Coronado Common Sense

DUI Task Force Holiday Enforcement Nets 770 Arrests

 

Law enforcement agencies arrested more impaired drivers this holiday season than last year.

As part of a Winter Holiday DUI Mobilization crackdown deputies and officers from 14 local law enforcement agencies and the California Highway Patrol arrested 770 drunk or impaired drivers in San Diego County between Dec. 16 and Jan. 1, according to the Sheriff’s Department. Last year 715 people were arrested for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the same holiday period.

 

The effort to reduce drunk driving during the holidays is part of the “San Diego County Avoid the 14 DUI Task Force” named for the 14 local enforcement agencies that participate in the program that includes sobriety checkpoints, extra roving patrols and routine patrols throughout the county.

 

DUI checkpoints, along with regularly scheduled high visibility DUI enforcement, are proven strategies that remove impaired drivers from the road and heighten awareness of the dangers of driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

 

Law enforcement officials will be conducting more DUI task force operations throughout the region on Super Bowl Sunday and St Patrick’s Day.

 

The Sheriff’s Department, police and the CHP encourage all motorists to help law enforcement every day. Their message: Report Drunk Drivers – Call 911 anytime you encounter an impaired driver.

 

Funding for this program was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

 

For more information about local and statewide anti DUI efforts, visit the AVOID website at californiaavoid.org.

 

Source: San Diego County News Center

Did You Know About This New Vehicle Code?

As of January 2010, a new "Move Over" law went into effect to protect Caltrans workers. It is ponied onto the back of an existing law that many may not know existed. That law states you must change lanes when you come across a police car, firetruck, ambulance or tow truck . . . and now a Caltrans vehicle . . .  with flashing lights. If you are unable to change lanes, you must slow down to approximately 20mph below the posted speed limit.

That accounts for the freeway moving at a snail's pace whenever there is an accident. I always thought that it was a bad case of the looky-loos but I recently discovered it's the law, you have to slow to a snail's pace or change lanes. Or pay a fine. Who knew? Here's the new law:

Chapter Four of Division Eleven of the California Vehicle Code

21809 (a) A person driving a vehicle on a freeway approaching a stationary authorized emergency vehicle that is displaying emergency lights, or a stationary tow truck that is displaying flashing amber warning lights, shall approach with due caution and, before passing in a lane immediately adjacent to the authorized emergency vehicle or tow truck, absent any other direction by a peace officer, proceed to do one of the following:

(1) Make a lane change into an available lane not immediately adjacent to the authorized emergency vehicle or tow truck with due regard for safety and traffic conditions, if practicable and not prohibited by law.

(2) If the maneuver described in paragraph (1) would be unsafe or impracticable, slow to a reasonable and prudent speed that is safe for existing weather, road, and vehicular or pedestrian traffic conditions.

The following information was found on Snopes.com regarding the fines for violating this new vehicle code.

Cars For Sale On Designated City Streets

New City Municipal Code Ordinance

Coronado, CA - (December 2, 2009) Beginning December 3, 2009 it will be unlawful to park a vehicle for sale on designated streets within the city of Coronado. However, the police department will provide a 30-day warning period to allow the public to become familiar with this new ordinance. During the 30 day period, warnings will be issued to first time violators, repeat violations will result is citations and or impounding. After the 30 day period, violators will be subject to immediate citation.

Coronado Municipal Code 56.30.250 reads “It is unlawful to park a vehicle on a street designated in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of this section 56.30.250 when, because of a sign or placard on the vehicle, it appears that the primary purpose of parking the vehicle at that location is to display and advertise to the public that the vehicle is for sale….” Vehicles in violation of this section will be issued a citation and a notice listing the designated streets in the ordinance.

Each parking citation issued to a vehicle in violation of this ordinance carries a $50 fine. Vehicles in violation can receive two citations per day if the car is not moved. In addition to a parking citation, cars for sale may be impounded if they are moved to another prohibited street, as long as the car has been cited for the same violation with the last 30 days but not within 24 hours of the first citation.

