48 OF THE CORONADO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ACCOMMODATE PUBLIC VIEWING OF THE INDEPENDENCE DAY PARADE. The Resolution was read by Title, the reading in its entirety unanimously waived and adopted by Council as RESOLUTION NO. 8216.

5e. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution to Utilize a Contractor Pre-Qualification Process Prior to Bidding the Coronado Animal Care Facility Project. Staff has prepared a pre-qualification package in the model form developed by the State Department of Industrial Relations. The pre-qualification process was used successfully in the selection process for the Glorietta Bay Master Plan, Lifeguard Tower and North Beach Restrooms, and Public Library Expansion and Renovation projects. Staff suggests utilizing this process again for the Animal Care Facility. The City Council adopted A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO TO ESTABLISH PRE-QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR THE ANIMAL CARE FACILITY PROJECT; TO APPROVE THE FORM OF A PRE-QUALIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE; TO ADOPT A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF RATING BIDDERS; TO CREATE AN APPEAL PROCEDURES; AND TO APPROVE SUCH OTHER DOCUMENTS AS NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW. The Resolution was read by Title, the reading in its entirety unanimously waived and adopted by Council as RESOLUTION NO. 8217.

5f. Validation of Original Determination of Wet Well Re-Lining Emergency Situation at Transbay Pump Station Project. The Transbay Sanitary Sewer Force Main Project is substantially complete, enabling a new contractor to take control of the construction site. The emergency contract with Ortiz Corporation has been executed. The timing of this emergency contract allows Ortiz to remain onsite, utilize existing construction sound fencing, and complete the wet well re-lining work by late May. The emergency contract allows the City to avoid costly contractor remobilization into a construction-sensitive work area (the Coronado Ferry Landing Marketplace) and a potential partial or total failure of the pump station. It is anticipated that the contractor will be completely demobilized from the site by the June 8 contractual completion date. The City Council validated the original determination that an emergency situation exists at the Transbay Pump Station project.

5g. Second Reading for Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, Describing the Program of the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado to Acquire Real Property by Eminent Domain as Required by Section 33342.7 of the California Health and Safety Code. The City Council adopted AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBING THE PROGRAM OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CORONADO TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 33342.7 OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE. The Ordinance, having been placed on First Reading on May 15, 2007, was read by Title, the reading in its entirety unanimously waived and adopted by Council as ORDINANCE NO. 1988.

5h. Award of Construction Contract for the Slurry Seal Pavement Maintenance FY 06-07 Project. Staff reviewed the engineer's estimate against the bid prices to determine if the prices submitted were fair and reasonable. The engineer's estimate was based on unit prices for the last slurry seal project completed in FY 05-06 and it appears that the bid prices are fair and reasonable. Staff evaluated American Asphalt South, Inc.'s bid package, insurance, bonding and construction references and determined the contractor to be "responsive." Staff also contacted other agencies as references for previous slurry work and found the responses to be positive. Contracting laws direct the City to award the contract to the lowest qualified bidder, in this case, American Asphalt South, Inc. The City Council awarded a construction contract in the amount of $244,965.30 to American Asphalt South, Inc. for the Slurry Seal Pavement Maintenance FY 06-07 project with $45,034.70 for contingency, inspection and testing, resulting in a total project budget of $290,000. The City Council also appropriated $40,000 of Proposition 42 revenue to supplement the $250,000 that was appropriated in the C.I.P. FY 06/07 Update adopted on June 20, 2006.

5i. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Submittal of an Application for a Used Oil Recycling Block Grant for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for the Purpose of Promoting the Recycling of Used Oil. Local governments in California must make a concerted effort to reduce the amount and toxicity of their solid waste streams going to land disposal and of their urban runoff transported to the San Diego Bay and Pacific Ocean. Coronado Municipal Code 61.04 certifies that the City's storm water management program is pursuant to and consistent with the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Order Number R9-2007-0001, which constitutes National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS0108758 as amended. Coronado's successful Household Hazardous Waste program is an important part of this effort. These funds will be used for a public education and outreach program directed towards the citizens of Coronado, which helps the City in its efforts to reduce water pollution, and for equipment for collection at City marina facilities. The City Council adopted A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR THE USED OIL RECYCLING BLOCK GRANT, FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008. The Resolution was read by Title, the reading in its entirety unanimously waived and adopted by Council as RESOLUTION NO. 8214.

 

 

6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

a. Steve Bruce, talked about the World Summit for Children. He encouraged people to go to the website 'TheCount.org' to help bring about a yearly World Summit for Children.

b. Joe Ditler, Executive Director, Coronado Historical Association, Museum and Visitor Center, thanked the City Council for its support. He announced a new exhibit to open within the next few weeks, "First Footsteps."

c. Doug St. Denis, 710 Adella Avenue, spoke to an item on the CIP budget regarding the intersection at Adella, Seventh Street, and Pomona Avenue. She and her neighbors know that a solution exists for the danger there and asked that it not go back on the shelf for another ten years.

d. Jennifer Luther, 640 Pomona Avenue, referred to materials she had provided to each Council member about the Bird Rock traffic plan that includes roundabouts. She pleaded with the City Council to consider this plan for Coronado.

e. Jon Ryan, 716 Margarita Avenue, spoke concerning the survey regarding the Margarita undergrounding project. About two-thirds of the neighbors want to do something about the wires and one-third doesn't. He asked that the City Council spend the money to get a proper survey with real lineal footage for each property so the neighbors know what the real numbers are. More meetings would be helpful as well.

f. Councilmember Monroe asked if Mr. Ryan had seen the Beaubien letter. Mr. Ryan had not.

g. Joe De La Sallas, 349 G Avenue, asked about the discussion regarding a fence for the lawn bowling green. Mayor Smisek responded that discussion would be on a future agenda.

h. Councilmember Tanaka commented that he was paraphrased during oral communications and that he would not be supportive of a roundabout at Seventh and Pomona because of the impact it would have on other streets. He did not indicate an unwillingness to do anything.

i. Councilmember Downey apologized that other commitments prevented her from attending the Commissioners' Dinner. She wanted to express her appreciation for their volunteer efforts.

7. CITY MANAGER:

7a. Update on Council Directed Actions and Citizen Inquiries. City Manager Mark Ochenduszko provided the public with information about the sea/seat wall around Glorietta Bay Cove that is located along Strand Way between the Boathouse Restaurant and the Coronado Yacht Club. As part of the continuing improvements along Glorietta Bay the City has put in riprap and a wall that will serve as a place for people to sit beside the new Yacht Club Promenade. The height of the seat wall may seem high to people, but it is not completed at this point. The Promenade will come away from the seat wall and the road will be moved inboard, away from the Bay, toward the bike path and elevated 12 to 18". When that is completed to the design specifications the height of the seat wall will be appropriate. The project will begin in the fall.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

8a. Public Hearing to Adopt a Negative Declaration for the Construction of the Animal Care Facility at 1395 First Street.

