Agenda packet — Coronado City Council, August 15, 2023 (part 4 of 4)

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 626
7 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) operator and developer, as well as the formation of multiple financing agreements. Both parties are to share in the public infrastructure costs expected to approach $370 million, but also retain shares of excess revenues.

Dole Fruit Company Contract
First signed in 2002, this agreement leased portions of San Diego’s 10th Avenue terminal to Dole Fruit Company for imports of fruit into the U.S. west coast market. Primary operations centered on longhaul trucking operations delivering fruit to many sites in the Southern California region, as well as short-haul trucking operations to sites in San Diego County. The short-haul local operations involved many more trips by smaller-sized trucks and were perceived to create a more significant source of air pollution than long-haul operations which involved larger loads and fewer trips on semi-trailer trucks.

Following negotiation for a 25-year lease extension through 2036, terms were not released until three days prior to the proposal’s approval by the Board of Port Commissioners on August 14, 2012. The agreement not only extended Dole’s lease, but also moved its short-haul trucking operation out of San Diego’s Barrio Logan neighborhood. This move was perceived to reduce pollution in an area already affected by significant pollution from the nearby freeway and industrial maritime and manufacturing activities. However, the short-haul trucking operation was only relocated to a location in the neighboring city of National City, thereby increasing pollution that potentially affected the health and well-being of nearby residents of that city.

The actions taken by the Port District in approving the Dole Fruit Company lease, reduced potential health hazards for residents of San Diego’s Barrio Logan neighborhood at the expense of the health of National City residents.

Mitsubishi Cement Factory
The Port District recently considered an application by Mitsubishi Cement Corporation (Mitsubishi) for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) that would allow Mitsubishi to construct and operate a cement import, storage, loading and distribution facility within the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal.18 Beginning in 2015, Mitsubishi had been negotiating with the Port District to ship cement-making materials to the Port-operated Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal warehouse for storage and shipment to Southern California construction sites. Nearby residents perceived the project would have introduced a new significant source of pollution to surrounding neighborhoods already experiencing pollution from maritime and industrial activities and freeways in the area.

While the Port District has approved a Maritime Clean Air Strategy (MCAS) to replace diesel fuel burning trucks with electric vehicles by 2030, the technology supporting zero emission electric power for vehicles the size of cement trucks was not yet available, and the Port District announced in a press release that negotiations with Mitsubishi “were not moving forward,” but expressed a willingness to re-consider the proposal, “should the day come when they want to re-open negotiations.”19 18 San Diego Unified Port District, Ordinance 2936, February 25, 2019, https://pantheonstorage.blob.core.windows.net/administration/Ordinance-No-2936.pdf 19 San Diego Unified Port District, Port of San Diego Issues Statement on Mitsubishi Cement Proposal, General Press Release, February 1, 2023, https://www.portofsandiego.org/press-releases/general-press-releases/port-san-diego-issuesstatement-mitsubishi-cement-proposal Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 627
8 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) The process for evaluation of such projects by the Port District is well established and logical in its progression from the proposal, preliminary approval, planning, development, environmental and coastal commission review phases. Yet consideration of the project by a local elected governmental entity might have given greater priority to the health concerns of community members and resulted in a more equitable balance between economic and health concerns earlier in the project’s evaluation process.

Coronado Cottages at the Cays
Recent decisions by the Port District surrounding the proposed Cottages at the Cays Project on Coronado’s North Grand Caribe Isle exemplify the disconnection and disenfranchisement of the voting public and elected governmental bodies resulting from the Port District’s independence from local governmental oversight. The Port District had considered a development application from a lessee of property on Coronado’s North Grand Caribe Island to build 41 two-bedroom short stay units limited to six guests per unit. In a letter addressed to the Board of Port Commissioners dated December 23, 2022, the Mayor of Coronado expressed strong opposition to the project, stating, “this project does not reflect the will of the community or the Coronado City Council.” Specific objections to the project cited in the letter included:20
• A unanimous vote by the Coronado City Council in opposition to the proposed project. • Opposition from community groups such as the Coronado Cays Homeowner’s Association and community members who provided petitions in opposition. • Reversal of the Port District policy refined in the 2021 Port Master Plan Update (PMPU) to “expressly disallow the development of more hotel rooms and to convert the land use designation to Recreational Open Space, which preserves the area for environmental preservation and complete public access.”
• The project would create “preferential access to those that can afford what will most likely be costly room rates similar to other hotel rates in the area.” • The project contravenes the PMPU commitment for the “protection and management of natural resources that best reflect environmental stewardship for present and future generations”, on property expected to be highly vulnerable to sea level rise in the decades to come.
• The project would “create a hotel use which is not compatible with the surrounding residential area…,” posing significant traffic impacts and safety concerns on the community of approximately 1,200 homes which can only be accessed through a single entrance.

Due to policies governing the rights of lessees, The Port District was obligated to present this development proposal for a vote to the Board of Port Commissioners. In addition, the Port District viewed the land use designation of Recreational Open Space for the parcel reflected in the 2021 Port Master Plan Update as being unbinding and preliminary, pending approval by the California Coastal Commission. Had it been approved, this land use would have represented a land use inconsistent with the Coronado Cays development proposal which required a Commercial Open Space designation currently in place for the property. On February 14, 2023, the Board of Port Commissioners approved the Cottages at the Cays Project by a vote of 4-3 in favor of initiating a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, followed by consideration of a Port Master Plan Amendment to add the project to the Port Master Plan, prior to application by the developer for a coastal development permit. 20 Mayor Richard Bailey, Letter of Opposition to Cottages at the Cays Development Project Proposal, December 23, 2022.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 628
9 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Who Watches the Watchers? California Coastal Commission and State Lands Commission In response to the Grand Jury’s concern that the Port District is largely autonomous, self-governing, self-funded and independent of oversight by local elected officials, the Port District views the oversight of its decisions and activities provided by the California State Lands Commission (SLC) and the California Coastal Commission as more than adequate.

The SLC oversight is to ensure Port District activities are consistent with the public trust doctrine. In this role the Port District consults with the SLC on an as needed basis, to seek clarification, advice and guidance in matters affecting the Port District’s role as guardian of the public trust for San Diego Bay.

If determined to be inconsistent with this doctrine, the SLC could direct the Port District to stop, discuss and resolve the issues causing such concern.

In addition to the State Lands Commission and California Coastal Commission approvals, the CEQA requires that “state and local agencies consider environmental protection in regulating public and private activities and should not approve projects for which there exist feasible and environmentally superior mitigation measures or alternatives.” In the absence of any documented exemptions provided for in the act, CEQA requires the publication of detailed Environmental Impact Reports for projects approved by the Port District for public review and comment.21 Requirements of the California Coastal Commission and CEQA also affect Port District activities relating to the approval of the Port Master Plan, Master Plan Updates or Amendments. In addition, Port District approved projects often require a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission.

While members of port city councils or San Diego County Supervisors have no direct oversight of Port District activities or ability to appeal decisions of the Board of Port Commissioners, the Port District indicated the existence of multiple venues to make their views known, and commissioners as a whole place a very high value on the desires of member cities. In addition, the public has access to most of the public meetings of the SLC, California Coastal Commission and also to regular meetings of the Board of Port Commissioners, as well as access to the public websites of these organizations. Also, decisions of the three-member California Coastal Commission can be appealed with the agreement of two of three commissioners to first hear the appeal and then vote to reverse their decision.

Public Participation and the Port District of San Diego The Grand Jury noted meetings of the Board of Commissioners are posted on the Port District’s website and that public participation is allowed. Meeting agendas are posted, and minutes are made available. In addition, the Board of Port Commissioner meetings are recorded, and recordings are available for public viewing. The Port District’s policy regarding public participation is spelled out in Board of Port Commissioners Policy 060 which was adopted June 10, 2008.22 The Board of Port Commissioners also formed several subcommittees, forums, or working groups to solicit public input in the Board’s decision-making process. “In setting policies for our dynamic waterfront, the Port District of San Diego seeks to make decisions that are in the public interest. To that end, the Board of Port Commissioners has formed various committees, forums and working 21 California Environmental Quality Act, Chapter 1: Policy (archive.org) 22 BPC-Policy-No-060-Public-Participation-in-Board-of-Port-Commissioners-Board-Meetings.pdf. https://pantheonstorage.blob.core.windows.net/administration/ Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 629
10 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) groups to discuss current issues. These meetings are an important tool for gathering information, exploring ideas, and obtaining feedback for use in decision making by the Board.”23 These groups include the Accessibility Advisory Committee; Arts, Culture, and Design Committee; Audit Oversight Committee; Bayfront Cultural and Design Committee Chula Vista; Chula Vista Bayfront Facilities Financing Authority; Environmental Advisory Committee; Maritime Forum; San Diego Harbor Safety Committee; Wildlife Advisory Group; and World Trade Center San Diego.