Source: Press Release from Louis J. Scanlon, Chief of Police, Coronado Police Department

 

More About the FPPC Form 700

A concerned citizen wrote me an email yesterday wondering why two of the candidates used the Form 700 Schedules to disclose interests and one did not. They pointed out that a Candidate Calendar of Events and Important Deadlines/Information document can be found on the City's website. The citizen mentioned that this document states that the Candidate Statement is optional and the 700 Form is required.

These are the sections in dispute:

• CANDIDATE STATEMENT (OPTIONAL)  Each candidate may prepare a 

candidate’s statement on the appropriate form provided by the Clerk.  Such 

statement may include the name, age, occupation, and a brief description of no 

more than 200 words of the candidate’s education and qualifications expressed by 

the candidate himself/herself.  Such statement shall be filed at the time nomination papers are filed.  The statement is due on the same date as the nomination petition.  It may be withdrawn, but not changed, until 5:00 p.m. on the day following the close of nominations, at which time they will be available for public review.  Candidate statements shall remain confidential until the expiration of the filing period.  There is a nominal fee to cover the cost of publication of the candidate statement on the ballot.  A candidate statement is not required.   

 

• FPPC FORM 700   (REQUIRED)  Each candidate for Member of the City Council or 

Mayor shall file with the Clerk, no later than the final filing date of nomination 

papers, his/her statement disclosing his/her investments and interests (FPPC Form 700) in real property. 

So I decided to bring up the Far Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Form 700 and look at it more closely. Form 700 is the Statement of Economic Interests. There are six schedules (A-1, A-2, B, C, D and E). Below are the recommendations of reportable and non-reportable interests for each schedule:

COMMON REPORTABLE INTERESTS 

Schedule A-1:  Stocks 

Schedule A-2:  Business entities, partnerships, LLCs, corporations, trusts 

Schedule B:  Rental property in the jurisdiction 

Schedule C:  Non-government salaries of public official and spouse/registered domestic partner 

Schedule D:  Gifts  from non-family members (such as tickets to sporting or entertainment events) 

Schedule E:  Travel payments from third parties (not your employer) 

COMMON NON-REPORTABLE INTERESTS

Schedule A-1/A-2: Diversified mutual funds registered with the SEC under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and certain retirement accounts invested in insurance policies or governmental bonds Schedule A-1/A/2: Savings and checking accounts 

Schedule B:  A residence used exclusively as a personal residence (such as a home, vacation cabin) 

Schedule C:  Government salary (such as a school district) 

Schedule D:  Gifts from  family members 

Schedule E:  Travel paid by your government agency 

Remember:  Mark the “no reportable interests” box on Part 4 of the schedule

 summary if you determine you have nothing to disclose and  file the cover page only. Make sure you carefully read all  instructions to ensure proper reporting. 

  The Form 700 is a public document. 

   Most individuals must consult the agency’s conflict-of-interest code for reportable interests. 

  Most individuals file the Form 700 with their agency. 

Last campaign, I couldn't make rhyme or reason out of the reported interests because there was such variety. Stocks were pretty standard but Mayoral Candidate Casey Tanaka listed gift tickets to a Padres game and Council Candidate Peter Jensen listed his wife's business. Now, it finally makes sense to me . . . upfront and honest. And every candidate, mayoral and council, filled out the schedules.

I'm pretty sure that the City Clerk told me that only items in Coronado were required to be listed. My understanding of this form is that only rental property in the jurisdiction (Coronado) need be listed and not necessary rental property outside of Coronado if one were to own it. But I do think it clearly states that ALL stocks, business entities, partnerships, LLCs, corporations and trusts need to be declared.

A second citizen wrote "Even if the Form 700 is found not be mandatory. filling it out shows good faith. Neglecting to file the schedules defeats the spirit of disclosure."

Read the entire Form 700 document for more information including a "Questions and Answers" section beginning on the seventh page (or FPPC pages 3 & 4).