Mayor Smisek recused himself due to the location of property he owns. Mayor Pro Tem Downey took his place at the dais.

Senior Planner Ed Kleeman provided a summary of the staff report.

Councilmember Downey asked if any response had been received from the California Coastal Commission. Assistant City Manager, Jim Benson advised that it is scheduled for the following week in Santa Rosa. The local staff of the Coastal Commission has recommended approval.

Mayor Pro Tem Downey opened the public hearing and seeing no one wishing to speak on the item, the public hearing was closed.

MSUC (Monroe/Tanaka) moved that the City Council adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ANIMAL CARE FACILITY AT 1395 FIRST STREET. The Resolution was read by Title, the reading in its entirety unanimously waived and adopted by Council as RESOLUTION NO. 8218.

AYES: Downey, Monroe, Ovrom and Tanaka

NAYS: None

ABSENT: None

DISQUALIFIED: Smisek

Mayor Smisek returned to the dais.

8b. Public Hearing: Consideration of a Resolution Approving the Proposed FY 2007-2008 Solid Waste and Recycling Rates for Commercial and Residential Collection Services and the "Cost-Sharing Program." Scott Huth, Director of Public Services, provided information on the proposed waste pickup rates for the next fiscal year. Staff recommends approval of the proposed rate increase and the continuation of the 50/50 cost sharing program. EDCO officials, John Snyder, Steve South, and Ed Berg were available for questions.

Mayor Smisek asked if there was any feedback on how the new recycling effort has worked at the first two concerts in the park. Mr. Huth responded by saying that people are using the recycle bins, but because they aren't used to it, they are throwing some trash in as well. He added that announcements are being made to the concertgoers. It is expected that this will improve over time.

Mayor Smisek asked if the larger recycling bins will cost more to the homeowners. Mr. Huth explained automating in the recycling area will be positive for the residents. All the details haven't been worked out yet but the City will fund the purchase of the carts with the recycling revenues that the City has. He doesn't know if there will be an implementation cost beyond that. There may be two cart sizes offered, but it will more than likely be a 40 to 60 gallon cart. Staff will bring back a proposal in the fall.

Councilmember Monroe asked about the $0.90 pass through back to the customer for recycling and that the recycling program costs the City about $280,000. How does that work? Mr. Huth explained that several years ago staff came to the City Council and benchmarked the City's commitment to paying for $2 of the recycling rate. The City has continuously paid what equals $2 per single family resident customer. That is the commitment of $205,000. It has been between $198,000 and the $205,000 for several years. The cost for a single family can service customer is a little over $4.40. The City pays $2. The rest is paid for by the generation of revenue from recyclables. In addition to that, the City gives back the $0.90. The total amount of money is less than $100,000.

Mr. Monroe added that the State is actually going to try to get a 75% diversion rate in the near future. He recounted his tour of the EDCO facility that was most interesting. Discussion continued about the specifics of how EDCO works and generates its income.

Councilmember Ovrom asked whether the 65 to 75% diversion rate includes yard waste. Mr. Huth explained that it includes everything. Mr. Ovrom asked if it is the refuse that affects the dumps. Mr. Huth responded that, historically, it has been construction debris. Diverting construction debris is going to extend the life of the dump, which will be a benefit to everyone. Mr. Ovrom asked if there has been any thought given to making adjustments to include incentives. Mr. Huth believes that is flexible. Diverting more will be capital intensive and will lead to the City having to examine whether it should remain on the course it is on with the cost-sharing program.

Councilmember Downey disclosed that she is a huge cheerleader for this program and one of the reasons she would like to start this is that we need to get everyone to automated trash. She is not recommending getting rid of 50/50 cost sharing at this time as is mentioned in one of the alternate recommendations, but as we talk about this in the future, if we are getting larger recycling bins we might also think about getting smaller trash bins. People may then look a little harder at what should be recycled. She wants everyone to think about the fact that this is the first step of several to get the City to 75% or higher diversion without making a lot of work for the citizens.

Councilmember Tanaka asked about the cost share where the City's portion of the 50/50 cost is $280,000 and the recycling program cost is $205,000. He asked what those figures were for the previous fiscal year. Mr. Huth responded that it was right around $278,000. The proposed rate is $0.85 higher than the current rate.

Mayor Smisek opened the public hearing and seeing no one wishing to speak on the item, the public hearing was closed.

MSUC (Downey/Monroe) moved that the City Council adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO APPROVING THE RATE ADJUSTMENTS IN ATTACHMENT A FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES PROPOSED BY EDCO DISPOSAL CORPORATION. The Resolution was read by Title, the reading in its entirety unanimously waived and adopted by Council as RESOLUTION NO. 8215.

AYES: Downey, Monroe, Ovrom, Tanaka and Smisek

NAYS: None

ABSENT: None

EDCO owner, John Snyder, pointed out that EDCO began working with the City of Coronado in 1972. It has been a great partnership.

9. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS: None.

10. COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS:

10a. Report from the Port Commissioner Concerning Port Activities. No report.

11. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS:

11a. Council Reports on Inter-Agency Committee and Board Assignments.

This item was continued by consensus.

11b. Review of Capital Improvement Program Budget FY 2007-08/2008-09.

Mayor Smisek recused himself from the discussion regarding the Animal Care Facility. Mayor Pro Tem Downey acted in his stead.

Andrew Potter, Senior Management Analyst, explained the reason for the revised project sheet for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY 2007/08 related to funding for the Animal Care Facility. Originally it was anticipated that the additional cost for the construction of the facility at approximately $1.5 million would be funded by a private donation from a citizen group. Following conversations with that group it has been concluded that the funding initially offered is no longer available. Staff is proposing that this cost be funded through the General Fund. $1 million of the project will be funded by the CDA as was previously appropriated.

Mayor Pro Tem Downey clarified that over about two years when the City was originally deciding on the size of the building, the scope, etc., the City was also meeting with PAWS with the anticipation that part of the cost of this facility would be borne by them. Now it would seem that the City has half of the money it was supposed to have to build this building.

City Manager Mark Ochenduszko explained that the proposed CIP submitted to the City Council included about $1.5 million of funding from a citizens' group, PAWS, that was interested in the construction of this facility. They have recently advised the City that they have determined not to contribute to the bricks and mortar construction of this building but to use their funds for other purposes. With this CIP, the City has projected a total cost of $2.6 million for site design, site planning, building design, and construction. $1 million has been identified out of redevelopment agency funds which leaves a void of $1.553 million to be found from another source. It is staff's recommendation that the source be the General Fund. He reminded the City Council that what is being done today is a review of the CIP, which will then come back to the City Council for approval along with the two-year budget at the next City Council meeting.