Researching information available on the Port District’s website, the Grand Jury notes that agendas and meeting minutes for some but not all the advisory committees are available. The screenshot below documenting the information concerning the Port’s Environmental Advisory Committee for all years available.24
The Grand Jury notes that only four of the eight meetings had “accessible” agendas, while none of the meetings had minutes posted online. According to the last posted agenda for the Environmental Advisory Committee, the agenda included a discussion with respect to the National City Balanced Plan portion of the proposed updated Master Plan. However, in reviewing the posted membership of the Environmental Advisory Committee there are no staff members listed from National City (nor any of the other Port Cities). This points to a lack of transparency with regards to the coordination of the Port District with the member cities.
23 https://www.portofsandiego.org/people/other-public-meetings 24 https://portofsandiego.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 630
11 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Master Plan Documents and Updates
Under Section 19 of the Port Act, the Port District was to “draft a master plan for harbor and port improvement and for the use of all of the tidelands and submerged lands which shall be conveyed to the district pursuant to the provisions of this act.” This Port Master Plan was approved by the Board of Port Commissioners in 1980 and later certified by the California Coastal Commission on January 21, 1981.25 Subsequently the Port District approved 41 amendments to the 1980 Master Plan.

In 2019, SB 507 §5.7 was incorporated into the Port Act requiring Port District to “submit to the State Lands Commission a trust lands use plan for trust lands …describing any proposed development, preservation, or other use of the trust lands.” Section 5.7 goes on to state that the “State Lands Commission, in its sole discretion, may consider whether the submission of the Port Master Plan…meets the requirements of …a trust lands use plan.”26 Particular confusion exists among Port Cities leaders and residents regarding the provisions Port Master Plan that is periodically updated by the Port District. Much of the confusion is associated with the size and complexity of the Master Plan document itself—the most recent but-still-unapprovedupdate (2021) is well over 400 pages in length when including appendices, while the public comments alone comprise another 800 pages. As an indicator of the complexity of information contained in the Plan comments alone, the format for the comments received for the 2021 Master Plan Updade was an electronic PDF flat file format comprising comments from 10 agencies, 19 organizations, 10 businesses or Port Tenants and individuals from all 10 planning districts. Questioned about how the Port District responded to comments, how the comments were used or acted upon, the Port District asserted that copies of the document were provided for public review and comment and multiple public workshops were held and questionnaires provided to collect public comments.

The plan is categorized into 10 geographical Port planning districts. Despite the fact that these planning districts could be organized around each of the Port Cities within which the smaller planning districts exist, this approach has not been used in the past. However, such an approach could foster greater understanding of these plans by residents and leaders alike while greatly simplifying the review and approval process for each Port city’s Master Plan.

While the Port Act identifies requirements for development of Port Master Plans and Trust Use Plans, the Grand Jury concluded that the Port Act does not preclude the Port Cities or the County of San Diego from requiring ratification by Port Cities or the county of such plans prior to submission to the appropriate state agency for approval. Further, such ratification by each Port City Council or the County Board of Supervisors would allow elected officials to ensure that these plans are in the best interest of their constituents and aligned with plans and objectives of these government bodies.

To that end, the Grand Jury will recommend that Port Cities and County Supervisors of supervisorial districts fronting San Diego Bay be required to ratify all port master plans, master plan updates, master plan amendments or trust use plans for Port District activities occurring within their boundaries; further, that such ratification be required prior to Port District proceeding with submission of such plans for approval by the California Coastal Commission, State Lands Commission or approval of 25 California Harbors and Navigation Code, Appendix 1, San Diego Port District Act §19, San Diego Unified Port District, Document 70987, March 3, 2020, page 15.
26 California Harbors and Navigation Code, Appendix 1, San Diego Port District Act §19, San Diego Unified Port District, Document 70987, March 3, 2020, page 10.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 631
12 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) coastal development permits. Finally, once ratified by a Port City or County agency, each Port City’s master plan update would become the current Port Master Plan for project planning purposes.

Options: Where to go from here? Port Commissioner Status Reports to City Councils The recommendations of the 1997-1998 Grand Jury report were directed to the city councils of the five cities affected by the Port District and to the County Board of Supervisors. Recommendation 98- 50 to the five city councils were to “create and implement formal policies requiring their port commissioner representatives to report regularly to their respective city councils in a formal manner.” The City of San Diego responded to these recommendations saying that policies were already in place governing qualifications for port commissioners as well as formal reporting to the city council. The cities of Coronado and Imperial Beach reported that briefings from their Port Commissioners concerning Port District activities were scheduled as part of each regularly scheduled city council meeting. The City of Chula Vista reported the city council meets with their port commissioner “quarterly, or as often as needed,” while National City reported receiving periodic reports from their Port Commissioner on an informal basis.

The current Grand Jury investigated the current practices of the Port Cities in pursuing regular updates in regularly scheduled public forums such as City Council meetings. Communication with Port Commissioners was reported to occur regularly on an informal basis, but confirmation of such informal meetings proved impractical, and such informal meetings do not allow for transparent communications or public comment. As a result, the Grand Jury reviewed readily available public meeting agendas and minutes of the Port City councils during 2022. We discovered the following:
• San Diego: The Grand Jury could not find any minutes or agenda items recognizing that any of its Port Commissioners made presentations regarding Port District activities in public City Council meetings. However, an annual report to the committee on economic development and intergovernmental relations is required by San Diego City Council policy. The most recent report occurred on March 8, 2023.
• Chula Vista: on August 23, 2022, Port Commissioner Moore gave an update of the Chula Vista Bayfront development project at a special City Council meeting. 27 • Coronado: According to reviewed minutes and agenda items, a single update from the city’s commissioner occurred on April 19, 2022.
• Imperial Beach: According to reviewed minutes and agenda items, only one update took place on January 19, 2022.28
• National City: An agenda item for reports from their commissioner is created for each City Council meeting. The Grand Jury was unable to learn if that was the result of a published council policy.

In view of the information provided through testimony and surveys of public records regarding Port Commissioner reports and briefings to their city councils on the activities of the Port District, the Grand Jury concluded that such reporting in publicly accessible venues such as city council meetings does not take place on a frequent or regular basis. Combined with a preference for informal channels of communication with their appointed representatives, these tendencies call into question whether Port Commissioners and Port City Councils maintain open and transparent relationships. 27 Additional appearance by Port Commissioner Moore occurred on January 11, 2022, for reappointment as Port Commissioner, and on June 7, 2022 to receive a proclamation of Port Commissioner Ann Moore Day. 28 City of Imperial Beach, City Council, Regular Meeting Minutes, January 19, 2022, 6:00 p.m., Virtual Meeting Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 632
13 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Re-engagement of Port Cities and County of San Diego
The Grand Jury has concluded that because of the Port District’s independence and autonomy from local governmental review or approval of its decisions, voters and elected representatives in the Port Cities and County of San Diego have become disenfranchised. Elected representatives cannot prevent or appeal Port District decisions that adversely affect their constituents, and as a result, voters cannot depend on their elected representatives to act in their best interests. As a result of such shortcomings, accountability of representatives to their constituents is limited when the normal expected prerogatives of elected office holders have been supplanted instead by an unelected entity such as the Port District.

Balancing the rights and interests of diverse coastal cities, communities and neighborhoods throughout the San Diego County region is a significant challenge, even for an elected governing body not motivated by economic incentives. Attempting this task through a largely independent and autonomous organization such as the Port District that is dependent on revenue from development projects and leasing activity may be too much to ask of the organization, especially without the guidance of deliberative elected city councils, county supervisors or other elected government bodies.

The Grand Jury concludes that only with the re-engagement of the elected government bodies affected by Port District activities and lands within their jurisdictional boundaries can the interests of residents be equitably balanced with competing Port District goals and objectives.

FACTS AND FINDINGS
Duties, Responsibilities and Powers
Fact: The public trust doctrine provides that tidal and submerged lands, beds of lakes, streams and other navigable waterways are to be held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people of California.

Fact: The Port District Act delegates the power and responsibility for management of the tidelands and submerged lands of San Diego Bay from the State of California to the San Diego Unified Port District.

Fact: Many elected officials of Port Cities believe Port Commissioners are to act in the best interest of the cities appointing them.

Fact: The Port Act limits the ability of elected officials to represent the interests of the voters who elect them.

Fact: It is the duty of each Port Commissioner to act as a guardian of the public trust for tidal and submerged lands of San Diego Bay in the interests of all California residents.

Fact: Port Commissioners take a fiduciary oath to act in the best interests of the Port District.

Finding 01: Port Commissioners are only required to represent the perspectives, not the interests of the Port City appointing them to the Board of Port Commissioners.

Finding 02: The Port District acts as an independent special district without direct oversight from local city or county governments.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 633
14 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Fact: The oversight provided by the State Lands Commission and California Coastal Commission of Port District activities is viewed by the Port District as more than sufficient.

Fact: Port Commissioners must live in the Port City appointing them.

Fact: Port Commissioners may be recalled by a majority vote of the city council appointing them.

Fact: Port Commissioners can serve an unlimited number of four-year terms, except in the City of Coronado in which Commissioners can serve a maximum of two terms.