Code Enforcement (CE) Case Process

Three days ago, I wrote about the Code Enforcement Case going on over on Coronado Avenue, and many of you had plenty to say. Thank you all who responded with emails and the two readers who posted comments (attached to the article). If I understand your messages correctly, the general consensus was that code enforcement is practically non-existent in Coronado. Also, "connected" people violate the codes and get away with it whereas "normal" people get nailed for it. 

Thank you for your input. If you would, please post your comments rather than just email me so that everyone can read them. The purpose of CCS is to stimulate conversation and therefore move toward solutions. When making a comment, it is your choice to reveal or not reveal your identity.

When I wrote on February 24th, Mr. Toci was waiting for a response to this letter:

Friday, February 20, 2009 12:12 PM

Rachel,

 

My apologies, but I am confused.

Mr. Swanson advised that an administrative hearing had been scheduled for Feb. 11.

Now you report that a building permit was issued on Feb 19, and that the hearing had been cancelled.

 

It is structurally infeasible to "rotate" the garage entry 90 degrees so that it faces the street with the weight of non-compliant living quarters above.  The width of the street-facing wall is insufficient to accommodate a garage door of permittable size.  If a neighbor visits City Hall are there blueprints which can be reviewed?

 

1) How can a building permit be issued to alter a structure which was not built to code in the first place?

 

2) HOW LONG does the owner have to commence construction?

 

3) HOW LONG does the owner have to complete this project?

 

4) How will "progress on the construction be monitored" by City staff?

 

5) City staff will "try to eliminate the violation" ??

 

6) What was the penalty assessed to the owner for demolition of public property?

 

Jerry Toci

• • • • •

Nearly a week later, Ms. Hurst wrote her reply:

Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:41 PM

Dear Mr. Toci,

 

In response to your questions:

 

Feb 11^th was the deadline given for the owner to respond in order to avoid scheduling an administrative hearing.  Since the owner did respond and obtained a permit, an administrative hearing was not scheduled.  Approved building plans associated with Building Permit #0811-037, issued to the property owner on February 18, 2009, depicts a remodel of an existing two-story garage.  The plans propose to remodel the garage in compliance with the current Coronado zoning and building code.  When completed, the project will provide two off street parking spaces, each 9 feet wide, and 20 feet deep.  The garage parking will be accessed directly from Coronado Avenue. You may view the plans at City Hall. To abate the Code violations, staff will require substantial commencement of construction to begin not more than 30 days from the date of Building Permit issuance.  Staff will require substantial completion of construction not more than 90 days from the date of Building Permit issuance. Staff will inspect the project at the above mentioned time intervals for compliance.  In addition, City building inspectors will inspect the project at the major stages of construction.  There was no penalty assessed to the owner.

 

I hope this answers your questions.

 

Rachel

 

Rachel A. Hurst

Director of Community Development, Redevelopment & Housing Services

• • • • •

Friday, February 27, 2009

Dear Rachel,

 

Indeed, I greatly appreciate your taking the time to fully explain the plans for 831 Coronado Ave.  It is encouraging to know that there is an established start date, as well as a  90-day point at which construction must be substantially completed.  Establishing these parameters will go a long way toward repairing tattered neighborhood relations.

 

To be clear, I have no issue with this property owner personally.  My beef has been with what I view as a flawed official policy of non-enforcement by City staff.

 

Non-enforcement of zoning  and/or building Code standards is always the precursor to an irreversible downslide of property values.  Property taxes are the primary source of revenue for our community's schools, parks, and public safety services.

 

Therefore, it is of paramount importance for our city government to focus a good deal of time and energy in stablizing and increasing our property values.  The alternative is not an option.  Your new executive position provides substantial opportunities to pursue this goal while enjoying almost immediate gratification from the results.

 

Rachel, we are counting on you to keep this ship upright and on course.  Thanks for your timely message, and best personal wishes,

 

Jerry Toci

• • • • •

If you have an opinion on code enforcement in Coronado, please post a comment. To post a comment, click on [Comments] under the article. This area will also indicate how many comment have been made and you can then click on [Comments] to read them.

