Coronado City Council
October 7, 2025

4933-8218-0968 v2

6. WHEREAS, on (Date), the Historic Resource Commission of the City of Coronado adopted Resolution Number HR (Number) thereby declaring and designating the Historic Property as a Historic Resource pursuant to the terms and provisions of, and as defined in, Chapter 84.10 of the City of Coronado Municipal Code.

7. WHEREAS, both the City and Owner, for their mutual benefit, now desire to enter into this Agreement both to protect and preserve the characteristics of historical significance of the Historic Property and to qualify the Historic Property for an assessment of valuation pursuant to the provisions of Article 1.9 of Chapter 3, of Part 2, of Division 1 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, and Coronado City Council Resolution 8968.

Agreement
NOW, THEREFORE, both the City and Owner, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein and the substantial public benefits derived therefrom, do hereby agree as follows:

1. Applicability of Government Code and Revenue and Taxation Code. This Agreement is made pursuant to Article 12 (commencing with Section 50280) of Chapter 1 of part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the California Government Code and Article 1.9 (commencing with Section 439) of Chapter 3 of part 2 of Division 1 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code and is subject to all of the provisions of these statutes as they may be amended from time to time.

2. Compliance with Historic Preservation and Zoning Laws. Owner shall comply with any applicable federal, state or local historic preservation and zoning laws, including but not limited to Title 84 of the Coronado Municipal Code regulating Historic Resources and Title 86 of the Coronado Municipal Code pertaining to zoning regulations as they may be amended from time to time.

3. Preservation of Property. The Owner agrees to preserve and maintain the Historic Property, and when necessary, to restore and rehabilitate the Historic Property to conform to the rules and regulations published by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as they may be amended from time to time. In particular, the Owner agrees to make all of the improvements identified in Attachment "B" during the initial term of this Agreement and within the milestones and deadlines set forth therein. On or before each of such milestones and deadlines, Owner shall provide the City with evidence showing compliance with the same. The Owner shall obtain a Historic Resource Alteration permit from the Historic Resource Commission prior to obtaining a building permit for any addition or alteration to the exterior of the Historic Property.

4. Inspections. The Owner agrees to permit the periodic examination of the Historic Property by the City, the County Assessor, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State Board of Equalization as may be requested to determine the Owner’s compliance with this Agreement, including an inspection upon execution of this Agreement and every five years thereafter pursuant to Government Code Sections 50281(b)(2) and 50282(a). The City may conduct additional inspections upon reasonable notice when the City receives a complaint or has other information suggesting that the Owner is not in compliance with this Agreement or to followup on compliance related issues at the Historic Property.

Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 211
Historic Preservation Agreement

4933-8218-0968 v2

5. Visibility of Property. The Owner agrees to allow for and maintain the visibility of the Historic Property from the public right-of-way(s) at all times. Owner shall not allow any hedges, shrubs or grasses to become overgrown or interfere with the visibility of the Historic Property from the public right-of-way(s) and shall keep the same appropriately trimmed and pruned consistent with requirements of the Coronado Zoning Ordinance.

6. Annual Income to be Capitalized.
(a) In order to accomplish the purpose set forth in City Council Resolution 8968 and as provided in Section 439.2(a) of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the income to be capitalized when valuing a restricted historical property is the Historic Property’s fair rent less allowed expenditures, or allowed expenses. Both the City and Owner agree to stipulate a minimum annual income to be capitalized, in which the income to be capitalized may not be less than the stipulated amount. Both the City and the Owner agree that the minimum annual income to be capitalized for the Historic Property is $(Amount) if the Historic Property is the property owner’s primary residence, and $(Amount) if the Historic Property is not the property owner’s primary residence. (b) Both the City and the Owner agree that, each year, the minimum annual income to be capitalized shall be re-calculated such that the restricted value of the Historic Property shall be equal to or greater than half of the Factored Base Year Value. (c) Both the City and the Owner agree that at a minimum every 5 years, and upon any sale or transfer of the property, the parties shall execute a written amendment to Section 6(a) of this Agreement to update the minimum annual income to be capitalized, calculated such that the restricted value of the Historic Property shall be equal to or greater than half of the Factored Base Year Value. Owner shall promptly respond to the City’s request for such an amendment and shall execute and return such an amendment within thirty (30) days of the City’s request for the same.

Failure to return an executed amendment to the City within such thirty (30)-day period shall automatically and immediately cause this Agreement to lapse, expire and be of no further force and effect after conclusion, in the City’s discretionary election, of either the process set forth in section 10 for non-renewal or sections 12 and 13 for cancellation. Upon such lapse, the Owner hereby authorizes the City to record a notice of expiration of this agreement or other instrument indicating, in the official records of the County of San Diego, that the Historic Property is no longer the subject of a Mills Act agreement. The City shall give notice to the Owner of any automatic expiration of this Agreement pursuant to this paragraph. (d) Both the City and the Owner agree that consistent with Resolution 8968, the maximum property tax savings realized by Owner under this Agreement shall not exceed 50% of the regular property taxes. In the event that the County Tax Assessor fails to assess and collect the full amount of property taxes due under this Agreement in any given year, the amount of the unassessed property taxes shall become a lien on and charge against the property, including within the meaning of Revenue and Taxation Code section 2187. Upon discovery of any such error by the County Tax Assessor, the City shall give the Owner written notice of the error and the amount of the unassessed property taxes due under this Agreement. Owner shall have thirty (30) days from the date of the notice to pay the amount owing under this Agreement. The City may, but is not required to, record a notice of tax lien against the property for the amount of real property taxes that were unassessed and which exceed 50% of the regular property taxes.

Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 212
Historic Preservation Agreement

4933-8218-0968 v2

7. Exclusion from Agreement. (Exclusions), as well as any new addition or structure completed on the property, shall be considered “unrestricted” for the purposes of determining the Mills Act restricted value, resulting in a mixed valuation.

8. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective and shall commence on the date this Agreement is approved by the City Council and shall remain in effect for a term of ten (10) years thereafter, unless earlier canceled pursuant to Section 12 below or subject to automatic expiration pursuant to Section 6(c) above.

9. Automatic Renewal. Each year on the anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "renewal date"), a year shall automatically be added to the initial term of this Agreement unless notice of non-renewal is mailed as provided herein or the Agreement has been earlier canceled pursuant to Section 12 or was subject to an automatic expiration pursuant to Section 6(c) above.

10. Notice of Nonrenewal. If either Owner or City desires in any year not to renew the Agreement, that party shall serve written notice of non-renewal on the other party. If the Owner elects to serve a notice of nonrenewal, the notice must be served on the City at least ninety (90) days prior to the renewal date, otherwise one (1) additional year shall automatically be added to the term of this Agreement. Conversely, if the City elects to serve a notice of nonrenewal, the notice must be served on the Owner at least sixty (60) days prior to the renewal date, otherwise one (1) additional year shall automatically be added to the term of this Agreement. Upon receipt by the Owner of a notice of nonrenewal from the City, the Owner may make a written protest of the nonrenewal. The City may, at any time prior to the renewal date, withdraw its notice of nonrenewal.

11. Effect of Notice of Nonrenewal. If, in any year, either party serves a notice of nonrenewal as provided in Paragraph 8 above, this Agreement shall remain in effect for: (1) the balance of the period remaining under the initial term of this Agreement; or (2) the balance of the period remaining since the last automatic renewal, whichever the case may be.

12. Cancellation. The City may cancel this Agreement if the City determines the Owner has breached any of the conditions of this Agreement or has allowed the Historic Property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the standards for a qualified historic property.

The City may also cancel this Agreement if it determines that the Owner has failed to restore or rehabilitate the Historic Property in the manner specified in this Agreement. In the event of cancellation, Owner shall pay a cancellation fee as set forth in the California Government Code Section 50286 (fees are currently equal to 12.5% of the current fair market value of the property).

13. Notice of Cancellation. Notwithstanding the above, this Agreement cannot be canceled until after the City has given notice and has held a public hearing as required by California Government Code Section 50285. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed to the last known address of each owner of properties within the same historic zone as the Historic Property and shall be published in accordance with California Government Code Section 6061.

14. Enforcement of Agreement. In lieu of and/or in addition to any provisions to cancel the Agreement as referenced herein, City may specifically enforce, or enjoin the breach of, the terms of this Agreement. In the event of a default under the provisions of this Agreement by Owner, City shall give written notice to Owner by registered or certified mail addressed to the address stated in this Agreement, and if such a violation is not corrected to the reasonable Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 213
Historic Preservation Agreement

4933-8218-0968 v2
satisfaction of the City within thirty (30) days thereafter, or if not corrected within such a reasonable time as may be required to cure the breach or default if said breach or default cannot be cured within (30) days provided that acts to cure the breach or default may be commenced within thirty (30) days and must thereafter be diligently pursued to completion by Owner, then City may, without further notice, declare a default under the terms of this Agreement and may bring any action necessary to specifically enforce the obligations of Owner growing out of the terms of this Agreement, apply to any court, state or federal for injunctive relief against any violation by Owner or apply for such other relief as may be appropriate.

City does not waive any claim of default by Owner if City does not enforce or cancel this Agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in City’s regulations governing historic properties are available to the City to pursue in the event that there is a breach of this Agreement. No waiver by City of any breach or default under this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default herein under.

15. Binding Effect of Agreement. The Owner hereby subjects the Historic Property described in Exhibit "A" hereto to the covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth in this Agreement. City and Owner hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon the Owner’s successors and assigns in title or interest to the Historic Property. Each and every contract, deed or other instrument herein executed, covering on conveying the Historic Property, or any portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered and accepted subject to the covenants, conditions and restrictions expressed in this Agreement regardless of whether such covenants, conditions and restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed or other instrument.

16. City and Owner hereby declare their understanding and intent that the burden of covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth herein touch and concern the land in that Owner’s legal interest in the Historic Property is rendered less valuable thereby. City and Owner hereby further declare their understanding and intent that the benefit of such covenants, conditions and restrictions touch and concern the land by enhancing and maintaining the historic characteristics and significance of the Historic Property for the benefit of the public and Owner.

17. Notice. Any notice required to be given by the terms of this Agreement shall be provided at the address of the respective parties as specified below or at any other address as may be later specified by the parties hereto.

To City: City Clerk
1825 Strand Way
Coronado CA 92118
To Owner: (Name)
(Address)
(Address)

18. General Provisions.

Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 214
Historic Preservation Agreement

4933-8218-0968 v2
a. None of the terms, provisions or conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors or assigns, nor shall such terms, provisions or conditions cause them to be considered joint ventures or members of any joint enterprise.
b. Owner agrees to and shall hold City and its elected officials, officers, agents and employees harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirect use or operations of Owner or those of its contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee or other person acting on his behalf which relate to the use, operation and maintenance of the Historic Property.

Owner hereby agrees to and shall defend the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees with respect to any and all actions for damages cause by, or alleged to have been caused by, reason of Owner’s activities in connection with the Historic Property. This hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, by reason of the operations referred to in this Agreement regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied or approved the plans, specifications or other documents for the Historic Property.
c. All of the agreements, rights, covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties herein, their heirs, successors, legal representatives, assigns and all persons acquiring any part or portion of the Historic Property, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. d. In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or restrain a violation of any of the covenants, conditions or restrictions contained herein, or to determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevailing party in such proceeding may recover all reasonable attorney's fees to be fixed by the court, in addition to court costs and other relief ordered by the court.
e. In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive legislation, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or portions thereof, shall not be effected thereby.
f. This Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be held exclusively in a State court in the County of San Diego. The parties hereby waive the right to remove any action from San Diego County as is otherwise permitted by California Code of Civil Procedure section 394.

19. Recordation. No later than twenty (20) days after the parties execute and enter into this Agreement, City shall cause this Agreement to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of San Diego.

20. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a written recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto.

21. Signatories. Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 215
Historic Preservation Agreement

4933-8218-0968 v2
agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Owner have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth below.