Finding 03: Because the interests of residents of Port Cities and the County of San Diego are subject to the interpretations of the unelected Board of Port Commissioners, their interests may not be heard, prioritized or represented accurately.

Finding 04: Briefings by Port Commissioners to Port City Councils in noticed public meetings regarding issues affecting their jurisdictions, will increase the level of public participation and knowledge regarding Port District activities, Port Master Plans, Master Plan Updates, Port Master Plan amendments or additions.

Finding 05: Currently, the Board of Port Commissioners does not have term limits. Considering term limits would foster democratic principles by providing more opportunities for diverse and talented individuals to serve, prevent the accumulation of influence, and uphold the public trust by keeping the Board representative responsive to its community.

Initial Opposition to Port District Formation
Fact: The City Councils of the cities of Coronado, Imperial Beach and Chula Vista initially opposed formation of the Port District in 1962.

Fact: Formation of the Port District in 1962 occurred despite concerns that an unelected board of Port Commissioners would have the power to issue bonds, levy taxes and develop local tideland resources without input or approval of individual Port Cities.

Fact: Opposition to the formation of the Port District in 1962 involved the unequal number of commissioners allocated to each of the Port Cities; the City of San Diego would get three commissioners while each of the remaining four Port Cities would get one commissioner each, potentially allowing San Diego to exert dominance over the resources, priorities and decisions of the Port District.

Finding 06: With three of seven port commissioners appointed to the Board of Port Commissioners by the City of San Diego, the potential exists for the City of San Diego to exert dominance over the priorities, resources and decisions of the Port District.

Port District Potential Source of Bias
Fact: Port District operations are financed primarily through leases and fees generated through its real estate operations, parking, harbor police and other fees provided by customers of the Port District.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 634
15 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Finding 07: The Port District is incentivized to maximize revenue to fund its operations, a goal that may create conflicts of interest in the priorities, allocation of resources and other decisions made by the Port Commission.

Chula Vista Convention Center and Hotel
Fact: The $1.1 billion Chula Vista Hotel and Convention Center broke ground in 2022.

Finding 08: Success in the development of the Chula Vista Hotel and Convention Center has been obtained because of a close collaboration and alignment of interests between the Port District and the City of Chula Vista.

Dole Fruit Company Proposal
Fact: A 2012 approval of the Board of Port Commissioners for a lease of warehouse space on the Port District’s Tenth Avenue Terminal to Dole Fruit Company also moved a staging area for short-haul trucking to the National City area.

Finding 09: The Port Commissioners decision to move short-haul truck staging for local deliveries of Dole Fruit products relocated a source of pollution from the Barrio Logan community to communities in National City.

Mitsubishi Cement Corporation Proposal
Fact: Mitsubishi Cement Corporation’s proposal for storage and shipment by truck of cement products to construction sites in the region generated controversy and negative publicity among residents of nearby neighborhoods affected by potential health risks.

Fact: Consideration of the Mitsubishi Cement Corporation project was terminated by mutual agreement of the Port District and Mitsubishi Cement Corporation.

Fact: In its public statement, the Port District expressed a willingness to re-open negotiations related to this proposal with Mitsubishi Cement Corporation in the future.

Fact: The Mitsubishi Cement Corporation project was terminated due to technical concerns around the availability of zero emission trucks capable of the loads required for cement deliveries.

Finding 10: The controversy surrounding the Mitsubishi Cement Corporation Project’s potential health effects on the Barrio Logan neighborhood and other nearby residents damaged the Port District’s community relations with these communities and contributed to the decision to discontinue the project.

Finding 11: Oversight of the Mitsubishi Cement Corporation project by the City of San Diego or San Diego County governments might have given greater priority to the health concerns of community members and resulted in a more equitable balance between economic and health concerns earlier in the project’s evaluation process.

Coronado Cottages at the Cays Proposal
Fact: The Cottages at the Cays development proposal met with significant opposition not only from the Coronado mayor and city council, but also from residents and members of the Coronado Cays Homeowner’s Association representing the community of 1,200 homes.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 635
16 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Fact: Maintaining free access by California residents to San Diego Bay for recreational use is often cited as an obligation of the public trust by the Port District.

Fact: Three of seven Port Commissioners voted to oppose the Cottages at the Cays development proposal, including the City of Coronado’s Port Commissioner, the National City Port Commissioner as well as one of three San Diego Port Commissioners.

Fact: The Cottages at the Cays development proposal was consistent with the property’s designation in the Port Master Plan as commercial recreation space as approved by the California Coastal Commission.

Fact: The Cottages at the Cays development proposal was not consistent with the property’s designation as recreational open space in the more recent California Coastal Commission-unapproved Port Master Plan Update.

Fact: Without the approval of the California Coastal Commission, the Port District viewed the Coronado Cays Port Master Plan Update land use designation of recreational open space as nonbinding and preliminary.

Fact: The Coronado Mayor, City Council members and residents of Coronado affected by the Cottages at the Cays development proposal relied on the property use designation for recreational open space adopted most recently in the Port Master Plan Update document, believing this document should control use of property proposed for the Cottages at the Cays development.

Finding 12: The Port’s decision to approve the Cottages at the Cays development proposal could negatively impact access to San Diego Bay and approving the plan favors those willing or able to pay costly hotel rates typical of the Coronado area.

Public Participation
Fact: Port Commissioner reports and briefings to their city councils on the activities of the Port District, in publicly accessible venues such as city council meetings do not take place on a frequent or regular basis.

Finding 13: Given a preference for informal channels of communication by Port City councils and mayors with their appointed Port District representatives, neither Port Commissioners nor Port City Councils maintain completely open and transparent relationships allowing for public involvement or awareness of Port District activities.

Master Plan Documents and Updates
Fact: Ratification of Port Master Plans, Master Plan Updates or Master Plan Amendments by Port Cities or County of San Diego for planning districts with their jurisdiction is not prohibited by the Port Act.

Finding 14: In its current form, the Port Master Plan and Master Plan Update documents published by the Port District are overly complex, difficult to understand and too broad in scope to foster meaningful comprehension by Port City residents, elected municipal or county officials.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 636
17 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) Finding 15: Ratification of Port Master Plans, Master Plan Updates or Master Plan Amendments would allow residents of Port City Planning districts and San Diego County to acknowledge and confirm their understanding of Port District development plans and projects within their municipal and county boundaries and provide reliable documents for communities to plan for the future.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2022/2023 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the City Councils of the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, and National City:
23-90: Enact ordinances or policies placing a two-term limit on the number of terms that a Port Commissioner can serve (as already enacted for the City of Coronado).
23-91: Institute ordinances or formal policies requiring the appointed Commissioners from each city be required to give at a minimum, quarterly updates to the City Councils at officially scheduled city council meetings open to the public.
23-92: Institute ordinances or formal policies that require ratification of the Port Master Plans, proposed Port Master Plan Updates or amendments to the Port Master Plan for Port District planning districts within each city’s boundaries.
23-93: In consultation with the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, explore and implement an alternate form of governance for the Port District allowing for participation in, and oversight of Port District activities and decision by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the elected city councils of the five Port Cities.

The 2022/2023 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors:
23-94: Institute ordinances or formal policies that require ratification of the Port Master Plans, proposed Port Master Plan Updates or amendments to the Port Master Plan by each of three county supervisors for Port District planning districts within each of three county supervisorial district boundaries.
23-95: Direct the County Office of Intergovernmental Relations to lobby California State legislators to introduce legislation enabling the County of San Diego to assume oversight of the activities of the San Diego Unified Port District or decisions of the Board of Port Commissioners and share in the Port District’s duty as guardian of the public trust in the tidal and submerged lands of San Diego Bay.
23-96: Depending on the outcome of Recommendation (23-XX, above), consider exploring and implementing an alternate form of governance for the Port Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 637
18 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) District allowing for participation in, and oversight by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the elected city councils of the five port cities.

The 2022/2023 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that San Diego Unified Port District Board of Commissioners:
23-97: Institute formal policies or procedures allowing for appeal of any action taken by the Board of Port Commissioners, including decisions, ordinances, or project approvals.
23-98: Institute formal policies to enable Port Cities and County of San Diego to ratify the Port Master Plans, proposed Port Master Plan Updates or amendments to the Port Master Plan for Port District planning districts within each city’s and county boundaries.
23-99: Directly inform each of the five City Councils at officially scheduled City Council meetings open to the public how the proposed updated Port Master Plan affects areas within their jurisdictional boundaries. 23-100: To increase the coordination of Port District activities with the Port Cities and their staffs, institute a policy of including staff from each of the five Port Cities and County of San Diego on each of the Port District’s advisory committees.
23-101: Post meeting minutes and agendas of each of the Port District’s advisory committees.
23-102: In consultation with the City Councils of San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach and National City, consider placing a two-term limit on the number of terms that a Port Commissioner can serve (as already enacted for the City of Coronado).
23-103: Institute ordinances or formal policies requiring the appointed Commissioners from each city be required to give at a minimum, quarterly updates to the City Councils at officially scheduled city council meetings open to the public.
23-104: In consultation with the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, explore an alternate form of governance for the Port District allowing for participation in, and oversight of Port District activities and decision by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the elected city councils of the five Port Cities.

REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS
The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 638
19 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors.

Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made:
(a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.

Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code §933.05 are required from the:

Responding Agency _ Recommendations___ ____________ Date___ City of San Diego, City Council 23-90 through 23-93 8/28/2023 City of Chula Vista, City Council 23-90 through 23-93 8/28/2023 City of Imperial Beach, City Council 23-90 through 23-93 8/28/2023 City of Coronado, City Council 23-90 through 23-93 8/28/2023 Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 639
20 2022/2023 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT (FILED JUNE 7, 2023) City of National City, City Council 23-90 through 23-93 8/28/2023 County of San Diego, 23-94 through 23-96 8/28/2023
Board of Supervisors
San Diego Unified Port District, 23-97 through 23-104 8/28/2023 Board of Port Commissioners
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 640
Attachment 2
August 28, 2023
The Honorable Michael T. Smyth
Presiding Judge
San Diego County Superior Court
1100 Union Street
San Diego, CA 92101
RE: Response to the June 7, 2023 Grand Jury Report Entitled “Governance of San Diego Bay and its Tidal Lands and Regions”
Dear Judge Smyth:

On behalf of the City of Coronado, this letter constitutes the response to the San Diego County Grand Jury report entitled “Governance of San Diego Bay and its Tidal Lands and Regions”. Specifically, the Coronado City Council was directed to respond to Recommendations 23-90 through 23-93.

Finding 01: Port Commissioners are only required to represent the perspectives, not the interests of the Port City appointing them to the Board of Port Commissioners.

Response: The City of Coronado does not dictate the requirements of the Board of Port Commissioners and is not the appropriate agency to address Finding 01.

Finding 02: The Port District acts as an independent special district without direct oversight from local city or county governments.

Response: The City of Coronado agrees with the finding.

Response: The City of Coronado agrees with the finding in that the Board of Port Commissioners represents a range of residents and interests beyond those of individual Port Cities, and thus individual Port Cities’ interests are a component, but not the whole, of the Board’s decision-making, and as such, could lack the specificity and prioritization held by the Port City.

City of Coronado Page 641
Judge Smyth
August 28, 2023

Page 2 ends

Response: The City of Coronado agrees with the finding.

Finding 05: Currently, the Board of Port Commissioners does not have term limits.

Considering term limits would foster democratic principles by providing more opportunities for diverse and talented individuals to serve, prevent the accumulation of influence, and uphold the public trust by keeping the Board representative responsive to its community.

Response: The City of Coronado partially disagrees with this finding and supports choice of the individual Port Cities to determine whether limits on the length of Commissioner appointments are appropriate to best represent their cities’ interests.

Response: The City of Coronado agrees with this finding.

Finding 07: The Port District is incentivized to maximize revenue to fund its operations, a goal that may create conflicts of interest in the priorities, allocation of resources and other decisions made by the Port Commission.

Response: The City of Coronado cannot comment on the degree of emphasis of revenue maximization imbedded in the Board of Port Commissioner’s decisionmaking or whether legal conflicts of interest may exist. However, if revenue generation takes primacy in every decision irrespective of other values or interests, especially those of the Port Cities, the City of Coronado agrees that these other, non-revenue interests would be undermined in the priorities, allocation of resources and other decisions of the Board.

Findings 08-11 do not pertain to the City of Coronado and the City is unable to comment.

Response: The City of Coronado agrees with this finding. In the City’s careful examination of the information available about the proposed hotel project, the City does not believe that the project will deliver year-round affordable rates and will City of Coronado Page 642
Judge Smyth
August 28, 2023

Page 3 ends

limit general public access and confer it to those with the ability to pay. The parcel’s land use designation of Recreational Open Space in the Port Master Plan Update ensures full and open access for all members of the public to this vital and precious bayfront property.

Response: The City of Coronado partially disagrees with the premise of this finding. Speaking to the experience of the City of Coronado only, communications with the Port District and its Port Commissioner follow appropriate channels of individualized interagency coordination on day-to-day logistical matters and negotiations as needed, and public communications and deliberations on matters of decisions and Port activity updates.

Response: The City of Coronado partially agrees with this finding. Public transparency is critical to the operation of all public entities and dedicated effort to simplify and translate complex matter for the public is key for informed community engagement. At the same time, general plan documents are inherently complex and will carry considerable volume and detail to meet statutory requirements.

Accordingly, great care is imperative to balance the necessity of detailed information in a foundational general plan document such as the Port Master Plan with meaningful public information and engagement activities to maximize community understanding.

Finding 15: Ratification of Port Master Plans, Master Plan Updates or Master Plan Amendments would allow residents of Port City Planning districts and San Diego County to acknowledge and confirm their understanding of Port District development plans and projects within their municipal and county boundaries and provide reliable documents for communities to plan for the future.

Response: The City of Coronado agrees with this finding.

Recommendation 23-90: Enact ordinances or policies placing a two-term limit on the number of terms that a Port Commissioner can serve (as already enacted for the City of Coronado).

Response: The City of Coronado has already implemented this recommendation.

City of Coronado Page 643
Judge Smyth
August 28, 2023

Page 4 ends

Recommendation 23-91: Institute ordinances or formal policies requiring the appointed Commissioners from each city be required to give at a minimum, quarterly updates to the City Councils at officially scheduled city council meetings open to the public.

Response: The City of Coronado has already implemented this recommendation, under the Port Commissioner Position Specifications approved by the City Council on November 5, 2013. The Coronado Port Commissioner, appointed by the City Council is required to communicate to the City Council and staff regarding all San Diego Unified Port District matters of possible interest to Coronado and, where deemed of particular interest, shall do so at a public meeting as determined by the Council. In addition, the appointed Commissioner must prepare oral or written summary briefs for the Coronado City Council, relative to matters at the Port District having impact on Coronado and publicly report to the Coronado City Council. Updates to the City Council have occurred at varying frequency over time and Commissioners and have been more frequent than portrayed in the Grand Jury report. The City coordinates ongoing updates with the Port Commissioner.

Recommendation 23-92: Institute ordinances or formal policies that require ratification of the Port Master Plans, proposed Port Master Plan Updates or amendments to the Port Master Plan for Port District planning districts within each city’s boundaries.

Response: The recommendation will not be implemented as it contravenes California statute. The Port District is a special district created and governed by state law. (San Diego Unified Port District Act (Act). Cal. Harb. & Nav. Code, app. 1, §§ 1-88.) The Act authorizes the Board of Commissioners to adopt a master plan and modify the master plan by a two-thirds vote. (Cal. Harb. & Nav. Code, app. 1, § 19.)
State law vests Master Plan authority in the Board of Port Commissioners. While the Board may request that each Port City ratify Port Master Plans, proposed Port Master Plan Updates or amendments to the Port Master Plan from Port District planning districts within each city’s boundaries, a city-imposed requirement of this nature would conflict with state law and would be preempted by the Port Act. The California Legislature would have to insert such ratification requirements into State law for it to be operative.

As has been the City’s practice, unless conferred greater authority by the State, the City will continue to discuss, in noticed, open and public City Council meetings any changes to the Port Master Plan, updates, amendments and proposed projects affecting the City of Coronado so that community and City Council comments and concerns are relayed to the Board of Port Commissioners.

Recommendation 23-93: In consultation with the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, explore and implement an alternate form of governance for the Port District allowing for participation in, and oversight of Port District activities and decision by the City of Coronado Page 644
Judge Smyth
August 28, 2023

Page 5 ends

San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the elected city councils of the five Port Cities.

Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. As discussed in the foregoing section, legally, state legislation would be required to implement an alternative form of governance for the Port District. Moreover, conferring authority to another agency, the County Board of Supervisors, does not present an enhancement in Port Cities’ authority and control.

The City appreciates the time and effort the Grand Jury invested to study this important regional matter and for its report and recommendations. If you have any questions regarding the City of Coronado’s responses, please contact Tina Friend, City Manager, at (619) 522-7300.

Sincerely,
Richard P. Bailey
Mayor
cc: City Council
City Manager
City of Coronado Page 645

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
August 15, 2023 10e
INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 8.04 OF THE CITY OF CORONADO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS” RECOMMENDATION:

Introduce an Ordinance amending Chapter 8.04 of the Coronado Municipal Code regarding procurement requirements.

BACKGROUND:

As required by Government Code section 54202, Chapter 8.04 of the City of Coronado Municipal Code (CMC) contains guidance on the City’s procurement requirements for the purchase of goods, services, and equipment.  The last significant update to the CMC Chapter 8.04 occurred in 2010. An ordinance amending the cooperative purchasing/piggybacking exemption language in CMC Section 8.04.070 occurred in 2021.

Over the last year, the City Manager engaged City staff in a broad conversation, asking what tools can be provided to enhance their work and what challenges might stand in the way of being as efficient and effective as possible. One of the recurring answers has been to take a critical look at the City’s purchasing and procurement system.