Code Enforcement (CE) Case Process

A Coronado citizen, concerned about what he sees transpiring in the Country Club neighborhood, writes a letter to City Manager Mark Oschendusko. Here is the letter:

February 4, 2009 

Dear Mark,

I am writing to complain that the residence at 831 Coronado Avenue (plz see photo) has been altered in such a manner that the garage is no longer accessible by vehicles. Each residence is required to have covered off-street parking space.

At the above residence, the curb-cut and curved driveway have been removed. By virtue of removal of access, the garage has been converted to living space in violation of zoning standards.

I am wondering if the City of Coronado has approved or performed the removal of the driveway. Placement of a new curb-cut now allows parking for only uncovered vehicles. This action renders the property to be "non-conforming", which could limit its ownership transferability and collateral for financing.

Most importantly, this alteration has reduced not only this property's market value, but also the values of the adjacent homes. If this alteration was approved by the City, the adjacent homeowners may have cause to take legal action against the City. As owner of property within 300 feet of this residence, I object to the haphazard scope of the work in progress.

And as you know, to move the garage door 90 degrees to face the street is structurally impossible with non-conforming Sleeping Quarters above the garage, and Coronado's design standards discourage the placement of garage doors facing a street.

Yours truly,

Jerry Toci

• • • • •

Thursday, February 05, 2009 4:21 PM

Dear Mr. Toci,

The City Manager has asked me to respond to your email regarding 831 Coronado Avenue. This property is the subject of an ongoing Code Enforcement (CE) case, which remains open due to violations of the Municipal Code which remain unabated. Staff continues to require that the property owner remove all Code violations, in order to gain compliance with the Municipal Code.

Here are the details of this case:

On May 30, 2008, staff inspected the curb, dwelling and garage at 831 Coronado Avenue, and found several violations of the Coronado Municipal Code on the property.

As a result, staff opened a Code Enforcement case, and sent the property owner a Notice of Violation. That Notice informed the owner that the violations included, but were not limited to:

1. Removal of an existing driveway curb cut approach without a Right-of-Way Permit.

2. Lack of required durable, dust free driveway to garage.

3. Lack of access to a required two-car garage for off-street parking, which is a minimum 18’ X 20’ in size.

The Notice further stated that in order to comply with the Municipal Code, the property owner must:

1. Hire a State of California licensed contractor to apply for and comply with a required Right-of-Way Permit, issued by the Coronado Engineering and Project Management Department, to install a new required driveway apron curb cut, and repair the existing curb.

2. Install a required driveway, comprised of a durable, dust-free surface, which leads to a required two-car, covered garage, with a garage door. The dimensions of such garage, for parking cars as they drive in, is a minimum of 18 feet wide (left to right) and 20 feet deep (front to back). A Building Permit is required to alter the existing garage to gain compliance with the Municipal Code.

On August 11, 2008, staff re-inspected the subject address, and found that the violations had not been abated. Staff then checked the Permit history, and found that the property owner had not applied for any Permits to abate the violation. As a result, staff sent a second Notice of Violation to the property owner.

 On October 20, 2008, staff again staff re-inspected the subject address, and found the violations have not been abated, and that the property owner had not applied for Permits in order to abate the violation. As a result, staff sent the property owner an Enforcement Through Administrative Abatement notice. In this notice, staff informed the property owner that the on-going violations have not been abated, and that an administrative hearing would be conducted for the purpose of abating a violation of the Code, in accordance with all the provisions of:

City of Coronado Municipal Code Section 1.8.070: Enforcement Through Administrative Abatement

As a result, on November 12, 2008, the property owner applied for and was issued Plan Check Permit #0811-037, for a 100 square foot addition of FAR to the attached garage at the second floor. The plans were plan checked to verify accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the plans depict the reconstruction of the garage door, which is proposed to be rotated on the structure to face Coronado Avenue, in order to provide the required two-car covered garage for off-street parking. The Building Inspector will require that a registered structural engineer draw and certify the plans for this alteration, before the Building Permit is issued. 

As of today, the Building Permit has not yet been issued to the property owner.