Mayor Pro Tem Downey reiterated that two weeks ago when the budget was first looked at it was clear that the City would have to go into the General Reserves to pay for some things. This money will also have to come out of the General Reserves. Mr. Ochenduszko concurred that the source of the funds will be out of the General Fund Reserves.

Councilmember Tanaka thinks there is another way of looking at this. The City did not have an accurate pricing of the building. It is not fair to say that the City thought it was going to cost $1 million. The City certainly expected that PAWS wanted to contribute and it was known that the house that was donated to them had a value of $1.2 million or so. In the back of everyone's heads was an understanding that they communicated that they were interested in donating about that value toward the project. In PAWS' defense, he does not think that the City ever accurately developed what this was going to cost. Staff is now communicating that PAWS is backing out and not providing the funding the City was hoping it would, and the only available funding source is the General Fund Reserves.

Councilmember Ovrom asked the City Manager to confirm for him what the understood commitments were and why they have changed.

Mr. Ochenduszko explained that the City did not know what the commitments were. Staff really relied on comments that were made at Council meetings, design meetings, and site location meetings of the subcommittee. There was no specific offer made. As to the cost of a project, the cost of any construction project is an iterative process. Probably the size and cost of building this structure are both more than what was originally anticipated.

Assistant City Manager Jim Benson added that, one of the things that has changed significantly other than the square footage, is that when the cost was estimated at $1 million there was no location. What has created the cost escalation on this project are commitments to the neighbors to make the facility sound proof, smell proof, etc., coupled with the fact that the City wants to make it look very nice.

Councilmember Monroe asked how the original amount the City Council heard of PAWS' potential contribution of approximately $1 million, became $1.5 million in the CIP. Mr. Benson responded that there were stated references to more than $1 million being available, but there was nothing pinned down while the facility was being designed. Mr. Monroe recalled that PAWS negotiated with the City a number of changes and additions to the Animal Care Facility. He voiced his disappointment that now the building is set and they are pulling out their funding. He might consider the idea of redesigning the building to take out some of the extras and make it an adequate facility rather than a grand one.

Mr. Ochenduszko recalled that much of the schematic design and elements of the building were developed during the site location process. Trying to determine how large a site was necessary without knowing what would be included in the building was difficult. So, a rough schematic was developed for another site included many of the features that are included here. The PAWS group was not included in the process of actually sitting down with the architect during the design process. The PAWS group did communicate with City staff with the schematic and needs assessment and the site selection process.

Mr. Monroe said he still believes that some changes were made based on PAWS requests and the power that they brought to the table as a financial partner. He recalls being concerned about the memorandum of understanding that would be necessary to outline the partnership. At the last City Council meeting when the budget was looked at, he made it very clear to everyone that the City is diving into the General Fund Reserve $800,000. A budget was approved that will dive into the General Fund Reserve $4 million already this year. This is not because the City's operation is spending more money than revenues, but because capital projects are being moved forward. Front loading capital projects may make sense because of inflation and materials cost, etc., but the fact is that two years in a row the City is diving into the General Fund Reserve. Now the City Council is being asked to do it again for another $1.5 million. That takes the total up to about $5.5 million. He has a problem with that. He has sat on the City Council for five years saving money.

Mr. Tanaka said that Mr. Monroe raises some important points as to what exactly was or wasn't agreed to or understood between the City, its various officials, and the PAWS members. When the City was trying to figure out where to site the facility, architects Ric Davy and George Meyers, came up with a loose schematic of what this facility would look like. It included a number of elements the facility would need to meet state standards and practical standards. PAWS had a member on that committee and stipulated to this schematic. Once the site was selected the City had a plan to go from. The tricky thing about this is that the City never negotiated with PAWS. The City never made any concessions as to what would go in and what wouldn't go in. The City always dealt with PAWS with the understanding that this was a City project and the City Council and staff would ultimately decide what was and wasn't appropriate. Obviously PAWS influenced this project. PAWS brought up things they felt were key or essential to this project. The City either accepted or rejected those suggestions. The City never really wanted them to drive this facility. Now PAWS has, very disappointingly, revoked what the City thought they were going to contribute. The City has decided what it wants this building to look like and he would be disappointed if things were sliced off just to reduce $1.5 million in cost. For better or worse, the City was very thoughtful about what was planned for that building.

Mr. Ovrom asked if the City knows where PAWS is going to spend that money.

Mr. Ochenduszko clarified that he does not know exactly what the source of their funding is, or how much it is. He has learned in his recent discussions with the leadership of PAWS that they are interested in using their money to set up an endowment for purpose of funding some services and equipment that otherwise may not have been included. One thing they are particularly interested in is some veterinary presence when it is necessary, probably involving a local veterinarian coming to the Animal Care Facility rather than having animals transported elsewhere. There may be interest in a spay/neuter operation as well. None of those things have been agreed to.

Mr. Ovrom said he was disturbed by this because it sounded as if this was going to be a City set of decisions, a City design and City run operations, with PAWS providing volunteers to help out. Now it seems that they want to do more than just volunteer.

Mr. Ochenduszko responded that the City is still reviewing what they are interested in doing and there has not been an extensive discussion on that. PAWS has provided a list of proposed medical care equipment that would go into the facility that they would like to fund. The cost estimate for that equipment is $60,000. Some medical care equipment will go into the building for the ordinary use of the building and that would be included in the FF&Es. There is some medical equipment that certainly would not be and that decision, by staff or the City Council, has not been made.

Mr. Ovrom stated that he does not feel comfortable with what he hears about the meeting of the minds as to what this was going to try to be and what PAWS contribution was going to be. Now there is a move towards another entity that has not been negotiated or talked about. He is not opposed to the project but he is having a difficult time understanding why, with this lack of definition, the City would want to put an additional $1,553,000 out of the General Fund into this. It seems to him that there is some definition that is missing.

Mayor Pro Tem Downey agreed with Mr. Ovrom. From the beginning of this project she was not comfortable with the expansion in size and scope of services being offered from what the City used to have before the old building was knocked down. The City greatly appreciates all the volunteer time that is put in and assumes that will continue in the new building. But the City was still responsible for manning that new facility and authorizing the services that were going to be there. At no time was there and agreement to provide medical procedures or an expansion of services. Maybe that should have been taken care of before the building was designed. The question before the City Council is whether or not it wants to authorize an increase of $1.5 million out of the City's reserves. She is not sure the Council has enough information to be willing to do that.