CITY OF CORONADO, a Municipal Corporation
Dated: ___________________ By: ____________________________ John Duncan, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Kelsea Holian, MMC, CPM Date
City Clerk
OWNER
Dated: ___________________ By:______________________________ (Owner)
Dated: ___________________ By:______________________________ (Owner)
(Notarization “General Acknowledgment” statement of Owner signature is required to be attached.)
(Notarization “General Acknowledgment” statement of Mayor signature is required to be attached.)
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 216
Historic Preservation Agreement

4933-8218-0968 v2

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
(Legal Description)
Commonly known as: (Address)
Assessor’s Parcel Number: (APN)
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 217
Historic Preservation Agreement

4933-8218-0968 v2

EXHIBIT B

LIST OF IMPROVEMENTS
(List of Improvements)
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 218
Revised 01/15/2020

CITY OF CORONADO

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
In the Matter of the Notice of Meeting for
Consideration of Applications for Historic Resource Preservation (Mills Act) Agreements for two (2) previously designated historic properties at: 1027 Adella Avenue and 680 Glorietta Boulevard

DECLARATION OF NOTICE BY MAIL
AND/OR

PUBLISHED LEGAL NOTICE
I, Priscilla De Vera, declare:

That I am a Citizen of the United States over the age of eighteen years, that I am employed within the County of San Diego, California, by the City of Coronado, and my business address is 1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California, that I mailed and/or published a legal notice, a true and correct copy of which is ATTACHED HERETO and made a part hereof, that such notices were mailed and/or will be printed in a newspaper of general circulation for the Regular Meeting of the City Council on October 7, 2025.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Published legal notice executed on September 24, 2025 at Coronado, California.

Mailing executed on September 25, 2025 at Coronado, California. ______________________________________
Priscilla De Vera, Administrative Coordinator
City of Coronado
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 219

CITY OF CORONADO

LEGAL NOTICE
September 24, 2025

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN on TUESDAY, October 7, 2025, at 4:00 p.m., the City Council of the City of Coronado at City Hall Council Chambers located at 1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California, will hold a public hearing to consider the following item:

Public Hearing: Consideration of Applications for Historic Resource Preservation (Mills Act) Agreements for two (2) previously designated historic properties at: 1027 Adella Avenue and 680 Glorietta Boulevard.

ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to provide testimony relative to the above item at the subject meeting and/or submit written comments prior to the meeting. Under California Government Code 65009, if you challenge the nature of the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearings described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT the Historic Preservation Program at [email protected].

A copy of the staff report and the City Council agenda will be available for public viewing no later than Friday afternoon, October 3, 2025 at Coronado City Hall, at the Coronado Library, and online at www.coronado.ca.us.

KELSEA HOLIAN, MMC, CPM
City Clerk
September 24, 2025
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 220
June 2, 2005
BETTY T. YEE
Acting Member
First District, San Francisco

BILL LEONARD
econd District, Sacramento/Ontario

CLAUDE PARRISH
Third District, Long Beach

JOHN CHIANG
Fourth District, Los Angeles

STEVE WESTLY
State Controller, Sacramento
RAMON J. HIRSIG
Executive Director
No. 2005/035
O COUNTY ASSESSORS AND INTERESTED PARTIES:

NOTICE OF BOARD ACTION

GUIDELINES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF

ENFORCEABLY RESTRICTED HISTORICALPROPERTY
On May 25, 2005, the Board of Equalization approved the following guidelines pertaining to the assessment of enforceably restricted historical property. These guidelines supersede Letter To Assessors No. 77/174 (dated December 19, 1977).

On June 8, 1976, the voters of California approved Proposition 7 which amended section 8 of article XIII of the California Constitution. This amendment requires that enforceably restricted historical property be valued on a basis that is consistent with its restrictions and uses. Sections 439 through 439.4 were added to the Revenue and Taxation Code to implement Proposition 7.

These statutes, in particular section 439.2, prohibit a valuation of enforceably restricted historical property based on sales data and instead require that such property be valued by a prescribed income capitalization method.

Staff drafted these guidelines in consultation with interested parties and, after discussions, no issues remained unresolved. The guidelines discuss the enforceably restricted historical property requirements, the income to be capitalized, the capitalization rate, the effect of Proposition 13 upon enforceably restricted historical properties that undergo change in ownership or new construction, and the valuation of property under notice of nonrenewal.

The guidelines are posted on the Board's website at www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/guideproc.htm.

We hope this information proves useful and promotes uniformity of assessment for these properties. If you have any questions, please contact our Real Property Technical Services Unit at 916-445-4982.

Sincerely,
/s/ David J. Gau
David J. Gau
Deputy Director
Property and Special Taxes Department
DJG:grs
Enclosure

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION

PROPERTY AND SPECIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT
450 N STREET, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
PO BOX 942879, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94279-0064
916 445-4982  FAX 916 323-8765
www.boe.ca.gov
Attachment 5
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 221
1 GUIDELINES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF

ENFORCEABLY RESTRICTED HISTORICAL PROPERTY

HISTORY
Effective March 7, 1973, Chapter 1442 of the Statutes of 1972 (also known as the Mills Act) added sections 50280 through 50289 to the Government Code to allow an owner of qualified historical property to enter into a preservation contract with local government. When property is placed under such a contract, the owner agrees to restore the property if necessary, maintain its historic character, and use it in a manner compatible with its historic characteristics.

Prior to the passage of Proposition 7 in 1976, these agreements (i.e., Mills Act contracts) constituted enforceable restrictions on the use of land within the meaning of Revenue and Taxation Code section 402.11 (Property Tax Rule 60, repealed January 10, 1978). However, Proposition 7 added the second paragraph to section 8 of article XIII of the California Constitution:

To promote the preservation of property of historical significance, the Legislature may define such property and shall provide that when it is enforceably restricted, in a manner specified by the Legislature, it shall be valued for property tax purposes only on a basis that is consistent with its restrictions and uses.

To implement Proposition 7, Chapter 1040 of the Statutes of 1977 (Senate Bill 380) added sections 439 through 439.4 to the Revenue and Taxation Code. These statutes, in particular section 439.2, prohibit a valuation of enforceably restricted historical property based on sales data and instead require that such property be valued by a prescribed income capitalization method.

ENFORCEABLY RESTRICTED HISTORICAL PROPERTY
Under section 439, historical property is "enforceably restricted" if it meets the definition of a "qualified historical property" as defined in Government Code section 50280.1 and is subject to a historical property contract executed pursuant to Government Code section 50280 and following.

A qualified historical property includes qualified historical improvements and the land on which the improvements are situated, as specified in the historical property contract. If the contract does not specify the land to be included, the qualified historical property includes only a land area of reasonable size to situate the improvements.

A qualified historical property is privately-owned property that is not exempt from property taxation and that also meets either of the following criteria:
• The property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, or is located within a registered historic district; or
1 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Revenue and Taxation Code.

Attachment 5
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 222
2 • The property is listed in any official state, county, city, or city and county official register of historical or architecturally significant sites, places or landmarks, including the California Register of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks, State Points of Historical Interest, local landmarks, and local survey listings of historical properties.

The historical property contract must have a minimum term of ten years, and, as applicable, must contain certain other elements, including the following:
• A provision relating to the preservation of the qualified historical property and, when necessary, the restoration and rehabilitation of the property in conformance with state historic preservation guidelines;
• A requirement for the periodic examination of the property to ensure compliance with the agreement;
• A requirement that the historical property agreement be binding upon successor owners of the qualified historical property; and
• A provision for an automatic one-year extension of the contract, with an additional year added to the initial contract term on each anniversary of the contract, unless either party provides notice of nonrenewal. If a notice of nonrenewal is given, the contract runs for its remaining term.

Once a contract is signed, accepted, and recorded, the property subject to the contract must be assessed under section 439.2 on the ensuing lien date. For example, if a contract were recorded in August 2004, the property should have been valued pursuant to section 439.2 for lien date January 1, 2005.

Local authorities may cancel a historical property agreement for breach of contract or failure to protect the historical property. Alternatively, the local entity may take legal action to enforce the contract.

ASSESSMENT
The assessment of an enforceably restricted historical property involves the following aspects:
(1) valuing the restricted historical property; (2) properly applying certain assessment provisions relating to article XIII A of the California Constitution (Prop 13); (3) valuing the restricted historical property following a notice of nonrenewal; and (4) valuing the restricted historical property following cancellation of the contract.

Valuing the Restricted Historical Property
Section 439.2 prohibits the assessor from using sales data relating to similar properties, whether or not enforceably restricted, to value an enforceably restricted historical property. Instead, the assessor must annually value a restricted historical property using an income approach that Attachment 5
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 223
3 follows the specific provisions of section 439.2. These provisions explicitly address (1) the determination of the income to be capitalized, (2) the development of the capitalization rate, (3) the capitalization technique to be used, and (4) the determination of the restricted historical property's taxable value on each lien date.

Income to be Capitalized
As provided in section 439.2(a), the income to be capitalized when valuing a restricted historical property is the property's fair rent less allowed expenditures, or allowed expenses. In general, section 439.2(a) follows Property Tax Rule 8(c), with fair rent in section 439.2 corresponding to gross return in Rule 8(c); allowed expenditures, or allowed expenses, in section 439.2 corresponding to gross outgo in Rule 8(c); and the income to be capitalized in section 439.2 corresponding to net return in Rule 8(c). In addition, for the purposes here, "gross income" is synonymous with fair rent, and "net operating income" is synonymous with the income to be capitalized.

The parties to a historical property agreement may stipulate a minimum annual income to be capitalized, in which case the income to be capitalized may not be less than the stipulated amount.

Fair rent, or gross income. The gross income of a restricted historical property is the fair rent for the property considering the restrictions on the property's use. When establishing the fair rent for a restricted historical property, the appraiser should consider the actual rent and typical rents in the area for similar properties in similar use, where the owner pays the property taxes.

The actual rent received by the owner of the subject restricted historical property is relevant to an estimate of fair market rent only if the actual rent is the same rent that would be expected if the existing lease were renegotiated in light of current market conditions, including the subject property's enforceable restrictions on use. With respect to rents from similar, or comparable, properties, if such rents are from properties outside the geographic or market area of the subject property, or from properties that are otherwise dissimilar to the subject property, the rents may not be relevant to an estimate of the subject property's fair rent.

Comparable rental data for single-family residences can be obtained from real estate brokers, rental agencies, and newspaper ads. Many assessors offices maintain rental data for commercial properties, and this data may be helpful when establishing the fair rent for restricted historical property when the contract allows a commercial use. Rental data for commercial property also can be obtained from commercial real estate brokers. For the purpose of estimating anticipated market fair rent and expenditures for use in calculating the subject property's value, rental and expense data for existing restricted historical properties, including the subject historical property, can be obtained through an annual questionnaire sent to property owners.

If sufficient rental data are not available, or such data are unreliable, the appraiser must impute a gross income for the subject restricted historical property. The imputed income should be based on what an informed investor would reasonably expect the property to yield under prudent management, given the provisions under which the property is enforceably restricted.

Attachment 5
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 224
4 Allowed expenditures. Section 439.2(a)(3) defines allowed expenditures, or allowed expenses, as expenses necessary for the maintenance of the property's income. Allowed expenses are the same as those permitted in Property Tax Rule 8(c).

Typical expenses include the cost of utilities, maintenance and repair, insurance and property management. Allowed expenses also may include amounts owing for special assessments and special taxes. Expenses related to debt service, general property taxes, and depreciation should not be deducted.

In general, to arrive at the net income to be capitalized, allowed expenses are subtracted from the estimated rental income. However, in order to properly process the income, the appraiser must be aware of the structure of the lease with regard to how expenses are shared between the landlord-owner and the tenant.

The proper perspective from which to view the processing of income and expenses is that of the landlord-owner. The objective is to estimate the net income to the landlord-owner—this is the amount that should be capitalized—and the correct question to ask is the following: What, if any, allowed expenses must the landlord-owner pay out of the rental income that he or she receives?
In a gross lease, almost all of the allowed expenses must be paid out of the gross rent and, therefore, must be subtracted from the gross rent to arrive at the net income to be capitalized. In a net lease, relatively few allowed expenses must be paid by the landlord-owner out of the net rent (because the tenant pays most expenses) and only these expenses should be subtracted from the net rent to arrive at the net income to be capitalized. Frequently, there is a hybrid arrangement—some expenses are paid by the landlord-owner and some by the tenant. How expenses are shared often depends upon the property type together with local conventions.