On January 26, 2009, the property owner applied for and was issued a public Right-Of-Way (PROW) Permit by the Coronado Engineering and Project Development Department. Subsequently, in accordance with the City of Coronado regulations for work in the PROW, the owner hired a qualified and licensed contractor to install a new curb cut, and repair and install a new curb. The project was inspected and approved by a City engineer.

 Since the property is not in compliance with the Code, the owner has been notified that this case will be scheduled for an administrative hearing on February 11, 2009. Further, the owner was notified that he can avoid this hearing by paying for and complying with a Building Permit prior to this time. The Permit will be issued to alter the garage to provide the required two-car covered garage for off-street parking. The garage must have a garage door installed in the correct location, in order to provide the required two-car off-street parking from the new curb cut to the garage.

Before the project is approved, staff will inspect to make sure that the garage is in fact 18’ X 20’ in size, and free and unobstructed, with adequate ingress and egress. Also, the inspection will make sure that no part of the garage has been converted to living space.

John C. Swanson

Assistant Planner, City of Coronado

Department of Community Development, Redevelopment & Housing Services

• • • • •

Monday, February 09, 2009 2:12 PM

Dear Mr. Swanson,

Inasmuch as I appreciate your timely response, it is disheartening and appalling to learn that you were made aware of this violation as far back as May 30, 2008. City crews pass by this location every day, and in any other city, illegal removal of a curb would result in an arrest and citation issued for damage to public property.

It is difficult to tell whether this situation is yet another case of undue favorable treatment of an individual, or if it represents a total lack of competence on the part of City Planning/Code Enforcement.

I will say, however, that this case which will soon be one year old is an affront to the sensibilities of nearby property owners. You know who I mean: the rest of us, who play by the rules. Some of our neighbors may feel intimidated by the owner of the above property, others feel intimidated by the City.

Any legal action against the offending party will not reflect well on the City of Coronado, which is compelled by statute to prevent the degradation and devaluation of neighborhood residential properties. The byproduct of lower property values is reduced taxes which pay for schools and public services.

Mr. Swanson, your failure to take swift, timely action on this matter has condoned the owner of 831 Coronado Avenue to convert his garage to living space, beginning with the moment he first removed his driveway. This may start a dangerous precedent for others to follow, including the destruction of public property in removal of the City curb.

Yours truly,

Jerry Toci

• • • • •

Thursday, February 12, 2009 10:52 AM

 Mr. Toci,

This is in response to your message to Mr. Swanson regarding the violation at 831 Coronado Avenue.

I wanted to let you know that code compliance on this violation was initiated by Mr. Swanson in May when he observed the removed driveway while driving by the property. In fact, Mr. Swanson did take timely action on the matter, and has continued to try to gain compliance by the property owner.

I am sorry you feel that city staff has condoned the actions of the owner of 831 Coronado Avenue. To me, Mr. Swanson’s periodic follow up on this violation did not condone the property owner’s actions.

I appreciate your interest in improving our ability to gain compliance at 831 Coronado Avenue. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your inquiry.

Rachel Hurst

Director of Community Development, Redevelopment & Housing Services

• • • • •

Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:29 PM

Ms. Hurst,

Thank you for your perspective on this issue.

It has now been over 10 months since the driveway was removed and the garage no longer accessible by vehicles. If, as you say, Mr. Swanson has taken timely action on the matter, how is it that the owner was given permission to move his driveway entrance to a new location now where there cannot be a garage door installed?

If, as you say, city staff has not condoned the property owner's actions, why then does this zoning/code violation continue to exist over 10 months later?

Is compliance with Code strictly voluntary in Coronado?

Further, what was the result of yesterday's hearing on the matter?

Jerry Toci

• • • • •

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 3:54 PM

Ms. Hurst,

Just a reminder that following your Out Of Office reply, the neighbors are waiting to hear the results of the 2/11/09 hearing which had been scheduled on this matter.

Thank you,

Jerry Toci

• • • • •

Wednesday, February 18, 2009 4:58 PM

Mr. Toci, 

I will provide an update to you tomorrow. 