Mr. Monroe said he is not sure he can point to a meeting with minutes but he does recall that in conversations with the City Manager on this issue, one of the things that was talked about over and over was that this is an animal care facility, not a full service animal facility. If PAWS is holding their $1 million back to move from an animal care facility to a full service facility in Coronado, that decision has to be made by the City. From the start he has supported this project as an animal care facility with that level of staffing. Having veterinarians come into the facility to perform operations has never been part of the discussions.

Mr. Tanaka commented that there are no surprises in what is going into the facility. The subcommittee didn't throw in a lot of bells and whistles with the goal of changing the level of service. He pointed out that the old facility was woefully inadequate with what State standards require. The goal was to bring the facility on line, commensurate with the services the City provides. Staff never dismissed the idea of being able to have a veterinarian come in if there was an emergency. There is a room for such a need. He thinks PAWS is proposing a partnership where a vet comes in more regularly. He would wager that PAWS thinks the City is made of money and that the $1 or $1.5 million isn't needed, that they were never fully partnered with, and if they pull their money, they can use it to create an endowment to add to the facility. PAWS previously enjoyed the support of the Council on this project and now at least three people doubt the project and would even consider paring it. He summarized that this facility is adequate and appropriate for the City. He would like to see the City Council take responsibility for the project whether or not they fund it.

Mr. Ovrom stated that he was not ready to vote on this because he doesn't have enough information. He asked what mechanism is available to the City Council in this budget to allow the time to answer some of these questions before a decision is made.

Mr. Ochenduszko advised that there is no final action being taken at the current meeting. The purpose is to review the CIP and have staff hear the City Council's feedback. Staff will bring it back on June 19 for the City Council's approval at that time. This change to the Animal Care Facility has been added in light of the discussions that have taken place in the last few weeks and the notification staff received last week that PAWS would not participate financially in the bricks and mortar of the building. Staff can then make any adjustments that are necessary for the June 19th meeting. If the City Council is not prepared to modify the Animal Care Facility project sheet and the amount of funding that it is willing to put forward for the project at this time, then staff would bring back the CIP as it was developed without this addendum. The Council would then appropriate the funds that are identified in the CDA, which would not be sufficient to build the facility as it has been identified at this point. Staff would have to come back to the City Council with an action item for the Animal Care Facility at a subsequent meeting which would direct staff to do one of several things. One would be to find another source of funding for the difference; a second would be to downscale the project to some extent and then come up with any additional funding that would be necessary for that; or, to try to design the project to the amount of money that the redevelopment agency and the City have designated for the project. That would be a very difficult thing to do but it would certainly be something that could be reviewed. This would certainly slow the project down.

Mayor Pro Tem Downey likes the fact that one of the options is to go back to see if alternative funding can be identified. There are several ways that can happen. One thought is to sit down with PAWS to see if there is a way to salvage what the City originally thought. Another option is to change the priorities the City has set for the CDA.

Mr. Ochenduszko thinks all of that would require some analysis. He is not sure there are alternatives related to CIP with the CDA money that the City Council would find viable in the Agency.

Mr. Monroe asked Mr. Davy if the facility is designed for regular veterinarian use or for spay and neutering.

Mr. Davy said he doesn't know that they were thinking at that level, but more for just evaluation of animals on intake. It is literally just a 10' x 12'room with only an exam table in it. It is not a surgery. He added that, in his experience, there would not be a lot of savings in going back now and trying to redesign.

Mr. Monroe thinks the City Council needs to set a policy of how much money it wants to take out of the General Fund Reserves in any given year. This discussion should have come back with Ms. Suelter's page that shows the $4 million coming out. This would be $5.5 million. He would like to see this discussion held with that sheet. Does the City Council want to move some of the CIP projects back to keep this project moving forward or does it want to use the temporary facility in the Police Station an extra year or two.

Mayor Pro Tem Downey agrees that this is being done in pieces and it needs to be a policy or a bigger concept that the City Council is comfortable with doing. She asked Mr. Ochenduszko if any action needs to be taken today.

Mr. Ochenduszko thinks the discussion really needs to go forward with what the CIP contains, the proposed schedule, and funding for different projects. He suggested, related to this project, in light of the comments being made by Council, that it be held aside. There was no action to be taken on it today. He suggested leaving the program sheet in the CIP for the Animal Care Facility the way it is, with the recognition that the funding is not resolved. That specific item will have to come back for further discussion.

Mayor Smisek returned to the dais.

Andrew Potter, Senior Management Analyst, returned to the review of the CIP budget. The proposed CIP is for the years 2007/08 through 2013/14. The format of the CIP includes multi-year fund schedules that show capacity for financing the capital projects. The master project list identifies the previously proposed, new and modified projects at a glance. The category sections contain individual project detail including current status, if relevant. The process used to develop the CIP began in February 2007 with input from the City Council, staff, and/or suggestions from the community. Staff updated the cost estimates, possible funding sources, and scheduling. The CIP Council Subcommittee reviewed and made recommendations to the City Council. Following this review, approved funding for the projects in FY 2007/08 will be incorporated into the final budget for adoption on June 19, 2007. The CIP totals $74.8 million (less the tunnel project) for the next seven years, through FY 2013-14. It is front loaded. Most of the projects in the program are proposed to be funded in FY 07-08 and FY 08-09. New projects have been added for consideration that provide safety improvements and preventative maintenance to various public facilities and City infrastructure. Staff eliminated the "Beach, Park and Recreation Facilities" category and created a new category: "Public Facility Refurbishment Projects." The list of projects currently underway includes 23 projects that are in various stages of design and construction. The list of new projects that are scheduled to begin in 07-08 show those that are completely new to the CIP with a check mark. There are also lists of projects proposed for 08-09 and 09-10. In the later years, most of the projects in the CIP are annual maintenance projects.

Mr. Potter reviewed some of the project funding for the projects in the CIP. There are six project categories in the CIP. The first is the Glorietta Bay Master Plan projects. There are no new projects proposed in this category. The construction cost estimates for the Boathouse/Clubroom project have been updated as well as allocating the funds for the Marina dock redevelopment and support building projects. There have been some significant cost increases related to the Yacht Club Promenade project. In the Public Facilities project the tennis center construction estimates were increased. A new project on this list is the tennis court lighting improvements. The plan for this project is to update lights at the Tennis Center and the Cays courts to match those that are at the Library and High School tennis courts. The timing for this project is planned to coincide with the Tennis Center project. A new category, the public facilities refurbishment projects, include needed safety improvements to some of the existing public facilities. All are proposed to be programmed for next year, 07-08. There are several new projects proposed in the Street and Right-of-Way Projects category. Those proposed for 07-08 include the Cays bulkhead guard rail project, the Cays street light project, the elevation reference points project, and street light improvements at 10th and C and Pomona. There are no new projects proposed for the Wastewater and Storm Drain Projects category. There is some funding requested for the Transbay Sewer Force Main, Phase II, project. This funding would allow the City to conduct an analysis to determine if the existing force main can be rehabilitated. Staff is concerned about letting the line sit, unused, for a significant amount of time. The plan is to allow staff to conduct the study and then rehabilitate as necessary. There is also a list of all projects that are unfunded. These are not considered part of the CIP. They simply remain unfunded until further Council action is taken. There are five new projects proposed in this category. Two projects have been removed. One was the Cays public wash pad which the Public Services Department originally proposed and has now determined not to be necessary. The Community Center pool shade structure was moved to the operating budget for 07-08.