Income to be capitalized, or net operating income. The income to be capitalized, or net operating income, is simply the fair rent, or gross income, described above less the allowed expenditures described above.

Capitalization Rate
The method of developing the capitalization rate to be used when valuing restricted historical property is prescribed by statute; a capitalization rate derived from sales data or the band of investment is not permitted.

Section 439.2 prescribes two types of capitalization rates for restricted historical property: (1) a capitalization rate to be used when valuing restricted historical property that is an owneroccupied single-family residence and (2) a capitalization rate to be used when valuing all other restricted historical property. Both types of capitalization rates include components for interest (i.e., yield), risk, property taxes, and amortization of improvements; in fact, the two rates are identical except for the amount of the risk component. The capitalization rate contains the following components:

Attachment 5
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 225
5 • An interest component annually determined by the State Board of Equalization and based on the effective rate on conventional mortgages as determined by the Federal Housing Finance Board. The interest component is announced annually, in a Letter To Assessors, by October 1 of the preceding assessment year.
• A historical property risk component determined by property type. For owner-occupied single-family residences, the rate is 4 percent; for all other types of restricted historical property, the rate is 2 percent.
• An amortization component for improvements defined as a percentage equal to the reciprocal of the remaining life of the improvements (e.g., if the remaining economic life of the improvements were 20 years, the amortization component would be 5 percent). Since the amortization component applies only to improvements, not to land, which is a nondepreciating asset, it is necessary to adjust the amortization component described in the statute. We recommend the following method of adjustment:

1. Based upon market data, estimate the percentage of total property value attributable to improvements.

2. Multiply this percentage by the amortization component described in the statute (i.e., by the reciprocal of the remaining life of the improvements). For example, if the remaining life of the improvements was 20 years, yielding a reciprocal percentage of 5 percent, and if 70 percent of the total property value was attributable to the improvements, the adjusted amortization factor would be 3.5 percent (0.05 x 0.70 =

0.035).

3. Add the adjusted amortization component to the other capitalization rate components to arrive at the total capitalization rate.
• A property taxes component equal to the percentage of the estimated total tax rate applicable to the property for the assessment year multiplied by the assessment ratio. Typically, the property tax component includes the basic tax rate of 1 percent plus an additional ad valorem rate related to any bonded indebtedness pertaining to the tax rate area in which the property is located. Special district assessments and special taxes are not included in the property tax component. As noted above, they should be treated as allowed expenses.

Capitalization Technique
The capitalization technique to be used when valuing a restricted historical property is prescribed by statute and is formulaic. Section 439.2(e) provides that the restricted value shall be the income to be capitalized, or net operating income, developed as prescribed by statute, divided by one of the two types of capitalization rates prescribed by statute. In other words, the restricted value is the simple quotient of the prescribed income to be capitalized and the prescribed capitalization rate.

Attachment 5
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 226
6 Determination of Taxable Value on Each Lien Date
Section 439.2(d) provides that a historical property's restricted value may not be enrolled if it exceeds either (1) the value of the subject property as determined under section 110 (i.e., current market value) or (2) the value of the subject property as determined under section 110.1 (i.e., factored base year value). In other words, section 439.2 states that the taxable value of a restricted historical property on each lien date shall be the lowest of its restricted value, current market value, or factored base year value. The factored base year value for an enforceably restricted historical property is the value that was established for the 1975 lien date2 or as of the date of the most recent change in ownership, whichever is later, adjusted by the annual inflation factor.

Article XIII A (Prop 13) Considerations
This section discusses how three important elements relating to implementation of article XIII A—change in ownership, new construction, and supplemental assessment—relate to the assessment of restricted historical property. Also discussed is the case in which only a portion of a property is subject to the historical property agreement—that is, the case in which a single property unit contains both restricted and unrestricted portions.

Change in Ownership
When a property subject to a historical property contract undergoes a change in ownership, a new base year value should be established for the property as of the date of change in ownership, as provided in section 110.1. Typically, a restricted historical property's base year value will be greater than its restricted value determined under section 439.2 and hence will not be enrolled as the property's taxable value. However, the establishment of a new base year value enables the assessor to perform the three-way value comparison prescribed by section 439.2(d) and described above. The establishment of a base year value is also necessary in order to calculate the assessed values of historical property should the historical property agreement enter nonrenewal status.

New Construction
Section IV of National Register Bulletin #15 defines a "building" as follows:

A building, such as a house, barn, church, hotel, or similar construction, is created principally to shelter any form of human activity. "Building" may also be used to refer to a historically and functionally related unit, such as a courthouse and jail or a house and barn.

Section IV further specifies that "[b]uildings eligible for the National Register must include all of their basic structural elements. Parts of buildings, such as interiors, facades, or wings, are not eligible independent of the rest of the existing building. The whole building must be considered, 2 Sections 110.1(d) and 405.5 do not apply to historical properties under contract as of lien date 1975 because the constitutional amendment which placed the valuation of historical property under article XIII rather than article XIII A had not yet been passed and, thus, was not in effect for the 1975 lien date.

Attachment 5
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 227
7 and its significant features must be identified." Thus, eligibility for the National Register is determined by the extent to which the basic structural elements of an existing building are intact.

In general, a newly constructed building would not be eligible because it is not an existing building with basic structural elements.3
Also, a newly constructed building is not a historic resource, and, thus, is not a qualified historical property within the meaning of Government Code section 50280.1. For example, a newly constructed detached garage (assuming it is not a reconstruction of a historical garage) clearly would not be eligible because it has no significance in American history or architecture, nor does it meet any of the other requisite criteria.

Bulletin 15, however, does list one type of newly constructed property that may be eligible for inclusion under the Mills Act. A reconstructed historic building is eligible for the National Register if the reconstruction is "accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived."
The historical property contract typically specifies the scope and type of any work to be performed on the historical improvements. Improvements existing as of the date of the contract would be subject to the provisions of section 439.2 unless specifically excluded by the contract.

Any new construction made to the historical structure after the issuing date of the contract would not be subject to the provisions of section 439.2 unless specifically included in the contract or an amendment to the contract. Any questions regarding new construction to enforceably restricted historical structures should be directed to the counsel of the legislative body of the city, county, or city and county that contracted with the property owner.

Assuming that the newly constructed property is subject to the historical property contract, a base year value should be established for the newly constructed portion and this value added to the factored base year value of the existing restricted property.

In some cases, an existing historical property may include a portion that is restricted (i.e., subject to a historical property contract) and a portion that is unrestricted. In this case, separate factored base year values should be maintained for the restricted and unrestricted portions and the base year value of any newly constructed property added to the appropriate portion. The assessment treatment of this type of property is discussed further below.

Supplemental Assessment
Although the assessor is required to establish a new base year value upon a change in ownership or completed new construction involving restricted historical property, such property is not subject to supplemental assessment. As provided in Revenue and Taxation Code section 75.14:

Supplemental assessment; limitation. A supplemental assessment pursuant to this chapter shall not be made for any property not subject to the assessment 3 National Register Bulletin 15, "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation," U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/).

Attachment 5
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 228
8 limitations of Article XIII A of the California Constitution. All property subject to the assessment limitations of Article XIII A of the California Constitution shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter, except as otherwise provided in this article.

As discussed above, the assessment of enforceably restricted historical property is subject to the provisions of article XIII, section 8 of the California Constitution, not article XIII A. Thus, section 75.14 precludes the assessor from enrolling supplemental assessments for enforceably restricted historical property.

Historical property not yet under contract that undergoes a change in ownership or new construction is subject to supplemental assessment, even if the property owner later executes a historical property contract in the same fiscal year. Also, any new construction involving a historical property that does not come under the existing historical property contract (e.g., a detached garage added to a restricted historical property) would be subject to supplemental assessment.

When a Property Contains Both Restricted and Unrestricted Portions When only a portion of a property that would normally be considered a single appraisal unit is restricted by a historical property contract, the assessed value should be determined by making a comparison of three values, determined as follows. First, the portion under contract should be valued using the capitalization method prescribed by section 439.2. Added to this figure should be the lower of the unrestricted portion's fair market value or factored base year value. The resulting sum should be compared to both the fair market value and the factored base year value of the entire property (i.e., both restricted and unrestricted portions) and the lowest of the three figures should be enrolled.

Valuing Property Under Notice of Nonrenewal
As provided in Government Code section 50282, either the owner of a restricted historical property or the local government entity may serve notice that it does not intend to renew the historical property contract. If such notice is not given, another year is automatically added to the term of the initial contract, thus creating a "rolling" contract term that is always equal to the initial contract term.

Section 439.3 prescribes the valuation method for a restricted historical property in nonrenewal status; this valuation method applies until the end of the restricted period (i.e., until the existing contract expires). In essence, the method results in a restricted value that gradually approaches the historical property's factored base year value as the remaining term under the contract decreases. For a property in nonrenewal status, the assessor must annually value the property as follows:

1. Determine the full cash value (i.e., factored base year value) of the property in accordance with section 110.1. (Alternatively, if the property will not be subject to section 110.1 when the historical property agreement expires, determine its fair market value in accordance with Attachment 5
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 229
9 section 110, as if the property were free of the agreement's restrictions; or, if the property will be subject to another type of restricted value standard when the historical property agreement expires, determine the property's value as if it were subject to the new restrictions.)

2. Determine the restricted value of the property by the capitalization of income method provided in section 439.2.

3. Subtract the restricted value determined in Step 2 from the factored base year (or other) value determined in Step 1.

4. Using the amount for the interest rate component (section 439.2(b)(1)) announced by the Board, discount the amount obtained in Step 3 for the number of years remaining until the termination of the contract.

5. Determine the restricted value of the property in nonrenewal status by adding the value determined in Step 2 to the amount obtained in Step 4.

The historical property's restricted value in nonrenewal status—that is, the value determined above, in accordance with section 439.3—should be compared with the historical property's factor base year and current market values, and the lowest of these three values should be enrolled as the property's taxable value.

Cancellation of Contract
The government entity party to a historical property contract may cancel the contract, after notice and a public hearing, if it determines that either the owner has breached the agreement or the property has deteriorated to the extent that it no longer meets the standards of a historical property. If the contract is cancelled, the property owner must pay a cancellation fee equal to 12½ percent of the property's current fair market value as though free of the contractual restriction, such value to be determined by the county assessor. After a contract is cancelled, the lower of the property's factored base year value or current market value should be enrolled for the ensuing lien date.

SUMMARY
The key points contained in these guidelines can be summarized as follows:

1. An owner of qualified historical property may enter into a preservation contract with local government. When property is placed under such a contract, the owner agrees to restore the property if necessary, maintain its historic character, and use it in a manner compatible with its historic characteristics. Such property receives the special valuation treatment prescribed under Revenue and Taxation Code sections 439 through 439.4.

2. Enforceably restricted historical property is to be annually valued by the income capitalization method prescribed in section 439.2, which contains specific instructions with Attachment 5
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 230
10 regard to the income to be capitalized, the capitalization rate, and the capitalization technique to be used. The restricted value must be compared to the property's current market value and factored base year value, with the lowest of these three values enrolled as the property's taxable value.

3. When assessing restricted historical property, the appraiser should consider how three important elements of article XIII A—change in ownership, new construction, and supplemental assessment—relate to the assessment. The appraiser should consider how a property should be assessed when only a portion of it is subject to a historical property agreement.

4. Restricted historical property under a notice of nonrenewal should be valued in accordance with section 439.3.

5. The government entity party to a historical property contract may cancel the contract. The cancellation fee is 12½ percent of the property's current fair market value as though free of the contractual restriction, with such value to be determined by the local assessor.

Additional information about Mills Act contracts may be obtained from the state Office of Historic Preservation, either by telephone at 916-653-6624, or from their website (www.ohp.parks.ca.gov).
(Note: Please see the assessment examples following.)
Attachment 5
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 231
Historical Property Valuation Examples Page 1
EXAMPLE 1 (OWNER-OCCUPIED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE)
Subject Restricted Historical Property
Restored, 105-year-old, Victorian single-family residence. Excellent condition. Under Mills Act contract since 1985 and not in nonrenewal status. Owner-occupied.