Rachel

Rachel A. Hurst

Director of Redevelopment & Housing Services

• • • • •

Thursday, February 19, 2009 4:48 PM

Mr. Toci,

Today, the owner obtained a building permit to re-orient the garage to be accessible from the new driveway. Because the property owner obtained a building permit to correct the violation, an administrative hearing was not scheduled. Progress on the construction will be monitored to continue to try to eliminate the violation. While code compliance is not strictly voluntary, success does rely on the on-going cooperation of the property owner.

Thank you for your interest.

Rachel

Rachel A. Hurst

Director of Redevelopment & Housing Services

• • • • • •

Friday, February 20th 12:12 PM

Rachel,

My apologies, but I am confused.

Mr. Swanson advised that an administrative hearing had been scheduled for Feb. 11. Now you report that a building permit was issued on Feb 19, and that the hearing had been cancelled.

It is structurally infeasible to "rotate" the garage entry 90 degrees so that it faces the street with the weight of non-compliant living quarters above. The width of the street-facing wall is insufficient to accommodate a garage door of permittable size. If a neighbor visits City Hall are there blueprints which can be reviewed?

1) How can a building permit be issued to alter a structure which was not built to code in the first place?

2) HOW LONG does the owner have to commence construction?

3) HOW LONG does the owner have to complete this project?

4) How will "progress on the construction be monitored" by City staff?

5) City staff will "try to eliminate the violation"??

6) What was the penalty assessed to the owner for demolition of public property?

Jerry Toci

• • • • •

This is where the code violations stand today. 

New Laws for Motorists in January

Coronado Beach made the front cover of the January/February 2009 San Diego Westways magazine. The magazine is sent to AAA members of the Southern California area of the Automobile Club. The sketch depicts a Coronado lifeguard temporary tower with the Hotel del Coronado in the background.

"New Laws for Motorists" discusses several new laws that were approved by the California State Legislature in 2008 and go into effect on January 1, 2009. This laws include:

1. This law prohibits text messaging or emailing while driving. First offense is $76 and subsequent offenses $190.

2. This law prevents a car owner from being held liable for a parking ticket or toll evasion violation issued against a vehicle before he/she became the owner.

3. This law defines where portable GPS Devices may or may not be attached to your car windshield.

4. The state will secure a significant share of the cost of construction and rehabilitation of courthouses by raising surcharges on traffic tickets. Traffic tickets will increase by $35, "fix it" tickets by $15, parking tickets by $3 and the cost to attend traffic school by $25.

5. Vehicle owners will pay higher registration fees. These would include an additional $31 for DMV registration, $10 to support CHP activities, $3 for a statewide air pollution fee, and up to $11 for various air quality and other programs.

6. Any vehicle, vessel or aircraft purchased outside CA and brought into the state within 12 months of purchase is subject to the payment of a use tax.

To see details of all the above rules and increases, click on the image shown to the right of these changes to enlarge the image for better readability.

Dynamic Speed Display Signs (DSDS) Around Town

A reader recently wrote me to inquire what had happened to the "Your Speed Is" signs on Ocean Boulevard. The two signs, one readable from each direction of approaching traffic, registered the speed of an approaching vehicle and displayed the information on a electronic board. The purpose of this being to inform the driver how fast he/she was traveling along Ocean Boulevard. The signs were removed from the area a little over a week ago.

I followed up with an email to Jim Benson, Director of Engineering for the City of Coronado. I asked Mr. Benson if he could explain the disappearance of the signs or direct the email to someone who could. 

Yesterday I received an email from Ed Walton, City Engineer and he explained it quite nicely. This is Mr. Walton's response:

"The signs the CCS reader is referring to are the dynamic speed radar signs that display the speed of an approaching vehicle.  The City has two of these signs (one for each direction of travel) and they are being rotated at various locations throughout the City.  Studies have found that these types of signs are effective at reducing speeds particularly when first installed; however, they tend to lose their effectiveness over time.  The City’s program is to rotate these signs to a different location every 3-4 weeks.  These signs will be put back on Ocean Boulevard from time to time to remind motorists of their speed.  Permanent sleeves were placed in the ground to allow City forces to easily install and remove these signs on a periodic basis.  If you or your reader would like more information on our dynamic speed radar signs please feel free to give me a call."