Mr. Potter summarized that there are currently 23 projects underway in design/planning or under construction. There will be 18 additional projects programmed to begin in FY 2007-08 and ten more in FY 2008-09. The CIP includes facility maintenance or refurbishment items that are greater than $10,000. Staff is looking for prioritization of the CIP projects. It should be noted that staff may need some additional project management cost for these projects in order to implement all of them.

Mayor Smisek explained there has been some discussion as to the priority of certain Golf Course projects. He asked Dave Jones and members of the Golf Course Subcommittee to make a presentation.

Dave Jones, Director of Golf Services, provided some history on past and present projects at the Golf Course. One year ago the Committee reevaluated the Master Plan. It looked at different areas on the golf course and chose holes 12, 13, 16 and 17 for improvement. He reviewed the specifics of those improvements. The money for this portion of the project was approved for FY 2007. They are also requesting an additional $200,000 to take the program further within the next fiscal year to address some of the problems with some of the sand traps.

Tony Tessacini, 1651 Glorietta Boulevard, member of the Golf Course Advisory Committee, responded to a request from Mayor Smisek to explain the sand trap issue. He said the Advisory Board Committee started to work on this project in 2006, getting as far as proceeding to get the project bid. When new members sat down in the first quarter of 2007 the general direction was recultivated. In his opinion, the discussion of increased bunker maintenance is a red herring. He totally supports increasing the operating expense at the golf course and adding another staff member, if that is what is required, to improve bunker maintenance. He supports moving forward with this project and asks the City Council to support the Advisory Board's decision.

Steve Haley, Golf Course architect, explained that it is very traditional for an older course, over so many years, to have to come back and rework the bunkers either through drainage or maintenance. One of the directives he was given by the Committee, and it was a consensus, was not only the issue of the bunker question but the safety issue throughout the course. There is a bunker maintenance improvements program. But this addresses the safety question and if the money is going to be spent to clean up the bunkers there have to be assurances that the bunkers are in the right place, given the current play conditions and the way the course is being utilized to ensure that the money is being well spent.

Councilmember Downey asked what the problem was that was trying to be solved. Mayor Smisek explained it was a situation of needing to make choices due to funding. Over the period of time the bond issue for the Clubhouse was being repaid, the capital projects were put on hold and only the necessary things were taken care of. After the bond was paid off, the reserve was depleted. With what was left in the reserve, the Committee went back to the Master Plan to review what needed to be done. The Committee decided to go with the back 9 and picked out key elements of the Master Plan that were to be continued on, with the attempt to some day complete the whole plan. The accumulation of funds is dependent on costs. He added that the last fee increase was only $5 and came 11 years after the previous increase.

Councilmember Monroe thinks that the priorities are not correct and strongly suggested that the sand traps be redone. When bunkers are added to a golf course, play is slowed down and this does not need to happen. He is not convinced of the safety issue, and it is not an issue of bunker maintenance. This is an issue of non-uniform bunkers throughout the course. He has played other courses in the area where there are uniform, sand filled traps. He appealed to other members of the City Council to fix the bunkers first.

Mayor Smisek clarified that the design that was developed and the emphasis of the Committee for the last two years, with the help of consultants, is to speed up play. This design came up because of Mr. Halsey's input as to how to speed up play. This was also designed for the average golfer. He pointed out that the Coronado Golf Course was recently selected, again, as the best deal in San Diego County as far as a golf course to play.

Mr. Tanaka doesn't see the proposed changes as bad ideas, but he hears Mr. Monroe suggest that refurbishment of the bunkers is something the City Council should think about with a possible switching of priorities. He is a little skeptical as to whether or not some of these changes will work. He does think that fixing the sand traps would be more noticeable to the average golfer.

Mr. Monroe asked Mr. Halsey about speeding up play with additional sand traps. Mr. Halsey explained that bunkers, as with any other hazards, are used to direct play and penalize those who try to not go where they should. There is a risk/reward in that. Bunkers do not speed up play, but they slow down play if they are not in the right position. That means the weaker players are penalized because they cannot control their shots very well because there are too many bunkers in the wrong positions. The important thing is to get them in the right position so that the player is short of those bunkers or they will try to carry that bunker for a reward. The hazards are supposed to be in the right position so that a golfer has a choice of strategy of play. Bunkers can slow down play, particularly if they are in the wrong position, wrong shape, too steep of faces, etc. That is typically the situation on the course now (too steep of faces) because of the build up of the sand. It is very difficult for the average golfer to get out of a large, pitted bunker with a big face. Mr. Halsey explained that no bunkers are being eliminated, but they are moving bunkers out of most of the average players' play on several of the holes. Mr. Monroe said he still questions the priorities.

Mayor Smisek feels the question is whether to go with the recommendation or to change the priority. The plan was approved last year. One thing to consider is that it doesn't make sense to refurbish a trap that is in the wrong place. He added that he is trying to keep his own personal thoughts out of this and to go with what the experts have told him.

Ms. Downey feels that there is a committee of experts and she does not want to second guess them. She is in favor of fixing the traps if that is possible.

Mr. Tanaka is not that familiar with exactly what they are proposing even though he is familiar with the holes. He feels the City Council is approving this a little bit more on faith than on specifications. One of the holes that keeps coming up in this discussion is Hole 17. He is not convinced that these 'safety measures' have necessarily dealt with the safety they are trying to provide. He is a little reluctant to support this but will likely go along with it because he doesn't hear other people voicing their concerns, aside from Mr. Monroe.

Mayor Smisek recalled that this has already been approved. The option would have to be to disapprove this and change direction. The Golf Course Committee did not hear any of these concerns except from one person who served previously on the committee and who did not always agree as to how the golf course should be run.

MS (Monroe/Tanaka) moved that the City Council shift the priorities and redo the sand traps before doing this project.