Determination of Restricted Value (current lien date)
Gross income (Fair rent)
$1,500 per month x 12 months = $18,000
Less: Anticipated vacancy and collection loss
$18,000 x 5% - 900
Effective gross income $17,100
Less: Anticipated operating expenses
Grounds maintenance $600
Fire insurance 400
Management Fee 360
Water and garbage 240
Building maintenance + 500 - 2,100
Net Operating Income $15,000
Restricted Capitalization Rate
Rate Components:

Interest rate .080
Risk (owner-occupied SFR) .040
Property tax (ad valorem) .015
Amortization (50-year remaining life; improvements
constitute 70% of total property market value;

0.02 x 0.70 – 0.014) + .014 .149
Restricted Value
$15,000 ÷ .149 = $100,671
Taxable Value—Three-Way Value Comparison
Restricted value $100,671
Factored base year value (based on prior change in ownership) $357,000 Current market value (based on comparable sales) $450,000 The lowest of the three possible values is the restricted value. Thus, the net taxable value would be $93,671 ($100,671 restricted value less the homeowners' exemption of $7,000).

Note 1: If this property had been a non-owner-occupied SFR, the only difference in the determination of the restricted value would have been the use of a risk rate component of 2% rather than 4% in the capitalization rate.

Note 2: In this and the following examples, the gross income, or fair rent, is presented on a gross rent basis, that is, under the assumption that the landlord-owner pays all operating expenses out of the gross income.

Attachment 5
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 232
Historical Property Valuation Examples Page 2
EXAMPLE 2 (OFFICE USE)
Subject Restricted Historical Property
Multi-tenant, restored historical office building in a downtown commercial district. Under Mills Act contract since 1985 and not in nonrenewal status.

Determination of Restricted Value (current lien date)
Gross Income (Fair rent):

Offices 140,000 sf @ $1.75/sf = $245,000
x 12 months = $2,940,000
Less: Anticipated vacancy and collection loss
$2,940,000 x 5% - 147,000
Effective gross income $2,793,000
Less: Anticipated operating expenses
Management $290,000
Maintenance 95,000
Insurance 75,000
Utilities 360,000
Janitorial + 140,000 - 960,000
Net Operating Income $1,833,000
Restricted Capitalization Rate
Rate Components:

Interest component .08
Risk .02
Property tax (ad valorem) .011
Amortization (50-year remaining life; improvements
constitute 75% of total property market value

0.02 x 0.75 = 0.015) + .015 .126
Restricted Value
($1,833,000 ÷ .126) = $14,547,619
Taxable Value—Three-Way Value Comparison
Restricted value $14,547,619
Factored base year value (based on prior change in ownership) $18,191,077 Current market value (based on comparable sales) $21,000,000 The lowest of the three possible values is the restricted value. Thus, the taxable value would be $14,547,619
Attachment 5
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 233
Historical Property Valuation Examples Page 3
EXAMPLE 3 (MIXED USE—RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE)
Subject Restricted Historical Property
Two-story, restored historical property in a downtown district. Upper level is residential unit occupied by owner. Lower level contains three office spaces subject to short-term rental agreements. The income stream for the upstairs unit must be calculated separately from the downstairs unit because the risk rate is different for the owner-occupied unit.

Determination of Restricted Value
Separate restricted values for the upper-level residence and the lower-level office space must be determined, because the risk components are different for restricted value is sum of these two values.

Upper-Level Unit
Gross income (Fair rent) based upon comparable rent data the two types of use. The total
$975 per month x 12 months = $11,700
Less: Anticipated vacancy and collection loss
$11,700 x 5% - 585
Effective gross income
Less: Anticipated operating expenses
Grounds maintenance $300
$11,115
Fire insurance 200
Management Fee 180
Water and garbage 120
Building maintenance + 250 - 1,050
Upper-Level Net Operating Income $10,065
Restricted Capitalization Rate (owner-occupied SFR)
Rate components:

Interest rate .080
Risk .040
Property tax .010
Amortization ( 50-year remaining life; improvements
constitute 70% of total property market value;

0.02 x 0.70 = 0.014) + .014 .144
Upper-level Restricted Value ($10,065 ÷ .144) = $69,895 Lower-Level Offices
Gross income (Fair rent)
1000 sf @ $1.60/sf = $1,600 x 12 months $19,200
Less: Anticipated vacancy and collection loss
$19,200 x 5% - 960
Effective gross income $18,240
Attachment 5
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 234
Historical Property Valuation Examples Page 4
Less: Anticipated operating expenses
Grounds maintenance $300
Fire insurance 200
Management Fee 180
Water and garbage 120
Building maintenance + 250 - 1,050
Lower-Level Net Operating Income $17,190
Restricted Capitalization Rate
Rate components:

Interest component .080
Risk .020
Property tax .010
Amortization (50-year remaining life; improvements
constitute 70% of total property market value;

0.02 x 0.70 = 0.014) + .014 .124
Lower Level Restricted Value ($17,190 ÷ .124) $138,629
Add: Upper Level Restricted Value + $69,895
Total Restricted Value $208,524
Taxable Value—Three-Way Value Comparison
Restricted Value $208,524
Factored base year value (based upon prior change in ownership) $364,140 Current market value (based upon comparable sales data) $400,000 The lowest of the three possible values is the restricted value. Thus, the net taxable value would be $201,524 ($208,524 less the homeowners' exemption of $7,000).

Attachment 5
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 235
Historical Property Valuation Examples Page 5
EXAMPLE 4 (MIXED VALUATION—PART RESTRICTED AND PARTUNRESTRICTED) Description of Subject Property (Comprises Both Restricted and UnrestrictedPortions) The subject property is a 10-acre parcel with a farmhouse and barn situated on 2 acres; the remaining 8 acres are farmland. The farmhouse and barn are used as an owner-occupied singlefamily residence; this portion of the property is restricted remaining 8 acres of farmland are unrestricted.

Value of Restricted Portion (current lien date)
Gross income (Fair rent) for farmhouse and barn
under a Mills Act contract. The
$2,000 per month x 12 months = $24,000
Less: Anticipated vacancy and collection loss
$24,000 x 5% - 1,200
Effective gross income $22,800
Less: Anticipated operating expenses
Grounds maintenance $600
Fire insurance 400
Management Fee 360
Water and garbage 240
Building maintenance + 500 - 2,100
Net Operating Income = $20,700
Restricted Capitalization Rate
Rate components:

Interest component .080
Risk (owner-occupied) .040
Property tax (ad valorem) .010
Amortization (50-year remaining life; improvements
constitute 70% of total property market value

0.02 x 0.70 = 0.014) + .014 .144
Restricted Value ($20,700 ÷ .144) = $143,750
Taxable Value—Three-Way Comparison
Total Property Restricted Value (sum of restricted value above and lower of FBYV or current market value of unrestricted portion)
Restricted Value (portion under contract) $143,750
FBYV (unrestricted portion) + $102,000
Restricted Value (total property) $245,750
Factored base year values (based upon a prior change in ownership of the entire property, allocated between restricted and unrestricted portions):

Farmhouse, barn, and 2 acres (restricted portion) $204,000 8 acres (unrestricted portion) + $102,000
Total FBYV (total property) $306,000
Attachment 5
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 236
Historical Property Valuation Examples Page 6
Current market values (based upon comparable sales data):

Farmhouse, barn, and 2 acres (restricted portion) $230,000 8 acres (unrestricted portion) + $120,000
Total Current Market Value (total property) $350,000
The lowest of the three values is the Restricted Value (total property), $245,750. Thus, the net taxable value would be $238,750 ($245,750 less $7,000 homeowners' exemption).

Attachment 5
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 237
Historical Property Valuation Examples Page 7
EXAMPLE 5 (PROPERTY IN NONRENEWALSTATUS)
Description of Subject Restricted Historical Property
The same property as in Example 2, except the property owner has served notice of nonrenewal.

The Mills Act contract covering the property was originally executed in September 1995, and the owner served notice of nonrenewal in June 2004. Value the property for the 2005 lien date, reflecting its nonrenewal status. Assume that the property's restricted, current market, and factored base year values from Example 2, provided below, also refer to January 1, 2005.

Restricted value $14,547,619
Current market value $21,000,000
Factored base year value $18,191,077
Restricted Value in Nonrenewal Status
Value as if unrestricted (factored base year value) $18,191,077 Restricted value - 14,547,619
Difference $ 3,643,458
Present worth of difference
PW1 @ 6.00 %, 9 years (interest component for lien date 2005) x .591898 Plus restricted value
= $ 2,156,555
+ $14,547,619
Restricted value in nonrenewal status—lien date January 1, 2005 $16,704,174 Taxable Value
Since the restricted value in nonrenewal status, $16,704,174, is less than either the property's current market value or its factored base year value, this is the taxable value.

Attachment 5
Item 7.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 238

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Glorietta Bay Marina Berthing Slip Fees

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution “Adopting a Berthing Slip Fee Structure for the Glorietta Bay Marina”.

BACKGROUND
The City of Coronado (City) controls Glorietta Bay Marina, a 100-slip marina in Port of San Diego Tidelands, adjacent to City Hall. Since 2001, Glorietta Bay Marina (the Marina) has been managed by California Yacht Marina (CYM) for the City. This management responsibility entails managing slip rentals, waitlists, rental fee collection and remittance, and general maintenance.

Berthing slips range in sizes from 20’ to 110’. The slips are continuously rented and CYM maintains a waitlist of interested parties. Slip fees were last holistically modified by the City Council in July 2013. An annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment is applied in July, as set forth in Council Resolution No. 8616 (July 2013). Every five years a market study of comparable marinas is conducted to ensure that the Marina’s slip fees do not exceed the market average. There has been no adjustment to align the slip fees with the market in 12 years.

CYM conducted a market study in August 2025, examining berthing slip fees for 13 comparable marinas in the San Diego Bay region. The study showed that for the smaller classes of slip length, GB Marina’s rates are consistent with the regional average, indicating the annual CPI adjustments kept pace with the market. In contrast, for the larger slips, the market outpaced CPI, and the Marina’s rates are approximately 34-36% less than the market average.

August 2025 Berthing Fee Comparison of San Diego Bay Area Marinas Slip
Length
Category
Glorietta Bay
Marina Rate ($)*
San Diego Bay Area
Average Rate ($)*
Difference from
Avg in Dollars ($)
Difference from
Avg as a Percent
20’ 20.15 19.89 0.26 1.32%
22’ 20.15 19.96 0.19 0.96%
25’ 20.15 22.12 -1.97 -8.89%
30’ 23.62 26.02 -2.4 -9.23%
32’ 23.62 25.94 -2.32 -8.96%
34’ 23.62 27.47 -3.85 -14.02%
40’ 25.00 28.90 -3.90 -13.49%
50’ 27.78 33.44 -5.66 -16.94%
60’ 27.78 40.63 -12.85 -31.62%
70’ 31.96 42.25 -10.29 -24.36%
106’ 35.44 52.40 -16.96 -32.36%
110’ 35.44 55.05 -19.61 -35.62%
*Rates are calculated per lineal foot by vessel size. These are monthly rates.

Item 7.c
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 239
In early 2025, CYM administered a satisfaction survey to slip holders, which yielded very high positives about the Marina experience. Most respondents indicated the berthing experience as “excellent”. Other respondents indicated a “very good” or “good” experience. No respondents reported a “fair” or “poor” experience. The highest rated feature was location with other positives of price and marina quality. The Marina continues to be highly desirable.

ANALYSIS
After conducting the market comparison, CYM developed a recommended slip fee structure to bring fees to the current market average. The effect of this adjustment on slip holders varies based upon slip length, as shown in the preceding table. The proposal to align fees to the market average includes implementation over three years, to lessen the single-year impact. The result will be a step-up in slip fees over three years, by one-third of the total increase plus annual CPI in the second and third years. For slips that are at the market average currently, there is no rate adjustment and only annual CPI will be factored. New slip holders will be charged the new rates.