I went online to see if I could find an article on the effectiveness of using these Dynamic Speed Display Signs (DSDS). I found one written by Gerald Ullman and Elisabeth Rose on the results of a Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) survey that was  sponsored by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). "Effectiveness of Dynamic Speed Display Signs (DSDS) in Permanent Applications" asked if these signs were effective if permanently installed and if so, could these speed reductions be maintained over significant amounts of time. The answer was yes to both questions, but only in certain situations. 

The most interesting factor of this study was that they found the signs were "more effective if perception of regular enforcement (and threat of citation) existed at the site." I think that for most people, the only deterrent to speeding is a consequence such as a ticket/paying a fine/points on your license/going to traffic school. Think about it. If you knew that there would be no consequence, would you slow down? 

Yesterday, I periodically heard sirens and saw police cars speeding up Ocean Boulevard. After the second or third time, I thought there can't be that many emergencies in one day so it must be a speeding stakeout. Sure enough, I later witnessed a police officer standing by his patrol car at Ocean Boulevard and F Avenue with his radar gun in hand.

But the DSDS had been removed a week or more earlier. It seems to make more sense to me if you position the officer (in hiding) near the DSDS and give out tickets for speeding. The citizens would make the connection with the presence of the DSDS and the possibility of getting a speeding ticket. Over time, the cars would slow down immediately when they caught glimpse of the DSDS in various locations because of the possibility of a consequence. 

The Ever-Growing Population of Coronado

When you drive over the San Diego-Coronado Bridge and start the descent into Coronado, the sign on the bridge reads "Welcome to Coronado | Population 26,600."

A Coronado profile states that "Coronado, CA, population 26,424, is located in California's San Diego county, about 2.5 miles from San Diego and 6.6 miles from Chula Vista." Coronado Profile | Coronado, CA

Not too long ago, Coronado Police Chief, Louis Scanlon, was interviewed by San Diego Union-Tribune reporter Mark Arner. In the August 28, 2008 interview, Chief Scanlon states:

"And periodically we have up to four aircraft carriers that dock here, with crews of up to 5,000 each. So we have a huge military presence compared to our normal population of about 23,000, and we respond to some crimes on the base."

This interview can be viewed at Q&A: Coronado Police Chief What could this discrepancy be about? Maybe Chief Scanlon just isn't aware that his police force is watching over another 3,000 residents.

The City of Coronado website was recently updated and everything got a new facelift. Perusing through the Coronado Cityl website, I came across the Coronado Visitor Center. In the Coronado Visitor Center section About Coronado, it states that "Coronado is home to about 26,000 people." Coronado Visitor Center I think that the Coronado Visitor Center, who specializes in informing visitors about Coronado, should know the population of Coronado.

Tuesday morning at the Chamber of Commerce Candidate Forum with the Council Candidates, Carrie Downey stated that "Coronado is a town of 30,000 people." Shouldn't a incumbent council member running for her seat on council in this upcoming election KNOW the correct population of her constituency? Or does she?

Why all the confusion about the exact number of residents living in Coronado?

Maybe I have an answer for this one. Maybe it's not so much confusion as it is trying to keep it a secret. A letter was written on November 6, 2006 by Lisa A. Foster on McDougal • Love • Eckis • Smith • Boehmer & Foley, Attorneys At Law letterhead. Download letter_to_fair_political_practices_commission.pdf Morgan Foley, our city attorney, is the Foley on the letterhead. This firm also represents Del Mar, Lemon Grove, Imperial Beach and Solano Beach. And who is the letter addressed to? It is addressed to Liane Randolph, Chair of the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Ms. Foster's letter reads:

"I am also writing in support of the adoptiom of proposed Regulation 18707.10, which would reinstate a "small jurisdictions" public generally rule. However, I am requesting that the Commission consider a higher threshold than 25,000 for what is considered a "small jurisdiction" for purposes of the proposed Regulation. The previously mentioned small cities that are represented by this firm have the following size and population (according to the 2000 Census): Coronado (7.4 square miles and population of 24,100); Del Mar (2 square miles and population of 4,389); Lemon Grove (3.8 square miles and population of 24,918); Imperial Beach (4.4 square miles and population of 26,992); Solana Beach (3.5 square miles and population of 12,979).