In the fall of 2022, City Manager’s Office staff assessed current procurement practices in collaboration with key City staff involved with the procurement process across all departments to identify areas in need of improvement and potential solutions. The Purchasing & Procurement Process Review Committee convened twice to discuss procurement practices and a subsequent Executive Committee held three additional meetings to review procurement data, discuss input from staff, and formulate recommendations to improve efficiencies and implement best practices while maintaining strong internal controls.

As a result, the Committee will be focused on executing the following internal action items related to updating the City’s procurement practices in the coming months:

1. Creation of a centralized, online location for all purchasing and procurement forms/documents for easy access by all employees.

2. Creation of a formal training program for new and existing staff and digital archival of training resources online.

3. Updating related Administrative Policies and formal standard operating procedures, including the City’s Purchasing and Procurement Manual.

4. Implementation of software for agreement review and execution workflows with a plan to fully integrate with Tyler Munis once it is fully implemented.

5. Updating purchase order terms and conditions to allow for the purchase of specified goods and supplies.

6. Updating base contract/agreement templates for ease of use, as needed.

In addition to the initiatives listed above, staff is recommending updates to the Municipal Code as outlined below that require City Council consideration.

City of Coronado Page 646
ANALYSIS:

The Purchasing & Procurement Process Review Committee’s analysis included a variety of data points, including thresholds and procurement practices in other regional jurisdictions with similar populations and budgets, inflation growth as outlined by the San Diego Regional Consumer Price Index (CPI), Coronado’s budget growth, accounts payable data, Public Services & Engineering contract and purchase authorization data and analysis of current procurement practices.

There have been significant changes within the City’s organizational environment in the past 13 years since the last major revision of the City’s procurement rules occurred in 2010. Since 2010, the City’s annual operating budget has almost doubled in size from $38.2 million to $67.3 million for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24. Inflation measured by the San Diego Regional Consumer Price Index (CPI) for urban consumers has increased by 37% during the same timeframe. This has resulted in escalating costs due to notable increases in labor, consulting, and supplies. The impacts of the pandemic have further hampered the City’s ability to procure goods, equipment, and services promptly due to lingering delays within supply chains.

These increases in costs without an adjustment in purchasing thresholds have eroded the City’s purchasing efficiency, leading to greater outlays of time, staff effort, and missed purchasing opportunities within today’s tightened supply markets. Examples of inefficiency and challenges with the current procurement system are detailed later in this report.

To modernize and improve the City’s procurement framework, staff proposes changes to Municipal Code Chapter 8.04 to: (1) modernize purchasing thresholds; and (2) authorize online bids. If approved, these updates will provide greater flexibility to staff, reduce costs of administration, and enhance the ability to acquire goods and services promptly. (1) Modernize Purchasing Thresholds
Currently, CMC 8.04 establishes purchasing thresholds for basic, minor, and major purchases. A copy of CMC 8.04 is attached for reference. Current thresholds and requirements are summarized below:

Type of Purchase Current Procurement Requirement(s) Recommended Change Basic Purchase For purchases less than $2,500, no formal process is required beyond a fair and
reasonable pricing assessment by staff for
goods, equipment, and services.

Increase the threshold to
purchases less than
$10,000.

Minor Purchase For purchases between $2,500-$30,000,
informal bids (three quotes) are required or
an allowable exemption under CMC, such
as utilizing a cooperative purchasing
agreement or sole source.

Increase this range to $10,000-
$100,000. Three quotes would
continue to be required for all
goods, equipment, and
services.

Major Purchase Any purchase over $30,000 requires
full/open formal solicitation or an allowable
exemption under CMC.

Increase this threshold to any
purchase greater than
$100,000.

City of Coronado Page 647
Basic Purchases
A basic purchase is currently defined as those less than $2,500. No bidding process is required for acquisitions falling under that dollar amount. The threshold of $2,500 is not set by state or federal statute and varies depending on the local agency.

Staff reviewed and evaluated a total of 1,539 accounts payable transactions valued at more than $2,500 from July 2022-March 2023. Increasing the basic purchase threshold to $10,000 would eliminate the need for City staff across all departments to conduct informal bid processes on 974 purchases, thereby saving significant staff time while requiring that staff determine that pricing is fair and reasonable for smaller purchases.

Staff also benchmarked Coronado’s current and proposed basic thresholds against other cities within the region or in similar coastal cities to determine best practices. The basic procurement threshold values at other cities ranged from $1,000-$50,000 with an average threshold of $17,656, notably higher than the City’s current $2,500 threshold for basic purchases. As a result, staff recommends increasing the threshold to $10,000 to bring it in line with comparable jurisdictions and to adjust for inflation. A comparison of thresholds in similar cities is included in Attachment 1.

Minor and Major Purchases
Minor purchases are currently defined as those between $2,500 - $30,000. Staff recommends adjusting this range to between $10,000-$100,000. Goods, equipment, and services within this range would still require an informal bidding process to be utilized with staff securing at least three proposals from vendors and then reviewing price, reliability, experience, availability, and expertise to ensure the City is securing the best price and the most qualified vendor or product.

Major purchases are currently defined as those over $30,000, which require full/open formal solicitation and bidding or an allowable exemption under the City's municipal code. Of the comparison jurisdictions considered, the major purchase threshold ranged from $15,000- $150,000, with an average value of $64,688. Four of the seventeen jurisdictions had major thresholds of $100,000 or more and the federal threshold is $250,000. Increasing the major purchase threshold to $100,000 would result in significant cost savings while still ensuring that a formal and competitive bid process is utilized for major purchases or an allowable exemption is used. This would also align the current signature authority of the City Manager with the threshold for major purchases.

The City typically conducts approximately 20-30 formal solicitations per year for major purchases.

Each one varies in complexity, but all take a minimum of three months from solicitation formulation through contract award and involve a considerable investment in staff time, which includes writing the request for services/proposals, newspaper postings, legal review, staff report writing, staff time for evaluation of proposals received, and contract execution. In addition to the notable time and expense of formal bids, the City does not always receive multiple responses from eligible vendors, in which case execution of a formal bid for goods and services can be a significant expenditure of staff resources and time without producing the lower, competitive pricing or the best value for the City in all cases.

Examples of Procurement Challenges with Existing Thresholds There are several challenges encountered by staff throughout the organization that can be alleviated by the proposed adjustments to purchasing thresholds.

City of Coronado Page 648
Vehicle purchases serve as one example to illustrate how the current procurement requirements can hinder acquisition. Last fall, Public Services & Engineering staff conducted formal bids for 7 vehicles. A total of one responsive bid was received and by the time the City was through its process and ready to award the contract, vehicle specifications had changed due to the new production year, leading to a restart in the procurement process. This resulted in a waste of City staff time and delay in the acquisition of vehicles, which affected City operations. Adjusting the major purchase threshold from $30,000 to $100,000 would allow for an informal bid process with at least three dealerships, optimizing cost, efficiency and timely receipt of goods.

A second example is the Fire Services purchase of medication and supplies for ambulances and field use when responding to emergency calls. According to a study conducted by the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians, from 2019 to 2022 there was a 12% increase in medications and a 12% increase in supplies, ultimately resulting in reduced purchasing power due to inflation and cost increases. For instance, Epinephrine, which is used to treat allergic reactions cost $60 per treatment in 2007; today, the cost is $536 per treatment. Similarly, EKG electrodes have risen in cost. Electrodes are placed on every patient staff encounters and are used frequently. One case of electrodes costs $660. Bulk purchases of these types of medications and supplies can easily exceed the current $2,500 basic purchase threshold, therefore requiring staff to obtain at least three quotes from vendors. The City, however, is contracted with only two major pharmaceutical supply vendors that source the medications. Thus, staff are not able to obtain three quotes for supplies or medications, and the vendors are not technically a sole source under the Municipal Code. Consequently, under the current purchasing rules, our personnel must draft a justification memo explaining this situation each time they are executing such a purchase of over $2,500.

Purchases by Public Services comprise approximately 40% of all purchases of the City. Staff commonly acquire a number of items such as pumps, HVAC parts, security system parts, signal controllers, irrigation equipment, backflow valves, tools and signs that cost within the $7,500- 10,000 range. By increasing the minor purchase threshold to $10,000, this would allow for immediate purchase of some of these items, and group purchases that could be accomplished by securing three comparative informal proposals rather than formal bidding, thereby increasing staff efficiency and response in times of emergency.

Ammunition acquisition in the Police Department is another example of a purchase that would be more efficient if the procurement thresholds were adjusted to reflect changes in the market and purchasing power. Staff typically purchases ammunition in bulk annually at a total cost of just over $30,000, requiring a formal bid process. There are very few vendors who can provide ammunition in California within the required specifications, so there is limited value added from a formal bidding process when the pricing and options are limited by the number of qualified vendors. If the threshold is adjusted to recommended levels, a purchase of more than $30,000 would be require an informal bid process; thereby saving staff time from issuing formal bids with only one potential qualified bidder.
(2) Authorize Online Bid Processes
As the second change to CMC 8.04, staff is recommending the authorization of online bid submissions. Coronado is one of only three cities in the region that has not moved to a web-based bidding platform and still requires paper-based bids. The proposed modifications to the sole source and cooperative purchasing language in CMC 8.04 will align with Public Contract Code, clarify the City’s requirements and increase staff’s flexibility to effectively use these tools.