The following table shows the proposed December 2025 fee change to the market average. The fees are categorized by slip size, and organized into new ranges:

Proposed Berthing Slip Fees (December 2025)
Per Foot Slip Rate by Length Category
20’-24’ 25-28’ 29’-33’ 34-37’ 38-45’ 46’-55’ 56-65’ 66-80’ 81’-109’ 110’-120’ $20.15 $22.12 $26.02 $27.47 $28.90 $33.44 $40.63 $42.25 $52.40 $55.05 A three-year implementation is recommended for current slip holders to smooth the rate increases. For 2025, 2026 and 2027, one-third of the rate increase will be applied. CPI will be applied in years 2026 and 2027 (and thereafter). The following table illustrates this three-year implementation, with an assumed

2.5% CPI. The actual slip fees in 2026 and 2027 will vary based upon contemporary CPI.

Year 20’-24’ 25-28’ 29’-33’ 34-37’ 38-45’ 46’-55’ 56-65’ 66-80’ 81’- 109’
110’-
120’
2025 $20.15 $20.80 $24.41 $24.89 $26.29 $29.65 $32.02 $35.36 $41.04 $41.91 2026 $20.65 $21.97 $25.82 $26.80 $28.24 $32.28 $37.10 $39.67 $47.71 $49.49 2027 $21.17 $23.18 $27.27 $28.75 $30.25 $34.97 $42.30 $44.09 $54.55 $57.25 For future years, the automatic annual CPI adjustment is recommended to continue. In addition, a regular market study is a best practice to ensure fees align with the market average and keeps pace with escalating costs. It is recommended that this commence in 2028, to allow for any true-up between existing and new customers after full implementation of the phased-in rates, and every five years thereafter.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Marina’s net revenue is deposited in the City’s Coronado Tidelands Fund, a separate fund maintained for the management and stewardship of the Marina and adjacent facilities in Glorietta Bay Port Tidelands. The fund pays for a monthly concession payment to the Port of San Diego (10-11% of revenues), CYM’s Marina management services, utilities, and maintenance activities. In addition, the Item 7.c
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 240
Fund accrues savings for significant future capital projects at the Marina. The dock system and components are in good condition currently but will require replacement in the coming decades. The City’s goal is to reserve funds to meet this future obligation. Currently, Marina slip rental revenues are budgeted at $1.4 million in the FY 2025-26 Budget. Modifying the berthing slip fee structure will have a positive effect, spread across several years, with actual impact dependent on the rental occupancy and length of vessels.

ALTERNATIVE
The City Council may decline to adopt the recommended fee structure, may modify the free structure or implementation plan, or direct staff to develop and return with alternatives or additional information.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
This action is not subject to CEQA.

PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was published in the September 17, 2025 Coronado Eagle Journal. Letters dated September 15, 2025 were mailed to all Glorietta Bay Marina slip holders to notify them of the proposed slip fees changes and the opportunity to participate in the October 7, 2025 public hearing. As is customary, California Yacht Marina will notify all slip holders of the approved fee change 30 days in advance of implementation.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 2025-52

2. August 2025 Glorietta Bay Marina Berthing Slip Market Fee Study

3. Coronado City Council Resolution No. 8616
Submitted By: City Manager's Office / Tina Friend
Item 7.c
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 241
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-52

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CORONADO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTNG A BERTHING SLIP

FEE STRUCTURE FOR THE GLORIETTA BAY MARINA
WHEREAS, the City of Coronado (the “City”) is a municipal cooperation of the State of California, organized under the general law of the State of California, as defined by Government Code Section 34102 (the “Law”); and
WHEREAS, the City, in accordance with the Law, is empowered to own, rent, manage, operate and repair real property within a project area; and WHEREAS, the City controls certain land and water area and related improvements and personal property, referred to as the Glorietta Bay Marina (the “Marina”) located in the City of Coronado, California; and WHEREAS, in June 2001, the former Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado (“CDA”) contracted with California Yacht Marina—Chula Vista, LLC to serve as the Manager/Agent of the Marina, which contractual agreement was approved by the City in 2012, re-awarded after a competitive bid in 2018, and extended in 2023 for a term to expire in 2028; and
WHEREAS, the Manager/Agent, as a representative of the City, provides certain services necessary to administering the slip rental agreements for vessels located within the Marina; and
WHEREAS, the Manager/Agent conducted a berthing slip market study of comparable marinas in the San Diego Bay region and has recommended an appropriate rate structure consistent with current market conditions; and WHEREAS, the City is exercising its sole prerogative to establish the berthing slip fees for the customers of the Marina, and desires to adjust the berthing slip fee monthly rate structure to sustain operations and create appropriate reserves for the replacement of the dock structures and related facilities and equipment; and WHEREAS, this Resolution supersedes Resolution No. 8616 adopted on July 16, 2013.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Coronado hereby establishes that the adjusted berthing slip monthly rate structure for Marina slip occupants is set pursuant to the following “per foot rate by length” categories as follows:

Item 7.c
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 242
Attachment 1
Proposed Monthly Berthing Slip Fees (Effective December 1, 2025) Per Foot Slip Rate by Length Category
20’-24’ 25-28’ 29’-33’ 34-37’ 38-45’ 46’-55’ 56-65’ 66-80’ 81’-109’ 110’-120’ $20.15 $22.12 $26.02 $27.47 $28.90 $33.44 $40.63 $42.25 $52.40 $55.05 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager/Agent of the Marina is hereby authorized and directed to implement the new berthing slip fee structure for new customers, and implement a three-year phase in of the new fees for existing customers to occur across 2025 to 2027 to reach full implementation.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED beginning December 1, 2026 and on the first day of December thereafter, the berthing slip fees for each slip category, for new and existing customers, shall be automatically increased by the contemporary Annual Average Consumer Price Index for the San Diego Region.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in 2028 and every five-years thereafter, the Manager/Agent of the Marina will conduct a market study and recommend any rate modifications to ensure that the Marina’s slip fee rate structure aligns with the mean of the market for comparable San Diego Bay region marinas.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, this seventh day of October 2025 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
____________________________________
JOHN D. DUNCAN, Mayor of the
City of Coronado, California
ATTEST:
__________________________________
KELSEA HOLIAN, City Clerk of the
City of Coronado, California
Item 7.c
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 243

GLORIETTA BAY MARINA

PROPOSED BERTHING RATE INCREASE
Effective 12/2025
August 26, 2025
Dear Ms. Friend,
Pursuant to Resolution #8616, as Manager/Agent of Glorietta Bay Marina (GBM), California Yacht Marina is authorized and directed to implement the berthing slip fee monthly rate structure as approved by the City Council of the City of Coronado, effective July 1, 2013. The City Council also resolved that beginning July 1, 2014, and on the first day of each July thereafter, the slip berthing fee rates shall be automatically increased by the prior calendar year’s Annual Average Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Diego Region. Further, Beginning April 1, 2019, and every five years thereafter, a market survey shall be conducted by CYM to affirm that the prevailing GBM slip fee rate structure does not exceed the mean of the market for slip fee rate structures of marinas operating in the San Diego Bay Region.

The slip fees at GBM have been increased using the above methodology for several years. While GBM’s slip fees have increased by CPI escalations each year, those increases have not kept pace with the increase of slip fees at other San Diego Bay Marinas. Low inflation as marinas continued to raise their rates based on demand led to the disparity between GBM and “marketplace slip fees” for San Diego Bay and has reached the point that a reset of base slip fees is warranted. The disparity escalates as the slip sizes increase, ranging from 9% to 35% below market averages.

Further, we recommend that slip fees be established in the context of those marinas in San Diego Bay that are comparable to GBM as to location, amenities and quality of marina facility. It should be noted that Resolution #8616 provides that slip fees should be adjusted based on CPI fluctuation and not to exceed the average/mean slip fees of San Diego Bay marinas with no consideration as to when GBM slip fees fall below the average due to CPI not keeping pace with the marketplace.

It is our understanding that the City Council of the City of Coronado’s approval is required as our proposed increases do not follow the guidelines as set forth in Resolution #8616. Going forward and assuming there will be a slip fee reset in 2025, we recommend that the methodology of Resolution #8616 remain for an annual CPI adjustment, with the modification that provides for a five (5) year reset based on actual average/mean of relevant San Diego Bay marinas or CPI, whichever is greater The differences between GBM current slip fees and the average for San Diego Bay marinas are significant, especially for larger size slips. We suggest that the new fees for existing customers be phased in over three (3) years, bringing them up to San Diego Bay marina averages and adjusted by annual CPI escalation.

Proposed Slip Berthing Fee Adjustment.

It is proposed that over a three (3) year period slip fees be brought up to August 2025 San Diego Bay marinas average slip fees. In addition, we recommend an additional adjustment based on CPI escalations Attachment 2
Item 7.c
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 244

for years two (2) and three (3). Further, we recommend current slip fee categories be amended based on GBM slip sizes to provide greater distinction and equitable pricing. Current GBM slip fees for 20’ and 22’ slips are already at San Diego Bay marina averages and do not require adjustment in year one (1).

Additionally, as the August 2025 Berthing Fee Comparison attached below highlights, Loews Crown Isle’s rates for 20’, 22’ and 25’ vessels appear to be significant outliers when compared to other marinas and were not utilized in the calculation of San Diego Bay marina averages for these slip sizes.

For new customers post City Council approval, we recommend that their rates be based on August 2025 Average San Diego Bay Rates. Effective December 2025, new customer fee schedule will be based on rate by length categories as present in the following graph. Thereafter, their slip fees would be adjusted by CPI escalation in December of the following years.

The following table provides details as to how proposed rates were calculated:

Consumer Price Index – San Diego, CA
The United States Department of Labor via the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers for the San Diego, CA area with the Base Period of 1982-84 = 100 was greater year end 2024 than the previous year. The index for 2023 is 362.022 versus 373.321 for 2024. Accordingly, Current Customers
Year 20'-24' 25'-28' 29'-33' 34'-37' 38'-45' 46'-55' 56'-65' 66'-80' 81'-109 110'-120' Dec-25 $20.15 $20.80 $24.41 $24.89 $26.29 $29.65 $32.02 $35.36 $41.04 $41.91 Dec-26 $20.65 $21.97 $25.82 $26.80 $28.24 $32.28 $37.10 $39.67 $47.71 $49.49 Dec-27 $21.17 $23.18 $27.27 $28.75 $30.25 $34.97 $42.30 $44.09 $54.55 $57.25 New Customers with annual CPI thereafter
Year 20'-24' 25'-28' 29'-33' 34'-37' 38'-45' 46'-55' 56'-65' 66'-80' 81'-109 110'-120' Dec-25 $20.15 $22.12 $26.02 $27.47 $28.90 $33.44 $40.63 $42.25 $52.40 $55.05

PROPOSED BERTHING SLIP FEES
(Includes 2.5% annual CPI assumption)
Per Foot Slip Rate by Length Category
20' 22' 25' 30' 32' 34' 40' 50' 60' 70' 106' 110'
8/25 Avg S.D. Bay Marinas Rate $20.15 $20.15 $22.12 $26.02 $25.94 $27.47 $28.90 $33.44 $40.63 $42.25 $52.40 $55.05 GBM Current Rate $20.15 $20.15 $20.15 $23.62 $23.62 $23.62 $25.00 $27.78 $27.78 $31.96 $35.44 $35.44 Rate Adjustment to Average $0.00 $0.00 $1.97 $2.40 $2.32 $3.85 $3.90 $5.66 $12.85 $10.29 $16.96 $19.61 Glorietta Bay Marina Slip Sizes New Rate 11/1/2025 $20.15 $20.15 $20.80 $24.41 $24.39 $24.89 $26.29 $29.65 $32.02 $35.36 $41.04 $41.91 $ Increase @ 33.3% of 8/28 Avg. $0.00 $0.00 $0.66 $0.80 $0.77 $1.28 $1.30 $1.89 $4.28 $3.43 $5.65 $6.53 % Increase 0.00% 0.00% 3.26% 3.39% 3.28% 5.43% 5.19% 6.79% 15.40% 10.73% 15.93% 18.42% New Rate 11/1/2026 $20.65 $20.65 $21.97 $25.82 $25.77 $26.80 $28.24 $32.28 $37.10 $39.67 $47.71 $49.49 $ Increase @ 33.3% of 8/28 Avg. $0.00 $0.00 $0.66 $0.80 $0.77 $1.28 $1.30 $1.89 $4.28 $3.43 $5.65 $6.53 CPI 2.5% on 11/25 Rate (est.) $0.50 $0.50 $0.52 $0.61 $0.61 $0.62 $0.66 $0.74 $0.80 $0.88 $1.03 $1.05 Adj. $ Increase $0.50 $0.50 $1.18 $1.41 $1.38 $1.91 $1.96 $2.63 $5.08 $4.31 $6.67 $7.58 % Increase 2.50% 2.50% 5.65% 5.78% 5.67% 7.65% 7.44% 8.86% 15.86% 12.20% 16.26% 18.08% New Rate 11/1/2027 $21.17 $21.17 $23.18 $27.27 $27.19 $28.75 $30.25 $34.97 $42.30 $44.09 $54.55 $57.25 $ Increase @ 33.3% of 8/28 Avg. $0.00 $0.00 $0.66 $0.80 $0.77 $1.28 $1.30 $1.89 $4.28 $3.43 $5.65 $6.53 CPI 2.5% on 11/26 Rate (est.) $0.52 $0.52 $0.55 $0.65 $0.64 $0.67 $0.71 $0.81 $0.93 $0.99 $1.19 $1.24 Adj. $ Increase $0.52 $0.52 $1.21 $1.45 $1.42 $1.95 $2.00 $2.69 $5.21 $4.42 $6.84 $7.77 % Increase 2.50% 2.50% 5.49% 5.60% 5.50% 7.29% 7.10% 8.34% 14.03% 11.14% 14.34% 15.69% Attachment 2
Item 7.c
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 245

the CPI increase for this period was 3.12%. While the proposed berthing fees were not tied to CPI in year one, it should be noted the increases meet the minimum threshold of a CPI adjustment with the exception of 20’ and 22’ slip sizes that are currently at San Diego Bay marina averages.