AYES: Monroe and Tanaka

NAYS: Downey, Ovrom, and Smisek

ABSENT: None

 

Councilmember Ovrom moved on to report that he reviewed, with staff, extensively the Capital Improvements list for the year. It seems to him that the plan for the coming fiscal year, approximately $15 million, has historically been a funds allocation plan and not an actual 'do' plan. He asked the City Manager about the possibility of coming up with a list of things that are actually going to be contracted and started this year. Mr. Ovrom's first observation is whether or not the City Council wants to change what it sees in the plan so that it really reflects what is going to be done. Then it will be clearer as to whether additional resources need to be added. Secondly, there is an item about delaying the downtown redevelopment on the 800 block of Orange. There is approximately $1 million in this current budget for this year and there is a question as to whether or not that should be put in this year or another year. He believes there are items in the unfunded category that should be discussed. Does the City Council agree to continue the way this has always been done with a funding allocation or should there be a change?

Mr. Ochenduszko responded by saying that the CIP is a funding allocation plan in the first year and is a plan for funding and undertaking projects in subsequent years. It is a plan to get work done. The City is in line to either design or construct the projects as described in the plan itself. It is true that all the appropriations for the projects that have been allocated in the CIP have not been spent to date for the projects that are in progress. That is because those projects are bid and in construction or bid and in design but the design work is not completed or the construction work is not completed. Nevertheless, those projects are underway. When staff puts together a CIP it is in light of what staff thinks it will take to get that project done. Some projects take a great deal more effort and time than what was anticipated. Evidence the discussion about the animal care facility or the lifeguard support facility which both have been greatly delayed along the way. Those are only a couple of examples. Staff can reasonably anticipate public participation in City projects, but it cannot reasonably anticipate which projects will hang up as a result of public participation, other input, or other difficulties that may arise. They have done an analysis of staff time over the next year and allocated it to projects and the City is over-allocated. Staff members in Engineering are fully allocated; some are over-allocated. Will additional resources be necessary? They may and staff is analyzing that. To the extent that the City needs additional resources for these projects, staff will come back to the City Council on a project by project basis and asking for additional resources if necessary, but that is not where staff is now in putting together a CIP. He does think the City will be better off if it stays the course and tries to get all of these projects done. Every project in the CIP someone wants. Some are necessary; some are important for public safety; all are wanted by someone. Secondly, with the inflation in construction costs that are occurring today, it may be worthwhile to incur the additional costs now to ensure savings in the future.

Councilmember Monroe pointed out that every once in a while projects that are approved and funded get dropped out. One of those is the median enhancements right outside of City Hall. In 1998 he came before the City Council about this and approved $70,000 for that project. Now it is $85,000 and is on the unfunded list. He wants to know how projects get moved up. He is interested in the 7th/Pomona/Adella intersection and whether the City Council is going to do something about that.

Mr. Ochenduszko responded that the CIP is the big picture with the appropriation and identification of each project. A work plan is put together that shows the City Council when projects are going to be completed and there is a quarterly report that shows how the City is doing with CIP projects. Staff will continue to report to the City Council on how those things are done. He added that, if the City Council wants to move projects around, one to discuss is the Downtown Enhancement Project. There are some possible building projects on that block that may not fit with the timing of the downtown improvement plan. Secondarily, considering the Rotary project, it is very difficult to tear up two portions of downtown at the same time. Regarding the 7th and Adella/Pomona project despite the fact that there may have been Council action taken on that in 1998 it has not been identified as a capital improvement project. His suggestion would be for Council to direct staff to analyze and study that project, and have staff bring it back.

Jim Benson, Assistant City Manager, pointed out that the existing staff does not have the time or the expertise for that type of study. Part of the challenge in that situation is getting a consensus as to what to build, as there are several options. Also what are the limitations? For example this is a very flat area that doesn't drain well. It would require a traffic engineer to get into an Initial Study, and to get through the process of talking with the public. It will be challenging at best. Staff willing to take this on, but it will be complicated. $20,000 will only cover the conceptual stage.

Mayor Smisek clarified that the approved plan was for the narrowing islands and speed humps. The other ideas were sent back because no one understood them and couldn't figure out how it was going to help anything. There have been several other recommendations that have come forward. He wants people to understand that the CIP is a planning document. The Animal Shelter was not even in the plan years ago, but when it became clear that it needed to be added, it was put in quickly. The same thing can happen with safety issues or anything the Council feels is important enough to change, add, or modify. He thinks putting in a placeholder for this particular project this year is premature until more is known.

Ms. Downey asked if it is necessary to put in a placeholder for the $20,000 to at least study the issue and come back with an option.

Mr. Ochenduszko responded that money can be allocated for a study in the CIP but his suggestion would be that it not cover design or construction at this point, to wait to see what the study brings. At that time funds can be allocated for it and it can be added to the CIP.

Ms. Downey doesn't want to overburden an already overburdened staff.

Mr. Ochenduszko thinks that it would be helpful to have funding for a traffic engineering study added for the 7th and Adella project in the CIP. He can include that amount in the CIP that comes back to the City Council at the next meeting.

Mr. Tanaka wants to talk about the 7th and Adella issue but that wasn't Mr. Ovrom's question. His question is whether or not this is the way the City Council wants to do business, and are there enough people to do business? Mr. Tanaka likes the way the City Council does business. He thinks the process works. The second question is whether or not staff is overburdened. He is not sure they are so overburdened that staff needs to be added. Mayor Smisek has always been consistent that when staff is to be added it should be for the long haul, not for a three year period. As far as 7th and Adella goes, it was an orphan because nothing has been proposed that is concrete or that makes that intersection definitely better.

Mr. Ovrom pointed out that one of the things the Council has not discussed is the staff recommendation to move the 8th and Orange project to the right. If that is done, that is $1 million that can go somewhere. Mayor Smisek and Councilmember Ovrom discussed the differences between allocations, revenue projections, and how the bottom line is arrived at. The City Council discussed options for pushing projects back one year and adjusting the list.

Mr. Benson pointed out that, with the downtown projects, the City doesn't want to do them during the summer, during Thanksgiving, during Christmas or Easter.

Mr. Monroe moved to a discussion of the Orange Avenue extended left turn pocket. Even though it is out a few years, he thinks it might be appropriate to at least start that and go to Caltrans to seek permission to do it. He thinks there will be a community issue on taking square footage out of the median. Mr. Benson explained that the City already has Caltrans' conceptual acknowledgement and that is out there waiting for staff to have the time.

Mr. Monroe brought up the Cays bulkhead guardrail fencing. He asked if the berms and bulkheads are in jeopardy, does the City need to have some money in the CIP for bulkhead replacement, or is it happy with the fence for the time being. Mr. Benson explained that the City's bulkheads are in the same condition. They have been looked at in the bathymetric surveys. They are in acceptable condition at this point. There aren't any repairs that need to be done to the City's bulkhead - those on the causeways that the City is responsible for.