City of Coronado Page 649
City staff believes the suite of recommendations, both the internal changes and proposed Municipal Code updates, will result in staff having better tools and practices that are aligned with changing market dynamics and comparison agency practices. The changes will assist staff to acquire goods, services, and equipment promptly without losing the benefits of competitive processes when they are most likely to produce cost savings for the City.

FISCAL IMPACT:

While there is no fiscal impact for making a change to the Municipal Code, it is anticipated that process improvements will result in cost savings via staff time and improved ability to adhere to project timelines and schedules.

ALTERNATIVE:

The City Council could keep CMC 8.04 in its current form or direct staff to return with alternative amendments.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

Not Applicable. This is not a project subject to CEQA compliance.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

In lieu of the full text of the ordinance being published within 15 days after passage, the City Clerk shall publish and post the summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before the meeting at which the ordinance is to be adopted and within 15 days after adoption.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Comparison Data San Diego Regional and Benchmark Cities

2. City Council Ordinance 2023-02
Submitted By: City Manager's Office / Tony Winney
City of Coronado Page 650
Jurisdiction
Maximum Basic Purchase
Threshold
Imperial Beach $1,000
Del Mar $1,500
Santee $2,500
Coronado $2,500
Dana Point $5,000
Federal
Requirements $10,000
La Mesa $10,000
Chula Vista $10,000
Encinitas $10,000
National City $15,000
Average
(excl. Federal) $17,656
Oceanside $25,000
Solana Beach $25,000
San Diego $25,000
Laguna Beach $30,000
County of SD $30,000
*Carlsbad $40,000
El Cajon $50,000
*Policy adopted in 2009 had $30k limit;
annual CPI cost escalator codified in sops.

Jurisdiction
Maximum Minor Purchase
Threshold
Del Mar $15,000
Santee $25,000
Solana Beach $25,000
Coronado $30,000
Dana Point $35,000
Imperial Beach $45,000
La Mesa $50,000
National City $50,000
*Carlsbad $60,000
Laguna Beach $75,000
El Cajon $75,000
Average
(Excl. Federal) $64,688
Oceanside $100,000
Chula Vista $100,000
County of SD $100,000
Encinitas $100,000
San Diego $150,000
Federal
Requirements $250,000
*Policy adopted in 2009 had $30k limit;
annual CPI cost escalator codified in sops.

Maximum Basic refers to the maximum dollar amount staff, or the purchasing agent/officer (it varies across agencies) can purchase supplies, services, and equipment for without conducting a competitive informal bidding or solicitation process.

Maximum Minor refers to the maximum dollar amount a purchasing officer or agent can purchase supplies, services and equipment without conducting a full / open, formal competitive bidding or solicitation process.
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
Trigger Amount for Formal Bidding
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
Trigger Amounts for Informal Bidding
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 651
Attachment 2
4883-5448-0243 v1
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-02

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION
CHAPTER 8.04 OF THE CITY OF CORONADO MUNICIPAL

CODE REGARDING PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, Section Chapter 8.04 of the City of Coronado Municipal Code (CMC) contains procurement requirements procedures for the purchase of goods, services, and equipment; and
WHEREAS, subsection 8.04.070(A)(3) of this code sectionthe CMC contains the exemptions from certain procedures of Chapter 8.04exception commonly known as the “piggyback” exception, and provides that “one of more procedures in this chapter may be waived, at the discretion of the Purchasing Officer, and the purchase carried forward, when … [t]he City purchases the supplies, equipment, or services through a cooperative purchasing agreement or program, or by using a competitively awarded agreement of another local, State, or Federal government agency or joint powers authority made up of government agencies to obtain the same supplies, equipment or services at the same or lower prices (commonly referred to as “piggybacking”) utilizing competitive bidding procedures that accomplish the purpose and intent of competitive bidding requirements under State law and that are not inconsistent or in conflict with any State statute[t]he goods, services, and/or equipment may be acquired from or in cooperation with another governmental agency that is acquiring or has acquired goods, services, and/or equipment through a cooperative purchasing plan or program which accomplishes the purposes of this chapter in accordance with State law;” and
WHEREAS, the City regularly uses this exception to acquire goods, services, and/or equipment, at the same or lower price paid by another public agency. This process ensures that the City receives the goods, services, and/or equipment at a competitive price, and also saves the City time, money, and resources that would otherwise be used to engage in a competitive bidding process; and
City of Coronado Page 652
Attachment 2
4883-5448-0243 v1
WHEREAS, the City would like to ensure that it has access to a full range of piggybacking opportunities, including, but not limited to, the use of competitive contracts entered into by the federal government and public agencies in other states; and WHEREAS, California Government Code section 54202 provides that every city “shall adopt policies and procedures, including bidding regulations, governing purchases of supplies and equipment” and that “[p]urchases of supplies and equipment by the [city] shall be in accordance with said duly adopted policies and in accordance with all provisions of law governing same.”
City of Coronado Page 653
Attachment 2
4883-5448-0243 v1
The City Council of the City of Coronado, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows:

SECTION 1. All of the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein.

SECTION 2. The adoption of the ordinance is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and is not a “project,” as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines.

SECTION 3. Sections 8.04.030, 8.04.040, 8.04.050 and 8.04.60 of the City of Coronado Municipal Code areis amended and hereby amended to read as follows (underlines are additions and strikeouts are deletions):restated in its entirety as follows

8.04.030 Purchase order.

A. A purchase order is to be used in both the basic and general purchasing procedures when payment will be made incrementally or over more than one fiscal year. A purchase order shall contain a description of what goods, services, and/or equipment the Purchasing Agent is attempting to obtain, the quality and/or quantity of the items sought, any product specifications, and the price per item.

B. A purchase order may be used as the primary contract document for certain purchases wherein the risk to the City is minimal and the terms and conditions on the purchase order are sufficient to manage the City’s risk as it relates to liability, prevailing wage compliance or any other relevant risk exposure.

B.C. Except where specific authority is first obtained from the City Manager, a Purchasing Agent shall not purchase goods, services, and/or equipment unless there exists an unencumbered appropriation in the fund account against which the purchase is to be charged.

C. The Purchasing Agent shall ensure that sufficient documentation is submitted with the request for payment to demonstrate compliance with the procedures of this chapter and to justify the acquisition and acceptance of the goods, services, and/or equipment. (Ord. 2011 § 2, 2010)
City of Coronado Page 654
Attachment 2
4883-5448-0243 v1

8.04.040 Basic purchase procedure – Less than $2,50010,000.

A. If the estimated aggregate price of the purchase of goods, services, and/or equipment is less than $2,500$10,000, a Purchasing Agent may, to achieve the purposes of this chapter:

1. Without seeking competitive proposals, select a vendor with an established reputation for selling items of the required quality, at the market price, in a transaction that best meets the needs of the City;

2. Issue a purchase order, if required; or use an authorized credit card; and

3. Complete the purchase transaction.

B. The Purchasing Agent shall submit the invoice to the Director of Administrative Services or his/her designee for placement on the warrant list. (Ord. 2011 § 2, 2010)

8.04.050 Minor purchase procedure (informal bid) – $2,500 to $30,000 $10,000 to $100,000.

A. If the estimated aggregate price of the purchase of goods, services, and/or equipment is $2,500$10,000 or more, but less than $30,000$100,000, the Purchasing Agent shall:

1. Solicit proposals from qualified vendors;

2. Obtain at least three proposals;

3. Selection.
a. If the goods, services, and/or equipment specified in the request are of a generic quality and a vendor with particular attributes is not required to meet the needs of the City and the purposes of this chapter, then the Purchasing Agent shall select the vendor whose proposal offers to sell the supplies/equipment at the lowest price.
b. If vendor reliability, experience, availability, or expertise are a component of meeting the needs of the City and the purposes of this chapter, then the Purchasing Agent need not necessarily purchase from the vendor proposing the lowest price;
City of Coronado Page 655
Attachment 2
4883-5448-0243 v1

4. Issue a purchase order, if required;

5. Complete the purchase transaction; and

6. Submit the invoice to the Director of Administrative Services or his/her designee for placement on the warrant list.

B. The Purchasing Agent shall have the option to purchase goods, services, and/or equipment in an amount of $210,5000 or more, but less than $30100,000 utilizing the formal bidding procedure set forth in CMC 8.04.060.