As you can see, only two of these five small cities would clearly be covered by proposed Regulation 18707.10. Three of the five cities are very close to the threshold of 25,000, and have probably exceeded that figure since the 2000 Census.! All of these cities are geographically small, well under the 10 square miles size threshold in the proposed Regulation, and have officials who would benefit from the Regulation.
Because the overall population of the state has grown substantially since the previous "small jurisdictions" Regulation was adopted in 1990, the Commission should consider using a higher threshold than the 25,000 threshold that was used in the 1990 version of the Regulation."

It's frightening to think that Ms. Foster has misplaced somewhere between 2,000 and 6,000 Coronado residents. Obviously, our Coronado population is well over the 24,100 mark she indicates in her letter. So how long ago did Coronado reach the 25,000 mark and how many cases has Morgan Foley handled illegally because he is not an elected attorney as he should be?

Is this one of the more blatant examples of our city government not acting in a transparent and honest manner? I would hope not. Our city manager has been exalted as one of the best city managers in San Diego county, possibly the state of California. He must be aware of this situation transpiring between the City's legal firm and the Fair Political Practices Commission. Please take note of that name. Also, Mayor Smisek and Councilmembers Monroe, Tanaka, Ovrom and Downey must also have full knowledge of this situation.

So why aren't we electing a new City Attorney in our upcoming November 4th election?

Stranger Danger

Stranger Danger is alive and thriving and creeping around Coronado neighborhoods in the dark of night. Sounds like the opening sentence of a 'can't put it down' thriller. But unfortunately, it's the truth.

Jerry Toci, President of the Coronado Home Owners Association (CHOA), has been watching out for us all. He wrote the Coronado Police Chief, Louis Scanlon, an email on September 1st. [Click on image on right.] Mr. Toci's email addressed his concern that several attempted home invasions had occurred in the previous week and a half. The Coronado Police Department had not notified the neighbors. A resident who's home was the site of an attempted invasion was going door-to-door with a flyer to warn the neighborhood. Regarding the two attempted home invasions, one teenage girl went face-to-face with a potential invader as he tried to enter through the bathroom window with a knife. An adult man went face-to-face with his potential invader while the PI was trying to wrestle open the screen door. A little too close for comfort for me. In these two instances, we don't know if it was the same suspect.

Today, an article appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune titled "San Diego man arrested in Coronado burglary." Coronado burglary The article states:

"Lea Corbin, a Coronado police spokeswoman, said the man suspected in the Monday burglary was stopped by San Diego police at 10:30 a.m. Tuesday driving the stolen Highlander at 30th Street and Imperial Avenue. He was being held without bail yesterday. Arraignment is scheduled today in Chula Vista Superior Court on suspicion of burglary, car theft and possession of stolen property, jail records show."

Is it the same suspect that went face-to-face with the previously mentioned victims? I guess only the suspect knows for sure. I'd recommend keeping your home buttoned up.

Later in the day, Mr. Toci received a call that the records he had requested were ready for pick up. The CPD provided thirteen case reports taking place in the month of August 2008. According to the CHOA email, there were two attempted burglaries, nine actual burglaries, one stolen car, one grand theft, and one unpaid meal.

Mr. Toci recommends reinstating our "Neighborhood Watch Program." I think that's a great idea. Neighbors watching out for neighbors . . . community involvement at its best. He also recommends the installation of surveillance/electronic plate scanning at the Bridge Toll Plaza and entrance from the Strand.

All suspected criminal activity should be reported to the CPD at 619.522.7350.