Coronado City Council discusses wide range of topics at August 16 meeting | Coronado City News

At the August 16 Coronado City Council meeting, Henry Angelino, CEO of the Coronado Cays Homeowners Association (CCHOA), addressed council at that time regarding RV-Resort’s proposal for North Grand Caribe Isle in Les Cayes. Angelino asked the city to consider submitting a letter to the San Diego Harbor Commissioners opposing the proposal and development of the resort at North Grand Caribe Isle.

He cited a variety of issues CCHOA named in his letter to the port, such as lack of public awareness in the process so far, previous community opposition to a hotel proposal for the space in 2020, the loss of one of the last remaining unobstructed views of the bay as well as native plants and the Grand Caribe Coastal Park Mitigation Zone, and concerns about increased traffic, noise and light pollution. Angelino noted the community’s support for the expansion of natural habitat at Shoreline Park in the north of Grand Caribe Island and added, “The Town of Coronado has supported this community position against development for 25 years and we ask you to do the same.”

Regarding the RV-Resort proposal, City Manager Tina Friend mentioned that two public awareness meetings are planned and that while the proposal is outside of the City’s jurisdiction, nothing will immediately move forward on the project with the port. Harbor council commissioners will assess whether or not the project should be considered moving forward at a meeting yet to be scheduled for early 2023. Friend also said the council will plan a point to the agenda for the September 6 meeting for consideration of a letter of comments to be sent to the Port on behalf of the City regarding the proposal.

A Policy Request No. 9 made by Council Members Marvin Heinze and Mike Donovan was then addressed regarding the Council’s previous decision to grant the appeal for the design of the Fox Restaurant at 1301 Orange Avenue. Council Member Sandke withdrew from discussion of this item due to his ownership of property within 500 feet of the property under discussion.

The two councilors had voted at the July 19 meeting to grant the plaintiff’s design appeal on the understanding that the entrance in question would be transformed into an arch, but council member Heinze spoke about the comments he made. heard from citizens on this matter in which they felt that they did not have their fair chance to speak on the point at the previous meeting of the city council as to what prompted the request for reconsideration of the action appeal counsel. “That doesn’t mean anything changes,” Heinze commented, “but the point here is that people [were] deprived of their chance to form an opinion.

Council member Donovan added, “Even though [people] given the opportunity to speak at design review meetings, some people feel that they wanted to speak to the Board because they disagreed with the conclusion or outcome of the design review. design. So they specifically wanted to talk to us and, in their opinion, didn’t have a fair chance.

During public comment on this article, Dave Gillingham of the Design Review Board expressed surprise at the claimant appealing to the Board. “We worked hard at Design Review to try to find a compromise solution. I was kind of shocked that after I did that and got all the artists on the Commission to agree to a plan, the company then appealed,” he explained. “They basically appealed the one item that we really wanted them to keep. [from the existing building architecture]he added, mentioning the other design elements that the Commission agreed to compromise on throughout this process.

Gillingham urged the board to reconsider that decision anyway, saying the current deal does not seem clear as to what kind of entry design the applicant can now submit. “I think you should see what the end result is, know what the trade-offs are, and go from there.” Multiple comments from other citizens echoed Gillingham’s sentiments and desire to keep the current design features of the La Avenida building central to Coronado’s visual brand.

Council Member Heinze then moved to use the Policy #9 request to reconsider the 1301 Orange Avenue public hearing at the next council meeting. Donovan seconded the motion and Council Member Casey Tanaka agreed to give the public more time to discuss the issue.

Mayor Richard Bailey said he would vote against the reconsideration. “A motion for reconsideration of a matter that has been heard in open court and has already been partially executed is prohibited by our municipal code,” he said. Bailey said the council would open the city to litigation with the decision.

In response to this comment, Council Member Heinze said, “I think if we read our policy 9 there are different interpretations of that… I don’t think your statement can be 100% accurate, it depends on what is determined to be the implementation. Heinze noted that there is some risk, but disagreed with the assessment that the item was implemented. The motion passed with council members Donovan, Heinze and Tanaka voting in favour, Mayor Bailey voting against and council member Sandke recused.

The final item on the meeting agenda was new contracts for the construction of the Parker Pumping Station Replacement Project. “The existing pump station is collapsing and the existing pump station serves a few hundred homes and acres; the entire Country Club area,” staff explained. “So a few hundred homes in terms of sewer service and acres in terms of storm drain service. If that pump station isn’t working, you won’t flush the toilet and your storm drains won’t empty when it rains. The pump station is one of nearly 20 pump stations across Coronado and is one of the largest, going three stories underground and working around a high water table.

Staff presented the lowest bid, from a company called JR Filanc, for $22,364,200 million. With the additional costs of various other parts of the project expected to be outsourced, the total for completion is expected to be $26,842,249.

The City has already allocated about $15.5 million to the project from a budget standpoint and has spent about four million of those dollars on property acquisition and design expenses. Staff recommends that the remaining $15,363,196 million needed to reach the $26.8 million estimate be funded through Fund 160.

Fund 160 is a Capital Dividend Account (CDA) loan fund that has a current balance of approximately $25 million and would allow the city to commit the ~$15.3 million to project and enable the city to move forward with awarding the contract to JR Filanc while the staff further analyzes and identifies additional and optimal internal funding sources. In addition to Fund 160, staff mentioned Fund 100 (General Fund) and Fund 436 (Large Facility Replacement Fund) that could be considered for interfund loan transfers, as well as analyzing Fund 510 (Wastewater Utilities Fund) and looking at external funding options as well as grant opportunities.

During Council’s deliberations, staff advised Council members that the City feels confident with current balances (with concurrent project costs taken into account) to follow the recommendation to commit the ~15.3 million Fund 160 dollars to move forward with the lowest bid right now.

They also clarified the need for this pumping station as an integral part of the Coronado drainage system, and that in assessing whether to rehabilitate the existing pumping station or construct a new one, the construction of a new was assessed as the best option. “This is probably the most important infrastructure we will face in the decades to come,” added City Manager Friend. “This will set in place generations of improvements and the failure of this pumping station would be catastrophic.”

Council member Sandke applauded the staff’s work on the budget and noted the possibility of increased construction costs if the project were delayed. A motion was presented to approve the item as presented and to authorize the Town to proceed with the contracts and approved with all members of Council in favour.

After the council members reported on the interagency committee and council assignments, the meeting was adjourned. The next council meeting is scheduled for September 6 at 4 p.m. For more information, please visit the City’s website at

FLIGHT. 112, NO. August 34 – 24, 2022

Comments are closed.