C. The Purchasing Agent shall have the right to reject any and all bids for any reason or for no reason at all. (Ord. 2011 § 2, 2010)

8.04.060 Major purchase procedure (formal bid) – $30,000$100,000 or more.

If the estimated cost of the purchase is $30,000$100,000 or more, the Purchasing Officer shall ensure there exists an unencumbered appropriation in the fund account against which the purchase is to be charged and that the following requirements are met:

A. A request for proposals and a notice is prepared. The notice shall contain:

1. A general description of the goods, services, and/or equipment sought;

2. The location where the request for proposals, specifications, and blank proposals may be obtained;

3. The requirement that the proposal be in writing and that it be sealed;

4. The time and place for opening proposals; and

5. The security required, if any.

B. The notice is:

1. Published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City, at least once, 10 days prior to the deadline for submitting proposals; and, if directed by the City Council to achieve the purposes of this chapter, published in one or more additional publications, prior to the deadline for submitting proposals; and City of Coronado Page 656
Attachment 2
4883-5448-0243 v1

2. Posted on the City’s website or bid platform no less than 10 days prior to the deadline for submitting proposals; and

3. Any other notice the Purchasing Agent may deem appropriate to obtain bids for the goods, services, and/or equipment.

C. The Purchasing Officer may require a security deposit to be submitted as a condition for considering the proposal. The amount of the security deposit shall be sufficient to reimburse the City for costs incurred if the vendor is successful but fails to execute the contract. When a security deposit is required, the requirement shall be identified in the public notice(s) soliciting proposals. Vendors shall be entitled to return of such security deposit; provided, however, that the first-selected vendor shall forfeit its security deposit upon refusal or failure to execute a contract within five days after the notice of award of a contract has been mailed, unless the City is responsible for a delay. The City Council may, on refusal or failure of the first-selected vendor to execute the contract, award it to another vendor. If the City Council awards the contract to the second-selected vendor, the amount of the first-selected vendor’s security shall be applied to the City’s costs and then to the difference between the first-selected vendor’s proposed price and the price proposed by the second-selected vendor; and the remainder, if any, shall be returned to the first-selected vendor.

D. The proposals shall be opened in public at the time and place stated in the notice. The proposals shall be submitted digitally and opened in public at the time and place stated in the notice. Virtual openings are allowable if they create administrative or operational efficiencies for the City or bidders.

E. After the proposals are opened, an agenda item will be submitted to the City Council with the Purchasing Officer’s recommendation regarding the award of the purchase contract.

F. Selection.

1. If the goods, services, and/or equipment specified in the formal bid are of a generic quality and a vendor with particular attributes is not required to meet the needs of the City and the purposes of this chapter, the City Council will award the contract to the vendor whose proposal offers to sell the goods, services, and/or equipment at the lowest price.

City of Coronado Page 657
Attachment 2
4883-5448-0243 v1

2. If vendor reliability, experience, availability, and/or expertise are a component of meeting the needs of the City and the purposes of this chapter, then the City Council need not necessarily award the contract to the vendor proposing the lowest price.

3. In either case, the City Council may reject all proposals presented.

G. If two or more proposals equally satisfy the purposes of this chapter, the City Council may direct the Purchasing Officer to further negotiate with the concerned vendors.

Thereafter, the City Council may award the contract based on a negotiated proposal, or reject all proposals presented.

H. After the City Council awards the contract, the Purchasing Officer shall complete the purchase transaction.

I. After completion of the transaction, the Purchasing Officer shall submit the invoice to the Director of Administrative Services for placement on the warrant list. (Ord. 2011 § 2, 2010)

8.04.070 Exemptions.

A. Where otherwise required by this chapter, one or more procedures in this chapter may be waived, at the discretion of the Purchasing Officer, and the purchase carried forward, when:

1. A declared emergency within or outside the City of Coronado requires that the goods, services, and/or equipment be acquired from the nearest available vendor by a Purchasing Agent and/or immediate action is necessary to contain and control the emergency condition;

2. The goods, services, and/or equipment can be obtained from only one vendor;

3. The City purchases the supplies, equipment, or services through a cooperative purchasing agreement or program, or by using a competitively awarded agreement of another local, State, or Federal government agency or joint powers authority made up of government agencies to obtain the same supplies, equipment or services at the same or lower prices (commonly referred to as “piggybacking”) utilizing competitive bidding procedures that accomplish the purpose and intent of competitive bidding requirements under State law and that City of Coronado Page 658
Attachment 2
4883-5448-0243 v1
are not inconsistent or in conflict with any State statute. Such cooperative purchasing programs and agreements include, but are not limited to, the California Multiple Award Schedules Program (“CMAS”), the U.S. General Services Administration (“GSA”) Multiple Award Schedule Program, Sourcewell, the U.S. Communities Government Purchasing Alliance, and other similar programs;

4. The goods, services, and/or equipment is obtained from an authorized “reverse auction” wherein no less than two bids are received from suppliers pursuant to a request for quotation, and the contract is awarded to the lowest bidder; or

5. Sufficient, satisfactory proposals are not received.

B. When a waiver is granted in accordance with this section, the Purchasing Officer shall make a written record, which contains the facts and findings required to support the waiver.

The record shall be filed with the request for warrants. (Ord. 2021-01 § 3, 2021; Ord. 2011 § 2, 2010)

8.04.080 Professional services.

Contracts for special professional services of an accountant, architect, engineer, land surveyor, appraiser, construction manager, land use planner, environmental specialist, or other specialized consultant shall be subject to the provisions of this section. Whenever feasible at least three proposals or qualifications shall be received for the professional service needed. The City Manager may waive the requirements for solicitation of multiple proposals or qualifications if in the Manager’s opinion only one individual or firm can provide the professional service, or if the professional service constitutes an extension of professional services for a project for which a consultant has previously given professional services. The selection of the professional shall be based upon an analysis of demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the services required as well as the cost of the service consistent with Government Code Section 4526. This section shall not apply to the selection of City Attorney or other similar positions. The City, upon the advice of the City Manager and the City Attorney, may select special counsel without following the procedures specified in this section. (Ord. 2011 § 2, 2010)
City of Coronado Page 659
Attachment 2
4883-5448-0243 v1
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Coronado hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption.

Within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published pursuant to state law.

Introduced and first readINTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Coronado on August 15, 2023.

PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado at a regular meeting on the fifteenth day of August 2023 by the following vote to wit:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________________
RICHARD BAILEY, Mayor of the
City of Coronado, California
ATTEST:
____________________________
KELSEA HOLIAN, City Clerk of the
City of Coronado, California
City of Coronado Page 660
Attachment 2
4883-5448-0243 v1
*****

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.

CITY OF CORONADO )
I, KELSEA HOLIAN, City Clerk of the City of Coronado, hereby certify that the foregoing ORDINANCE NO. 2023-02 passed at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Coronado held on the fifth day of September 2023 after having been read at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the fifteenth day of August 2023. ____________________________
KELSEA HOLIAN, City Clerk of the
City of Coronado, California
City of Coronado Page 661

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
August 15, 2023 10f

CONSIDERATION OF TWO NEW MEMBERS TO SERVE THE REMAINDER OF TERMS TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2025 ON THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:

Consider for appointment two (2) new members from the submitted applications to serve the remainder of terms to expire December 31, 2025, on the Cultural Arts Commission.

BACKGROUND:

The Cultural Arts Commission plays a pivotal role in the City of Coronado's operations. Its function is to elevate and sustain the City's arts and cultural scene, an element that contributes to the City's economic health and positions Coronado as a cultural destination. As part of its mandate, the Commission encourages artistic expression, administers the City's public art programs, and promotes public participation in the arts. These functions resonate through the City's educational institutions, social environment, and overall city branding.

City Council Policy No. 6 stipulates a competitive process for appointing members to City boards, commissions, and committees, including the Cultural Arts Commission. This method intends to foster a broad representation of community members on these bodies and ensure that only the most qualified and committed individuals are selected for service.

City of Coronado Administrative Procedure No. 204, in combination with Council Policy, places a restriction on the duration of service for any individual on a board, commission, or committee.

Specifically, no individual may serve for more than two terms or eight years, whichever is shorter.

This restriction is designed to ensure regular rotation of board or commission membership, allowing for an influx of new ideas and varied perspectives to ensure the Commission's adaptability and effectiveness.

ANALYSIS:

Roberta Korte's tenure on the Cultural Arts Commission commenced on October 4, 2022, and concluded with her resignation on June 30, 2023, preceding her relocation from Coronado.

Stephanie Anderson's term of service on the Cultural Arts Commission began on January 17, 2023. She submitted her resignation to the City Clerk’s Office on July 11, 2023.

As of August 10, 2023, the City Clerk’s Office has received two (2) applications for consideration from the following individuals:
• Michelle Darnell
• Rachel Strueber
FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

City of Coronado Page 662
ALTERNATIVE:

The City Council could decline to make an appointment and direct the City Clerk to advertise for additional applicants.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

Not Applicable.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

The notice of vacancy was published in the Coronado Eagle & Journal. Notices were posted at City Hall, Coronado Community Center, Coronado Public Library, John D. Spreckels Center, on the City's website, and in the City Manager's Update.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Applications
Submitted By: City Clerk's Office / Kelsea Holian
City of Coronado Page 663
AN APPLICATION ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT.