Previous San Diego Bay Slip Rate Comparison Methodology In the past, California Yacht Marina staff would conduct a marina slip rate survey for marinas located in San Diego Bay. Glorietta Bay Marina and other San Diego Bay marinas determine slip fees based on slip length or vessel length, whichever is greater. Each marina establishes its rates based on their slip size mix and personalized rate structure. As is the norm in the California marina industry, per lineal foot slip rates increases as slip sizes increase. For past analysis purposes, GBM’s slip size/rate categories were utilized.

For those marinas who have various rates within GBM’s slip size categories, we would average those rates accordingly. The following is last year’s slip rate comparison.

Metered Liveaboard Rate
MARINA # SLIPS 20'-26' 27'-34' 35'-46' 47'-60' 61'-83' 84'-100+ Glorietta Bay Marina 100 $20.15 $23.65 $25.00 $27.78 $31.96 $35.44 Yes $200 Bay Club Marina 154 $20.63 $24.75 $28.00 $29.00 No $365 1st per/$265 2nd Safe Harbor/Cabrillo Isle 422 $23.88 $26.85 $33.33 $42.22 Yes $500+$50 >40'ft vessel Safe Harbor/South Bay 360 $17.00 $17.50 $19.50 $23.50 $28.00 Yes $450 -2 person max Safe Harbor/Bayfront 552 $17.25 $18.65 $20.74 $24.43 $26.77 $26.50 Yes $400(1)$500(2)$125 ea addl Pier 32 Marina (Ntl. City) 257 $23.95 $26.26 $29.79 $33.32 $37.24 Yes $500(1)$575(2)$150ea add Half Moon Anchorage 180 $19.50 $22.32 $23.51 $25.72 $27.80 Yes $350 Max 2 Persons Harbor Island West 620 $21.95 $22.52 $24.83 $27.43 $28.30 $30.60 Yes $300 Pers/$400 2nd.

Kona Kai (Shelter Point) 518 $28.00 $29.25 $37.50 $52.50 $66.00 Yes $600 >45' Loews Crown Isle 81 $26.00 $28.28 $37.78 $47.50 $70.00 Yes $500 Max 4 pers.

Marina Cortez 425 $17.81 $20.06 $21.37 $25.98 $37.50 $45.00 Yes $350 per Person Marriott Marina 446 $27.60 $28.46 $37.50 $46.00 $51.00 Yes $300 Pers/$150 2nd.

Point Loma Marina 51 $33.48 $42.12 $50.76 $60.00 Yes $475 Single/$550 Double Shelter Cove Marina 161 $23.00 $26.00 $31.50 $36.50 $42.00 Yes $300Per/$150 2nd/+$50 add'l Shelter Island Marina 188 $20.48 $23.80 $25.38 $27.34 $31.24 $48.23 Yes $350 Max 2 Persons Sheraton Harbor Island 50 $30.00 $30.00 $34.00 $43.00 Yes None Allowed Sun Harbor Marina 120 $23.25 $24.00 $25.75 $34.50 Yes $275 Person/$230 2nd.

Safe Harbor/Sunroad Marina 610 $28.00 $29.11 $37.93 $49.74 $51.00 Yes $300 Person limit 2 5295
*Statistical Summary
High $21.95 $30.00 $33.48 $42.12 $52.50 $70.00
Low $17.00 $17.50 $19.50 $33.33 $26.77 $26.50
Average (Mean) $19.00 $23.70 $25.99 $31.15 $37.92 $47.96 **Adj. Average (Mean) $18.76 $23.69 $25.99 $30.28 $37.69 $47.90 GBM Variance from Average (Mean) 6% 0% -4% -11% -16% -26% GBM Variance from Adj. Average (Mean) 7% 0% -4% -8% -15% -26% *Excludes Glorietta Bay Marina
**Adj. Average determined by disregarding highest & low est value. In the event of multiple similar values, only one value w as disregarded.

Source: CYM Staff Telephone Survey 5/2024
Note: (1) The distribution of slip sizes is based on GBM current size/rate categories. Some marinas have different rates within these sizes.

W here t his oc c urs , t he average of t hos e rat es have been ins ert ed.

SAN DIEGO BAY
7/2024 SLIP RATE COMPARISON
Per Foot Rate by Length Category
Attachment 2
Item 7.c
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 246

2025 San Diego Bay Berthing Fee Comparison
CYM conducted a vessel berthing fee comparison of relevant marinas within San Deigo Bay in August 2025. The methodology was modified to consider what a comparative marina would charge for a vessel the length of GBM slip sizes. For example, GBM has 40 lineal foot slips – marinas were asked what they would charge for a 40’ vessel. We are aware that at least one marina has scheduled a rate increase post date of CYM survey – their current rates were utilized in the analysis.

We also eliminated certain marinas from previous surveys that are deemed to be inferior to GBM as to location, amenities, and quality of marina facility. Of the historically surveyed seventeen (17) San Diego Bay marinas, four (4) have been removed from the 8/2025 Slip Rate Survey; Marina Cortez (Harbor Island), Pier 32 Marina (National City), Safe Harbor/South Bay Marina (Chula Vista), and Safe Harbor/Bayfront Marina (Chula Vista).

Impact of Rate Increase
We are sensitive to the impact our proposed rate increase will have on current customers. The disparity between GBM’s current berthing fees and that of the average for San Diego Bay marinas is significant, especially for slips greater than 50 lineal feet. For the very small size slips of 20’ and 22’, GBM’s rates are currently comparable to the average of San Diego Bay marinas and not subject to rate increases. The impact of bringing current GBM customers up to average rates for many will be substantial. Instead of increasing fees all at one time, we recommend that they be brought up over a 3-year period. These MARINA # SLIPS 20' 22' 25' 30' 32' 34' 40' 50' 60' 70' 106' 110' Glorietta Bay Marina 100 $20.15 $20.15 $20.15 $23.62 $23.62 $23.62 $25.00 $27.78 $27.78 $31.96 $35.44 $35.44 Bay Club Marina 154 $19.50 $19.50 $19.50 $23.50 $23.50 $23.75 $28.25 $29.75 $30.75 $30.75 Half Moon Marina 180 $19.85 $19.85 $23.15 $23.15 $23.15 $23.95 $25.65 $27.75 $28.85 $28.85 Harbor Island West 620 $21.50 $21.95 $23.10 $23.09 $23.11 $23.67 $28.30 $28.30 $30.60 $30.60 Kona Kai (Shelter Point) 518 $29.00 $29.00 $29.00 $31.75 $40.00 $50.00 $55.00 $66.00 $66.00 Loews Crown Isle 81 $32.50 $32.50 $32.50 $33.00 $33.00 $33.00 $33.00 $33.00 $47.25 $52.50 $70.00 $70.00 Marriott Marina 446 $28.70 $28.70 $28.70 $29.40 $33.94 $50.00 $50.00 $55.00 $55.00 Point Loma Marina 51 $33.48 $33.48 $46.44 $50.76 $50.76 $62.64 $62.64 Safe Harbor/Cabrillo Isle 422 $20.00 $20.00 $25.50 $25.50 $24.65 $27.25 $28.00 $35.38 $40.88 $45.11 $53.00 $53.00 Safe Harbor/Sunroad Marina 617 $18.00 $29.00 $29.00 $29.00 $31.25 $36.50 $55.38 $56.00 $56.00 Shelter Cove Marina 161 $24.25 $24.25 $24.25 $24.25 $27.25 $35.75 $41.00 $42.50 $42.50 $42.50 Shelter Island Marina 188 $20.48 $20.48 $20.48 $23.80 $23.80 $27.41 $25.22 $27.72 $31.24 $31.24 $48.23 $48.23 Sheraton Harbor Island 50 $31.00 $35.50 $35.50 $47.00 $47.00 Sun Harbor Marina 120 $23.25 $23.25 $23.25 $23.25 $24.75 $26.75 $29.00 $40.00 $43.00 Statistical Summary
Average (Mean) L.F. Rate (ex. GBM) $21.69 $22.47 $23.90 $26.02 $25.94 $27.47 $28.90 $33.44 $40.63 $42.25 $52.40 $55.05 GBM Variance from Average -7.10% -10.31% -15.71% -9.23% -8.96% -14.02% -13.49% -16.94% -31.62% -24.36% -32.36% -35.62% Adj. Average L.F. Rate (ex. Loews) $19.89 $19.96 $22.12 GBM Variance from Adj. Avg. 1.32% 0.96% -8.89%
Color Code Does not accommodate a vessel of this length.

Loews Crown Isle Marina berthing fees for these size vessel appear excessive compared to others.

Notes: 1.) Some marinas have different rates for same size vessel based on location, slip width, end tie/side tie, etc. Where necessary, the rate most comparable with GBM was utilized. Where differences could not be discerned, the lesser rate was utilized.

2.) Telephone survey of marina rates conducted by CYM staff during week of August 18, 2025.

SAN DIEGO BAY
AUGUST 2025 BERTHING FEE COMPARISON
Monthly Lineal Foot Rate by Vessel Size
Attachment 2
Item 7.c
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 247

phased increases will still be significant; however, it does provide them with time before the full increase arrives and the opportunity to evaluate their berthing needs and plan accordingly.

While the proposed rate increases might generate some current customers to vacate, we do not anticipate difficulty in filling those slips with new customers at full rate. GBM’s proposed new rate structure is very competitive, and the location and amenities of the City of Coronado are very attractive. Combined with quality of the marina facilities and the exceptional customer service provided by marina staff, GBM will continue to be a highly desirable marina. It is a widely held opinion among recreational boaters that Glorietta Bay Marina is a jewel.

Recreational boating in San Diego Bay remains vibrant and demand for slips continues to be strong. That said, there are signs marinas should expect a slowdown. Marinas are not immune to economic conditions.

Throughout southern California coastal marina harbors, there appears to be an increase in vessels being sold and a higher volume of vacates/rentals compared to recent years. While northern San Diego Bay marinas continue to be fully occupied for slips over 30’, the marinas to the south/east section of the Bay are seeing their occupancies declining. We predict that 2026 will continue to see a softening in demand for slips throughout the Bay. Over the last 25 years demand for berthing at Glorietta Bay Marina has remained strong with 100% occupancy, regardless of fluctuating market conditions within San Diego Bay and southern California coastal marinas. During the best and worst of times, demand for berthing vessels in Coronado has always been strong.