Mr. Monroe moved on to discuss the consideration of prequalification for the Tennis Center. He asked if this saves the time or money, and if it is a process the City would want to use on the Tennis Center. Mr. Benson responded that it is a state-approved process that allows the City to seek qualified contractors who have the capacity for that scope of project. He feels it is premature to consider that at this time for the Tennis Center building. Staff will come back when it is closer to building on a given project.

Mr. Monroe said he has a problem with the 40' fence at the 15th tee. He thinks that it is overkill and that a 40' fence in that beautiful part of Coronado does not meet his aesthetic desires for the Village. He thinks the fence should be moved closer to the tees so that it doesn't have to be so high.

Mayor Smisek suggested that can come back for a review by the City Council but it can be kept in the CIP as funded.

MSUC (Downey/Tanaka) moved that the City Council approve the Capital Improvement Program Budget for FY 2007-08/2008-09 as discussed.

AYES: Downey, Monroe, Ovrom, Tanaka and Smisek

NAYS: None

ABSENT: None

11c. Approval of the Site Location for the Proposed Boat House Club Room.

Councilmember Downey stated that the current location is fine. Even the Recreation Department is happy now.

Mayor Smisek explained that the concern was that it was initially supposed to be on the end of the swimming pool. That was premised on the fact that the Navy would accept the boat ramp over to Navy land. After much discussion, it became clear that the boat ramp cannot be moved. It needs to stay where it is. When the CIP committee went out and looked at the first proposal which was to put it right on the other side of the boat ramp, a couple of things came into play. The decision was to try to separate it and get it close to the sandy beach. It seemed to the Committee that the best place to put it was against the fence on the Navy side. That got it out over on the other end, near the sandy beach. There was some concern about Recreation staff having to go further to get to that location and there was concern about launching boats on a dock. Mr. Tanaka discussed the value of launching boats from a sandy beach versus a dock.

Steve Sandberg, 1770 Avenida del Mundo, provided background from the Park & Recreation Commission point of view. They received, at the last meeting, an extensive briefing from staff as to the options that were available. After discussions of the pros and cons for each option, the Commission members unanimously chose Option #1, the location closer to the Rec. facility. Reviewing the use of the building as well as the potential launching of kayaks, rowing skulls, etc. it was determined that the building will house pieces of water equipment as well as potentially kayaks and other facilities that the community can use. Rec. staff supported that.

Mayor Smisek pointed out that the City initially decided it would build a boathouse one of the things that was discussed was that there were going to be skulls, but that was not going to be a major determining factor. There may be a lively group of skull users, but there are substantially more kayak and sailboat users. It is meant to be a multi-purpose room.

Councilmember Tanaka explained that he and Mayor Smisek walked the park with the City Manager and Linda Rahn. Mayor Smisek had two main concerns. The first was that the most used space in the park is the area near the restroom and the boat ramp launch. He voiced a concern over cannibalizing that much of the best part of this park for this building. The original design of the building was a v-shape. In the middle of that v would be controlled space for the Recreation Department. Not surprisingly, the Recreation Department liked that idea. It wasn't that he and Mayor Smisek don't want them to have that space, but the paramount issue is that of all of the park space you could give up, this is a space you would not want to give up. The second issue is what is ideal for the launching of whatever vessels are inside of it. If a dock was preferred to a sandy beach for launching skulls, there would need to be a dock designed for the needs of those skulls. He is not in favor of building a new dock because everyone knows what is involved in that. The question became how to make existing infrastructure serve the boats that come out of this boathouse. The most practical way to get boats in and out was to use the sandy beach and have the shortest distance to haul it. Their first priority was to put it in the part of the park that people use the least.

Frank Ingraham, 740 C Avenue, was at the Recreation Commission meeting at which they discussed this in great detail. They had a thorough report presented on the options with pros and cons for each of the three possible sites. He wrote a letter to the City Council concerning this. His main issue is usage. The option next to the Amphib Base is accessible to the water but the water is shallow there and the bottom there is mucky, not sandy. It is the poorest spot, by far, of any of that shoreline. Secondly, if there were a floating dock, either kayaks or shells could be launched off of it. It is ideal and all crew boathouses have floating docks for that reason. The other thing that was attractive about the launch ramp area is that it is a large concrete area that would readily facilitate backing a trailer with shells on it that would be 56 to 58' long.

Councilmember Downey asked if there are currently people backing trailers with skulls or kayaks down the ramp now. Mr. Ingraham responded that they back into it all the time, but not trailers with boats of that length.

Councilmember Monroe talked about the rails and the shells. He sees that the City is on the threshold of having one of the greatest sports in the country. He talked about putting a 4-person shell in the water and how to make sure there isn't sand that gets into the boat. Mr. Ingraham responded that it does get into the boat. Mr. Monroe said he is a big supporter of Option 1. He likes what the Recreation Committee did when they considered everything. Now he finds himself voting against two colleagues he has a lot of respect for.

Mr. Tanaka doesn't take it personally if a Council member votes against what they did at the CIP Subcommittee. There is a reason why they went with Option #3. Anyone is welcome to pitch a new dock, a floating one, but that is not the vision he has. Maybe everyone has a different picture of what boat is coming out of that boathouse. He is not thinking of one that holds 4 or 6 people in it. He believes the boat will likely be a one or two person vessel. He acted in support of putting bulk and mass in the place that would affect people the least.

Mayor Smisek thinks that part of this is what the main purpose of the building is. Launching off a sandy beach is comfortable. He was not aware of the condition of the sand past the edge of the water.

Mr. Sandberg feels that they've lost site of what the purpose of the building is. Half of the building is for meeting rooms and for young people to use. The goal is to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.

Councilmember Ovrom believes there are two sides of the argument. The CIP Subcommittee put more emphasis on bulk and mass and the Recreation Commission put more emphasis on utility and usefulness by a number of people. He is inclined toward that argument rather than the former argument.

MS (Ovrom/Monroe) moved that the City Council direct that the Boat House Club Room be located at the west side of Glorietta Bay Park adjacent to the existing boat ramp and dock.

Councilmember Downey had the same question as Mr. Monroe initially. After walking the site, the Recreation Committee had changed their mind. She has some unique concerns for the new site. She likes the idea of moving it away for bulk purposes, but she is concerned that it is by the playground. There is parking at that end of the park. She is not sure she necessarily wants cars and everybody down at that end of the park. She is torn as to what is the safest way for the most people to use it. She is not as concerned about bulk, but she does want it to be used by the most people.