August 2022

CITY OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA

Associate Director of Andrea Feldman Falcione Art Advisory & Consulting (Indicate business, profession or occupation)
B.A. in Art History from USD; M.A. in Art Business from Sotheby's Institute (Educational qualifications)
See Resume (Attached)
(Professional experience) (Resume attached if included) Cultural Arts Commission
(Indicate choice of board, commission or committee)
Michelle Darnell
(Full Name)
[Agreed] If appointed, I will agree to attend the meetings as called for this commission. [Agreed] I will comply with the ethics and disclosure laws required by the City of Coronado and State law.

NOTE #1: Applicants must be United States citizens, registered to vote in the City of Coronado, and must have a residency fixed within the boundaries of the City of Coronado. All appointees must successfully pass a state mandated ethics training course biennially.

NOTE #2: This application will remain on file for one year from the date of submission.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 664
Michelle K. Darnell
1 Work Experience
Andrea Feldman Falcione Advisory & Consulting (Los Angeles, CA) Client Services & Collection Management, April 2014 – Current • Act as liaison to clients: maintain trusted relationships and track interests • Collection management: assist clients with insurance; art software/database support; shipping/ installation; and possible deaccessions
• Manage appraisals, consignments, loan agreements and donations • Coordinate shipments: secure estimates, communicate transport details to client, act as main point of contact to gallery and shipper
• Facilitate all framing needs
• Research, prepare and send out all offers
• Art fairs: obtain and share booth previews with clients, track interest and secure holds; secure VIP passes for clients attending fair; produce a gallery/event guide for duration of fair • Responsible for all invoicing and bookkeeping
• Programming: produce weekly LA gallery/museum guide
• Acted as Associate Director of VIP Programming for Pacific Standard Time: LA/LA

The Armory Show (New York, NY)
Consultant, December 2013 – March 2014
• Work with curator of 2014 focus section to manage relations with 40 Focus: China Symposium panelists • Responsible for production of marketing materials for symposium: manage content and print deadlines • Oversee Project Coordinator to ensure that all 2014 fair deadlines are on target Education
Sotheby’s Institute of Art (New York, NY)
M.A. Art Business, Graduated in November of 2010
University of San Diego (San Diego, CA)
B.A. Art History, Graduated in May of 2008
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 665
Michelle K. Darnell
2 Work Experience Skills
The Armory Show (Continued)
Exhibitor Relations Manager, March – August 2013
• Act as client liaison to 220 exhibitors: provide around the clock support leading up to and onsite at fair • Communicate operations and print deadlines to designated point person at each exhibiting gallery • Ensure all gallery content is portrayed accurately on our website and in printed materials • Manage Gallery Selection Committee relations and events: secure venue; draft invitations; make all travel arrangements; circulate agenda; provide event recaps • Responsible for launch of 2014 application on thearmoryshow.com • Oversee production of all exhibitor mailings
Production Manager, September 2012 – March 2013
• Manage exhibiting sponsors; media partners; galleries; VIP and public programming • Assist Vice President of Sponsorship: develop contracts, manage relations and on site deliverables • Work with Executive Director to define and maintain annual budget delivered to parent company • Coordinate production schedule for all printed materials working with Graphic Designer • Oversee Armory Arts Week programming (2011, 2012 & 2013): responsible for outreach, securing content and production of printed map
• Responsible for production of The Armory Show Catalogue (2011, 2012 & 2013): keep on track with pagination; correspond with Graphic Designer and Printing House; responsible for submission of content in the sponsor, publication and cultural partner ad sections; collate and proof the artist index • Manage inventory of annual Artist Commission Benefit Editions (2011, 2012 & 2013): coordinate invoicing and payment, oversee the packing and shipment/delivery to owner; liaise with foundation • Responsible for submitting all invoices for payment (2010 2013) Project Coordinator, September 2010 – September 2012
• Support Operations, Sponsorship, VIP & Exhibitor Relations, Communications team members in performing department related functions
• Correspond with 220 exhibitors, 40 cultural partners and 12,000 VIP’s to promote The Armory Show:
ensuring client satisfaction and a positive experience at fair and ancillary events • Hire, oversee, and mentor annual office interns and 30 temporary volunteers • Assist Vice President of Art Fairs: manage his calendar; coordinate all appointments and activities; organize and submit expense reports; oversee and plan all travel • Mac OS and PC
• Microsoft Office
• Social Media
• QuickBooks
• Adobe Photoshop
• Database Programs
• Campaign Monitor
• Image/File Sharing Platforms
• Concur Online Expense Management
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 666
AN APPLICATION ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT.

August 2022

CITY OF CORONADO, CALIFORNIA

APPLICATION FOR COMMISSION, COMMITTEE, OR BOARD
The purpose of this application is to provide the Mayor and members of the City Council with background information on persons who wish to serve on a board, commission or committee of the City. Persons appointed must be citizens of the United States; an elector of the City; and must reside in the City of Coronado throughout their tenure of office. 07/19/2023
(Date of application)
Rachel Strueber
(Full Name)
(Home Address) (Mailing Address)
(Home Phone\Business Phone) (Email Address)
Realtor
(Indicate business, profession or occupation)
Bachelors Degree
(Educational qualifications)
See Resume (Attached)
(Professional experience) (Resume attached if included) Cultural Arts Commission
(Indicate choice of board, commission or committee)
Rachel Strueber
(Full Name)
[Agreed] If appointed, I will agree to attend the meetings as called for this commission. [Agreed] I will comply with the ethics and disclosure laws required by the City of Coronado and State law.

NOTE #2: This application will remain on file for one year from the date of submission.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 667
Rachel
Strueber
District Sales Manager
Rachel Strueber
Summary Experienced District Sales Manager and Real Estate Agent with a track record of success in strategy planning, relationship management, and high-impact presentations. Skilled in business and trend analysis, account development, team building/leadership, sales forecasting and reporting, negotiations and closing, and training and development. Proficient in Salesforce and MS Suite.

Experience Compass/ Real Estate Agent
November 2022 - PRESENT, San Diego, CA
Supported the Fredy Garcia Team with $6M in sales YTD
Top 10% team in San Diego
Cultivated relationships with business partners at Compass Salon Bordeaux / Owner & Operations Leader
March 2017 - PRESENT, San Diego, CA
Managed daily operations of salon, including scheduling, inventory management, and customer service
Achieved consistent growth in revenue and customer satisfaction PrimeLending / Loan Officer
November 2021 - November 2022, San Diego, CA
Home Loan Advantage /Loan Officer Assistant
May 2020 - November 2021, San Diego, CA
Stitch Fix /Senior Stylist
February 2017 - March 2020, Remote Role
District Manager / Banana Republic, GAP INC
June 2012 - November 2016, San Francisco, CA
Education San Diego State University / Bachelor of Arts in English Accomplishments & Certifications
Real Estate License
Consistent top performing leader (2016) - Achieved top 3% out of 1000+ Leaders. ⧫ Reputation for exceeding goals and managing through ambiguity by adapting strategies to changing business needs and developing sales teams to evaluate and modify initiatives.

Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 668
Rachel Strueber
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my interest in joining the Cultural Arts Commission in Coronado. As a dedicated advocate for the arts and a passionate member of the Coronado community, I believe that my skills and experience align well with the goals and responsibilities of the Commission.

I have been actively involved in the local arts scene for several years, having participated alongside my husband, a local Coronado artist, at various art exhibitions, community events and organizations. These experiences have deepened my appreciation for the transformative power of the arts and the positive impact they can have on a community. I am particularly drawn to the Cultural Arts Commission’s mission to enhance cultural diversity, promote artistic expression, and enrich the lives of Coronado residents through engaging and accessible arts programs.

In addition to my personal involvement in the arts, I bring a strong professional background in leadership. I am a Director for the Adams Ave Business Association in San Diego. I am a small business owner of a hair salon in Normal Heights and a local realtor with Compass. I have successfully coordinated numerous initiatives, collaborating with stakeholders to achieve shared objectives. I am confident these skills will be valuable in contributing to the Commission’s efforts to foster cultural growth and support local businesses.

I am eager to contribute my time, energy and expertise to the Cultural Arts Commission and work alongside fellow community stakeholders to advance the arts agenda in Coronado. Thank you for your consideration. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss my qualifications further and explore how I can contribute to the Cultural Arts Commission's goals. I have attached my resume for your review.

Sincerely,
Rachel Strueber
Attachment 1
City of Coronado Page 669
Item 12a.

August 15, 2023
City of Coronado Page 670
Item 12a.

August 15, 2023
City of Coronado Page 671
Item 12a.

August 15, 2023
City of Coronado Page 672
Item 12a.

August 15, 2023
City of Coronado Page 673
Item 12a.

August 15, 2023
City of Coronado Page 674
Item 12a.

August 15, 2023
City of Coronado Page 675
Item 12b.

August 15, 2023
City of Coronado Page 676
Item 12b.

August 15, 2023
City of Coronado Page 677
Item 12b.

August 15, 2023
City of Coronado Page 678

Coronado City CouncilAugust 15, 2023

Coronado City Council
August 15, 2023