Sincerely,
R. Kevin Ketchum
Principal/CEO
California Yacht Marina
Attachment 2
Item 7.c
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 248
RESOLUTION NO. 8616

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORONADO ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2013- 14 SLIP BERTHING FEE STRUCTURE

FOR THE GLORIETTA BAY MARINA
WHEREAS, the City of Coronado ( the " CITY") is a municipal corporation of the State of California, organized under the general law of the State of California, as defined by Government Code Section 34102 ( the " Law"); and
WHEREAS, the CITY, in accordance with the Law, is empowered to own, rent, manage, operate, and repair real property within a project area; and WHEREAS, the CITY controls that certain land and water area and related improvements and personal property, referred to as the Glorietta Bay Marina ( the " Marina"), located in the City of Coronado, California;
WHEREAS, in June 2001, the former Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado (" CDA") contracted with California Yacht Marina — Chula Vista, LLC to serve as the Manager/ Agent of the Marina ( the " Manager/Agent") which contractual agreement was subsequently approved by the CITY on November 16, 2012; WHEREAS, the CITY, in accordance with the Law, is exercising its sole prerogative to establish the berthing slip fees for customers of the Marina.

WHEREAS, the Manager/ Agent, as a representative of the CITY, provides certain services necessary to administering the slip rental agreements for vessels located within the Marina.

WHEREAS, the Manager/ Agent conducted a slip berthing fee market survey of marinas in the San Diego Bay Region and has recommended an appropriate rate structure consistent with current market conditions.

WHEREAS, the CITY desires to adjust the slip berthing fee monthly rate structure to sustain operations, pay debt service, and create appropriate reserves for the replacement of Dock C and other future dock replacements.

WHEREAS, this Resolution supersedes Resolution CDA -200 adopted on July 7, 2009, by the former Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, California, that:

The adjusted berthing slip fee monthly rate structure for all Marina slip occupants is set pursuant to the following " per foot rate by length" categories as follows:

Resolution # 8616

Attachment 3
Item 7.c
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 249
Monthly Berthing Slip Fees
Per Foot Rate b Length ategory
Effective Date 20'- 26' 27'- 34' 35'- 46' 47'- 60' 61'- 83' 84'- 100+ August 1, 2013 14. 50 17. 00 18. 00 20.00 23. 00 25. 50 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Manager/ Agent of the Marina is hereby authorized and directed to implement the new berthing slip fee month rate structure effective August 1, 2013.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, beginning July 1, 2014, and on the first day of each July thereafter, the slip berthing fee rates for each slip category shall be automatically increased by the prior calendar year' s adjusted Annual Average Consumer Price Index for the San Diego Region.

Beginning April 1, 2019, and every five years thereafter, a market survey shall be conducted by the Manager/Agent of the Marina to ensure that the prevailing GBM slip fee rate structure does not to exceed the mean of the market for slip fee rate structures of marinas in the San Diego Bay Region.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Coronado, California this 16th day of July 2013, by the following vote, to wit.

AYES: BAILEY, DENNY, OVROM, WOIWODE, TANAKA
NAY: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ATTEST:

S1
1Jn . 16VJ.-P
Linda K. Hascup, CMC
City Clerk
Casey TanakQNayor
City of Coronado—, California
Resolution # 8616

Attachment 3
Item 7.c
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 250
Mayor Pro Tem Carrie Downey
Agenda Item 8(a) Report for the Period August 21, 2025-October 4, 2025 Date Meeting/Event Activity
8/21/2025 MTS Represented Coronado at MTS Board
Meeting
8/22/2025 San Diego Military Advisory
Council
Represented Coronado at SDMAC dinner
meeting
8/26/2025 Met with CM Kelly Purvis CCA Subcommittee meeting 9/4/2025 National League of Cities Energy,
Environment & Natural
Resources Policy Subcommittee
Prepared NLC EENR Committee Resolution
supporting continued funding of border
infrastructure projects to address Border
sewage crisis. Presented for its adoption.
9/11/2025 MTS Represented Coronado at MTS Board
Meeting. MTS staff presented future funding
policy options to address future financial
cliff.
9/12/2024 SANDAG Represented Coronado at SANDAG Board
Meeting.
9/15/2025 Met with City Manager Tina
Friend
Received briefing on Coronado CC Meeting
Agenda
9/17/2025 National League of Cities Energy,
Environment & Natural
Resources Policy Subcommittee
Continued discussion re: Border
Infrastructure Funding Resolution and
obtained Committee approval. (EENR
Resolution is attached) Resolution will go
before NLC Board at Annual Meeting in
November.
9/17/2025 Police Dept. annual dinner
recognizing Police Senior
Volunteers
Joined Chief of Police and fellow Council
members in recognizing assistance to City
welfare provided by Senior Volunteers.
9/19/2025 SANDAG Regional Planning and
Transportation Committees Joint
meeting.

Represented Coronado as Chair of RPS
Committee.
9/24/2025 Naval Base Coronado Staff and
City Leaders dinner
Represented Coronado City Council
9/25/2025 Coronado Chamber of
Commerce Ribbon Cutting
Participated in Chamber ribbon cutting for
Sara Stillman Law Offices
10/2/2025 Coronado Chamber of
Commerce Annual event
honoring City employees.

Represented Coronado City Council.
10/3/2025 SANDAG Regional Planning
Committee
Chaired RPC Meeting.
10/4/2025 KMAC Foundation/Eagle Scout
presentation
Represented Coronado at ceremony
accepting Eagle Scout project to assist
charity that provides free sailing lessons to
disabled sailors.

Item 8a.

Councilmember Downey
Item 8.a
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 251
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
I
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
27 NLC RESOLUTION 2025.16

INCRBASE FUNDING FOR BORDER WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS WHEREAS, international transboundary rivers on the southern border of the United States are a major source of sewage, trash, chemicals, heavy metals and toxins; and WHEREAS, transboundary flows threaten the health of 18 million residents in the United States and Mexico, harm important estuarine land and water of international significance, force closure of beaches, damage farmlffid, compromise border security, ffid directly affect U.S. military readiness;l and
WHEREAS, a significant amount of untreated sewage, sediment,hazardous chemicals and trash have entered United States waters via the Tijuana and New Rivers in southern California, the Santa Cnu and San Pedro Rivers in Arizona and the Rio Grande in Texas, eventually draining into coastal waterways, waterbodies and inland waters, such as the Salton Sea; and WHEREAS, the presence of pollution on state and federal public lands is creating unsafe conditions for visitors and residents-these lands are taxpayer supported and intended to be managed for recreation, resource conservation and the enjoyment by the public; and WHEREAS, the current insufficient and degrading infrastructure in the border zone poses a significant risk to the public health and safety of residents and the environment on both sides of the border, and places economic stress on communities struggling to mitigate the negative impacts of pollution; and
WHERBAS, the 1944 treaty between the United States and Mexico regarding Utilization of Waters of the Colorado andTijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande allocates flows ontransborder rivers between Mexico and the United States, and provides that the nations, through their respective sections of the International Boundary Water Commission (IBWC) shall give control of sanitation in cross border flows the highest priority; and WHEREAS, in 1993, the United States and Mexico entered into the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States Concerning the Establishment of a North American Development Bank which created the North American Development Bank (NADB) to certiff and fund environmental infrastructure projects in borde r-areacommunities; and
I M.-or*dum, "Tijuana River Pollution Crisis in San Diego County," California Coastal Commission (Sept. 29, 2023); available at: https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2023/10/W6b/W6b-10-2023-appendix.pdf Item 8a.

Councilmember Downey
Item 8.a
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 252
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 WHEREAS, onNovember 30,2018 the United States, Mexico and Canadaentered into the Agreement Between The Untted States of America, The tJnited Mexican States, And Canada to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement, and on December 10,2019 the United States, Mexico and Canada agreed to a protocol of amendment to the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which became effective in the United States on January 29,2020; and WHERBAS, the implementing language of USMCA authorizes and allocates funding for grants under the U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program (BWIP), the Trade Enforcement Trust Fund and recapitalization of the NADB, including $300 million to address the problem of toxic sewage flowing from the Tijuana River watershed; and WHERBAS, border communities need modernized and innovative water infrastructure to provide clean and sanitary drinking water to improve the quality of living and support the expanding communities; and
WHEREAS, the adverse environmental impact will worsen existing environmental issues and strain aging infrastructure, while also creating new environmental issues in the future; and WHEREAS, the widespread threat to public health and safety, damage to fish and wildlife resources and degradation to the environment caused by transboundary pollution in the border states requires urgent action by the federal and state governments; and WHEREAS, Congress authorized funding under the Safe Drinking Water Act and established the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) program for the U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program in 1996 to provide grants for high-priority water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure projects within 100 kilometers of the southern border; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the STAG and BWIP, and coordinates with the NADB to allocate BWIP grant funds to projects in the border zone; and
WHEREAS, since its inception, the BWIP has provided funding for projects in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas that would not have been constructed without the grant program; and
Item 8a.

Councilmember Downey
Item 8.a
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 253
78 76
77 79
80 81
82 83
84 85
86 87
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
WHEREAS, the BWIP program was initially funded at $100 million per year, but the program has been significantly reduced to $35 million in FY24 and FY25;2 and WHEREAS, EPA and the U.S. section of the IWBC identified high-priority wastewater collection and treatment facilities needed in the border area;3 and WHEREAS, Mexico has identified multiple priority projects and pledged $144 million in shortterm capital contributions;a and WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the United States and Mexico in July 2025 sets atimeframe for Mexico to complete all projects by Dec. 31,2027 andthe United States, which has withheld additional funding to projects until Mexico fulfilled their obligations toward other projects, agreed to release BWIP funding to complete the rehabilitation of Pump Station 1 and the Tijuana River collection pipes;s and
WHEREAS, the pollution from transboundary sewage flows were spread even fanher north in the Pacific Ocean by Hurricane Hilary on August l9-20 ,2023 because the infrastructure has not been maintained and new needed facilities have not been built;6 and WHBREAS, transboundary sewage flows release toxic gases causing unhealthy air quality in South San Diego CountyT where "concentration of hydrogen sulfide...peaked at 4,500 ppb [pans per billion] for at least a minute and up to an average of 2,100 ppb for one hour-the latter exceeding the California Air Resources Board's one hour standard [of 30 ppb] by nearly 70 times;8" and
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Infrastructure Programs and FYz}z4Appropriations, Congressional Research Service (March 27,2025); available at: https://www.congress.gov/us-product/1F12950 3 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency and International Boundary and Water Commission (Nov. 2,2022); available at: https://www.epa.gov/sltstem/files/documents/2022- I I / P rosr ammat ic%o2 0 Env i r onment' a l%2 0 I m p a ct%2 }St at e m ent. p df 4 Stut.rr.nt of Intent and Minute 328, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; available at:
https://'v,wv'. epu.ttov/s.t,.stem/files/documents/202 2- I 0/Summary'%20of/o20Agreements.pd!' 5 Uritrd States and Mexico Reach Agreement to Permanently and Urgently End Decades-Long Tijuana River Sewage Crisis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (July 24,2025); available at:
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/united-states-and-mexico-reach-agreement-permanently-and-urgently-enddecades-long u Purp Failure Pushes 20,000 Gallons of Tijuana River Valley Sewage into South Bay Streets, The Coronado Times(Aug.31,2023);ovailableat: https://coronadotimes.com/news/2023/08/31/pump-failure-pttshes-20000- g u I I o n.s < i - I i.i u a n a - r i v e r -v a I I q, - s ew a g e - i n t o - s o u t h- b ay - s t r e e t s / 7 Tiirunu fuver's Toxic Water Pollutes the Air, UC San Diego Today (Aug. 28,2025); available at:
https://today.ucsd.e&t/story/tijuana-rivers-toxic-water-pollutes-the-air 8 B. Ri.o, K. Barsanti, K. DeCarvoalho, P. Granados, and K. Prather, Heavily Polluted Tijuana River Drives Regional Air Quality Crisis, Science (Aug. 28,2025); available at:
https : //www.science. org/doi/ I 0. I I 26/science. adv I 3 43 Item 8a.