AYES: Monroe and Ovrom

NAYS: Downey, Tanaka and Smisek

ABSENT: None

MSC (Tanaka/Smisek) moved that the City Council direct that the Boat House Club Room be located adjacent to the Amphibious Base as recommended by the CIP Subcommittee.

AYES: Downey, Ovrom, Tanaka and Smisek

NAYS: Monroe

ABSENT: None

11d. Recommendation on Construction Schedule for Phase III of the Downtown Enhancement Project.

MSUC (Ovrom/Tanaka) moved that the City Council direct that construction of Phase III of the Downtown Enhancement Project be delayed until the future plans for the Village Theater and Vons grocery store are more defined.

AYES: Downey, Monroe, Ovrom, Tanaka and Smisek

NAYS: None

ABSENT: None

11e. Review of Staff Analysis of the Impacts of the Citizens' Initiative to Amend the Land Use plan of the City's Local Coastal Plan; Consideration of Adoption of Resolutions to Submit the Issue for the November 4, 2008 General Election Ballot, to Provide for the Filing of Rebuttal Arguments for City Measures Submitted at Municipal Elections, to Set Priorities for Filing Written Arguments Regarding a City Measure and Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis; and, Direct the City Clerk to Post a Notice to the Voters of the Date After Which No Arguments for or Against a City Measure May be Submitted.

Mayor Smisek recused himself from discussion on this item. Mayor Pro Tem Downey assumed his seat at the dais.

City Attorney Morgan Foley gave a brief staff report. At the last meeting the City Council directed that staff prepare the impact report that is allowed under Elections Code 92.12. The Council also gave staff a number of questions to answer. He pointed out that the only options left, besides discussion on those impacts, are to either adopt the measure as presented or set the matter for election in the November 2008 General Election.

Councilmember Monroe thanked staff for the two week response. It is detailed and thorough. The key issue is that this is not just for the Coronado beach between the Hotel Del and the Navy base. It affects all the beaches and all of Coronado including the Bay and Bridge. That is tough. It is way out of bounds. The initiative was not written properly.

Mayor Pro Tem Downey wanted to state for the record that she really was concerned over this for the reasons she stated at the last meeting and because this is another end run. She spent this Council agenda feeling like people think they get up here and do this for the heck of it. When something comes before the City Council, the Council does its best to follow the City of Coronado ordinances and every action the Council took did just that. If the City Council hadn't attempted to appease many citizens who were initially concerned about the initial lifeguard building this would not be happening now. The attempts to try to get everyone on the same page backfired. That makes her very sad. All the public hearings were conducted. The City went through a law suit. Every time the City was upheld because it was following the law and doing the right thing. City staff was doing what they were supposed to be doing. The City Council did what it was supposed to do in the public's best interest. This is the third bite at the apple. Now it is going to go to an election. She will do everything humanly possible to make sure this does not pass. Making land use decisions by ballot box is not an efficient way to run a city nor to accomplish the goals that it needs to as a city. When people formed cities years ago it was to try to get a betterment for everyone by getting together as a group. This City tries to do that at every opportunity.

Councilmember Monroe thanked Mayor Pro Tem Downey for her words. This is a representative form of government. People elect their officials to make decisions and if they don't like the decisions, they should elect other people. Decision by initiative is not a good way to go.

MSUC (Monroe/Tanaka) moved that the City Council receive the impact report and adopt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2008, FOR THE SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY OF CORONADO LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM PROHIBITING THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PERMANENT STRUCTURES ON PORTIONS OF CORONADO BEACH WITHOUT PRIOR VOTER APPROVAL and A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING A CITY MEASURE AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS and A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR CITY MEASURES SUBMITTED AT MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. The Resolutions were read by Title, the reading in their entirety unanimously waived and adopted by Council as RESOLUTION NO. 8219, RESOLUTION NO. 8220, and RESOLUTION NO. 8221.

AYES: Downey, Monroe, Ovrom and Tanaka

NAYS: None

ABSENT: None

DISQUALIFIED: Smisek

12. CITY ATTORNEY: No report.

13. COMMUNICATIONS - WRITTEN: None.

Mayor Smisek reported that Item 14c was continued to a later meeting.

The City Council recessed to Closed Session at 7:26 p.m.

14. CLOSED SESSION:

a. CLOSED SESSION: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS

AUTHORITY: Government Code 54957.6

CITY NEGOTIATORS: Mark Ochenduszko, City Manager; Leslie Suelter, Director of Administrative Services; Jim Benson, Assistant City Manager

EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)

b. CLOSED SESSION: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS

AUTHORITY: Government Code 54957.6

CITY NEGOTIATORS: Mark Ochenduszko, City Manager; Leslie Suelter, Director of Administrative Services; Jim Benson, Assistant City Manager

EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION: Coronado Firefighters' Association (CFA)

c. CLOSED SESSION: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS

AUTHORITY: Government Code 54957.6

CITY NEGOTIATORS: Mark Ochenduszko, City Manager; Leslie Suelter, Director of Administrative Services; Jim Benson, Assistant City Manager

EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION: Self-Represented Employees

The City Council resumed the regular meeting at 8:00 p.m.

The City Attorney reported that direction was given to the City's negotiators on Items 14a and 14b.

15. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m.

Approved: June 19, 2007

/s/______________________________

Tom Smisek, Mayor

Attest: City of Coronado

/s/______________________________

Linda K. Hascup

City Clerk


MINUTES OF THE

REGULAR MEETING

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

CITY OF CORONADO City Hall Council Chambers Coronado, CA 92118

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

The Community Development Agency regular meeting was called to order at 7:26 p.m.

1. ROLL CALL:

Present: Members Downey, Monroe, Ovrom, Tanaka, and Smisek

Absent: None

Also Present: Executive Director Mark Ochenduszko

Agency Attorney Morgan Foley

Agency Secretary Linda Hascup

2. MINUTES: The minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 15, 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 submitted.

3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None

4. REPORTS:

a. Executive Director: No written report.

b. Agency Secretary: No written report.

c. Agency Treasurer: Approval of Warrants - The Agency approved Warrants No. 90003390 through 90003412 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. Filing of the Quarterly Treasurer's Report on Investments with the Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado Board of Directors (Agency) for the Quarter Ending March 31, 2007.

MSUC (Downey/Ovrom) upon consent to examine the quarterly Report on Investments and order it filed.

AYES: Downey, Monroe, Ovrom, Tanaka, and Smisek

NAYS: None

ABSENT: None

ABSTAIN: None

6. ADJOURNMENT: The Agency adjourned at 7:28 p.m.

Approved: June 19, 2007

/s/___________________________

Tom Smisek, Chair

Attest:

/s/______________________________

Linda K. Hascup, Agency Secretary