Councilmember Downey
Item 8.a
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 254
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
WHEREAS, without federal partnership through the BWIP and state support to address pollution, cities that are impacted by transboundary sewage and toxic waste flows are left with limited resources to address a critical pollution and public health issue and limited legal remedies to address the problem; and
WHEREAS, Mexico benefits from the bi-national funding program and relies on the NADB to assist in funding projects on the Mexico side of the border, which have an immediate and longterm environmental impact along the border in the U.S. due to the upstreiun, transboundary flows of the major rivers; and
WHEREAS, local governments and the public support the State's primary objectives in complying with environmental laws including the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act, and their state law analogues, and are supported by substantial public investments at all levels of government to maintain a healthy and sustainable environment for the future.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National League of Cities urges the Federal govemment to continue to fund the Border Water Infrastructure Program, and to recommit to working bi-nationally to develop and implement long-term solutions to address serious water quality and contamination issues, such as discharges of untreated sewage and polluted sediment and trash-laden transboundary flows originating from Mexico, resulting in significant health, environmental, and safety concerns of affected communities.

Item 8a.

Councilmember Downey
Item 8.a
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 255

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
League of Wives Memorial Bench and Plaque

RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction on the preferred plaque text and bench location and authorize staff to proceed with installation.

BACKGROUND
At the April 1, 2025, City Council meeting, Councilmembers Purvis and Steward submitted a Policy #2 request to consider the installation of a commemorative plaque on a bench in Star Park adjacent to the League of Wives Memorial statue, which was installed in 2024. The City Council approved the request and directed staff to develop and return with options.

The League of Wives Memorial statue, the first of its kind nationally, honors military spouses of Prisoners of War (POW) and Missing in Action (MIA) service members. The movement’s leader and founder, Sybil Stockdale, was a Coronado resident, and many of the women involved in the League of Wives, and later the National League of Families, have ties to Coronado. A separate plaque would provide additional recognition to the Coronado women and families directly connected to this history.

ANALYSIS
A commemorative bench in Star Park, adjacent to the existing statue, provides the most appropriate opportunity to recognize Coronado women and families connected to the League of Wives. A bench allows for a permanent and accessible tribute while preserving the integrity of the memorial statue already in place at the park. Staff has compiled options for both the plaque wording and the bench location for Council’s consideration.

As discussed at the April 1 meeting, the wording on the plaque is significant and somewhat subjective.

While the statue recognizes the broader national movement, the plaque provides an opportunity to honor the local women involved. Staff, in coordination with the Coronado Historical Association, identified the Coronado women connected to the League of Wives and the later National League of Families of American Prisoners in Southeast Asia.

Identified wives include:
• Marjorie Jenkins
• Sherry Martin
• Mary Ann “Pat” Mearns
• Chloe Moore
• Shirley Stark
• Sybil Stockdale
• Donna Rea Thompson
The League of Wives movement eventually transformed to the League of Families, expanding from wives of POW/MIA service members to include other family members such as mothers, sisters, and daughters.

Council will need to determine whether the plaque should mirror the original identity of the movement Item 8.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 256
(League of Wives) or reflect its broader successor (League of Families).

The Coronado Historical Association also identified two additional women who could be included under the League of Families scope:
• Anita Woods: Mother to former POW Captain Brian Woods. Mrs. Woods and her husband were long-time Coronado residents. Her son is credited as being the first POW to touch American soil after release.
• Barbara Walker: Daughter of Anita Woods and sister of Captain Brian Woods.

Plaque Wording
Staff has reviewed potential plaque language and identified two draft options for Council consideration (Attachment 1):
• Option 1: Honor League of Wives
Recognizes the Coronado women who were spouses of POW/MIA service members.

Proposed text: “Honoring Coronado’s League of Wives” followed by the seven names listed above.
• Option 2: Honor League of Families
Recognizes the broader set of Coronado women, including wives, mothers, and sisters of POW/MIA service members.

Proposed text: “Honoring Coronado’s League of Families” followed by nine names, including Anita Woods and Barbara Walker.

Bench Location
Staff has reviewed potential installation sites within Star Park and identified two options for Council consideration (Attachment 2):
• Proposed Site 1: New Bench
This option proposes installing an additional bench in Star Park, adjacent to Flora Avenue. This is the most straightforward option, as it does not require the removal or modification of existing benches.
• Proposed Site 2: Replace and Relocate Existing Benches (Recommended) This option would situate the commemorative bench closer to the League of Wives Memorial statue but would require modification of existing benches. In this location, one existing bench would need to be removed, and another bench relocated.

This approach adds complexity and cost, but it places the plaque in closer proximity to the statue itself, creating a stronger visual connection between the two memorial elements. In addition, this option would replace the bench adjacent to Loma Avenue, closest to the beach, which currently does not match the other benches. As a result, selecting this option provides an opportunity to update and standardize all benches in the park for greater consistency. With this option, both the commemorative plaque on the bench to be relocated and the plaque installed on the base of the cement foundation for the relocated bench would be preserved, resulting in no loss of existing commemorative plaques in the park.

FISCAL IMPACT
Total project costs will vary depending on the bench site selected. The plaque cost is $775, including shipping. The estimated cost for installation at Proposed Site 1 is approximately $19,000, pending final construction details. The estimated cost for installation at Proposed Site 2 is $24,609, with an additional $6,723 if slab replacement and turf restoration are required.

Item 8.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 257
The project will be paid out of the Public Services Facilities Budget 10030005-80030.

ALTERNATIVE
The Council may suggest alternative wording for the plaque or bench site or direct staff to return with other alternatives.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
This action is not subject to CEQA.

PUBLIC NOTICE
No public notice is required for this item, but the women and families suggested for honoring have been notified of this item. Additionally, the League of Wives Foundation has been notified.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Plaque Text Options

2. Star Park Bench Location Options
Submitted By: City Manager's Office / Kelli Maples
Item 8.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 258
Attachment 1
Draft Plaque Text Options
Option 1: League of Wives
Option 2: League of Families
Item 8.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 259
Attachment 2
Star Park Bench Location Options
Proposed Site 1: New Bench
Item 8.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 260
Attachment 2
Proposed Site 2: Replace and Relocate Existing Benches (Recommended) • Remove Bench 2
• Mobilize Bench 1 to Bench 2 location
• Install new bench at Bench 1 location
Item 8.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 261
City of Coronado | Mayor & City Council | 619-522-7320
1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California, 92118
September 22, 2025
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor, State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: AB 339 (Ortega): Local Public Employee Organizations: Notice Requirements (As amended 8/29/25).

Request For Veto
Dear Governor Newsom,
The City of Coronado respectfully requests your Veto on AB 339 (Ortega), which would undermine cities’ ability to partner with private and non-profit partners to provide necessary local programs and services. AB 339 would impose considerable costs to cities, including new notification requirements, unclear language that will undoubtedly result in increased conflict and eventual litigation with our labor partners, and significant delays in executing programs and delivering services.

AB 339 has an extremely broad reach and ignores existing employee protections. AB 339 applies to nearly any contract (outside of the public works exemption) that is within the scope of work of any job classification represented by a recognized employee organization. For local agencies with represented workforces, this essentially means the vast majority of contracts would be subject to notice. An administrative remedy is already available to recognized employee organizations when they believe that a local agency has neglected to meet existing notification and meet and confer requirements regarding contracting. AB 339’s redundant and impractical approach will expose local agencies to additional costs that result from a new and potentially significant workload increase.

Further, the lack of definition of emergency or exigent circumstances in AB 339 undermines existing emergency contracting authority. As first responders, local agencies rely on existing statutes that allow for considerable flexibility to ensure the safety and well-being of our communities. This language only adds another Item 11.a
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 262
Governor Newsom
September 22, 2025

City of Coronado | Mayor & City Council | 619-522-7320
1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California, 92118
opportunity for disagreement with our labor partners when local agencies need to focus available resources on response and recovery during an emergency.

For these reasons, the City of Coronado respectfully requests your Veto on AB 339 (Ortega).

Sincerely,
John D. Duncan
Mayor
cc: Senator Weber Pierson
Assemblymember Tasha Boerner
Catherine Hill, League of California Cities (via email) Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, [email protected] Item 11.a
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 263
City of Coronado | Mayor & City Council | 619-522-7320
1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California, 92118
September 22, 2025
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor, State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 79 (Wiener) Housing development: transit-oriented development.

Request for Veto
Dear Governor Newsom,
The City of Coronado requests your Veto on SB 79 (Wiener). This bill undermines the diligent and years-long efforts of local communities and the State to develop and certify local Housing Elements. Further, SB 79 imposes development by right that can significantly impact large areas of a community without input or regard to local general plan and zoning requirements.

Senate Bill 79 undercuts the Housing Element process, which involves robust community engagement to tailor land use policies that enable the production of housing in the most balanced manner possible. This is a deliberative process that is shaped to the unique attributes and characteristics of each municipality.

With SB 79, this careful effort is overridden with a one-size-fits-all approach that can impose substantial development and density on the sole basis of transit and without regard to the many other factors considered in the Housing Element drafting. This bill represents a degradation of local land use authority and negates the collective work to plan for future housing needs in a way best suited for each community.

Senate Bill 79 also conveys broad development rights to transit authorities without reasonable guardrails. Under SB 79, transit agencies could develop buildings with total discretion as to height, density and design—and no regard to local zoning or planning. This authority falls outside the traditional scope and expertise of transit agencies.

The City of Coronado appreciates the author’s desire to include an alternative transit-oriented development plan; however, as currently drafted, the local government has the option to do this through an additional analysis in the local government’s housing element or through the adoption of an ordinance with Item 11.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 264
Governor Newsom
September 22, 2025

City of Coronado | Mayor & City Council | 619-522-7320
1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California, 92118
approval from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). SB 79 would add additional requirements for state review, increasing workloads, and making it more likely that local governments will not get their housing elements or ordinances approved promptly.

The City of Coronado respects the housing crises gripping the State, but the solutions to this challenge cannot come at the cost of abrogation of local authority and public engagement. Local communities need a collaborative approach with the State and dedicated, ongoing funding for affordable housing development.

For these reasons, the City of Coronado respectfully request your Veto on SB 79 (Wiener).

Sincerely,
John D. Duncan
Mayor
cc: Senator Weber Pierson
Assemblymember Tasha Boerner
Catherine Hill, League of California Cities (via email) Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, [email protected] Item 11.b
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 265
City of Coronado | Mayor & City Council | 619-522-7320
1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California, 92118
September 22, 2025
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor, State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 707 (Durazo) Open Meetings: Meeting and Teleconference Requirements
Request for Veto
Dear Governor Newsom,
The City of Coronado respectfully requests your Veto on SB 707 (Durazo). Our city strongly supports public transparency and accessibility, but SB 707, as currently drafted, would impose costly and inequitable new mandates on cities like ours without providing the resources or flexibility needed for implementation.

SB 707 would create significant fiscal and operational challenges for our city, including:
• Providing two-way telephonic or audiovisual access for council meetings, halting proceedings during any service disruption.
• Translating agendas into all “applicable languages” spoken jointly by 20 percent or more of the applicable population, provided that 20 percent or more of the population that speaks that language in that city speaks English less than “very well.”
• Designating a public space for community-submitted translations, even if inaccurate or misleading.
• Creating and maintaining multi-language webpages for agendas, instructions, and meeting procedures.
• Expanding outreach efforts and electronic systems for agenda access.

For the City of Coronado these obligations would mean the technology redesign for Council Chambers and other rooms where public meetings are held, including significant audio visual and broadcasting equipment upgrades to manage the requirement. The city does not have funds budgeted or the technology project capacity. Additionally, the bill calls for creation of a public space for community-submitted documents that will not be vetted, and could be conflated with an official publication, confusing the public.

Item 11.c
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 266
Governor Newsom
September 22, 2025

City of Coronado | Mayor & City Council | 619-522-7320
1825 Strand Way, Coronado, California, 92118
The city supports transparency and robust public engagement but SB 707’s mechanisms create substantial agency burden, potential to disrupt public business, and opportunity for community confusion.

Although the recent amendment moved the implementation deadline to July 1, 2026, this deadline still does not provide sufficient time for cities to fully budget, procure, and train for compliance. Additional time is necessary to ensure responsible and effective implementation.

For these reasons, the City of Coronado respectfully requests your Veto on SB 707 (Durazo).

Sincerely,
John D. Duncan
Mayor
cc: Senator Weber Pierson
Assemblymember Tasha Boerner
Catherine Hill, League of California Cities (via email) Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, [email protected] Item 11.c
October 07, 2025 City of Coronado Page 267